We have interviewed Balazs Sator - CSO Development and Fundraising Consultant about Hungarian NGOs experience. Interviewed by Mariam Patatishvili ON the example of Hungary: how did Hungarian NGOs achieve financial sustainability? How did they find other sources of financing, what methods were used? Balazs Sator - Answer is complex, traditionally there are many ways of raising funds for NGOs. There was very supportive tax code, that was motivating NGOs to raise money and donors could designate from their taxes certain percent, certain amount for qualifying NGOs. Due to this reasons individual giving, corporate giving was going well for the last 20 years. After the crisis most of such tax benefits were removed.On the other side Hungarian NGOs have also many opportunities to raise funds from the government. Hungarian sector is rather advanced in providing services to the state, to the government and it’s actually a rather competitive market. Obviously there are lots of problem and mistakes now and the crisis is showing that NGOs are not necessarily sustainable, because they are very much dependent on for example on European Union funding, they don’t have enough alternative resources. Answering the question: How Hungarian NGOs manage to become sustainable? They didn't. Most of Hungarian NGOs have financial difficulties, they are suffering. But I think the question is how much the situation is similar or different than the Georgian reality. And I think that what is different is truly, that in Hungary there are existing mechanisms, legal framework, experiences from the past. As far as I understand here in Georgia, you are establishing these mechanisms now, and it will take time to NGOs to learn how and in which field they will be able to progress and raise more money and become more sustainable. So I think it’s a big difference, but in Hungary the situation for the last five-six years was getting worse, and what I feel, in Georgia the situation is getting much better than it used to be. Good luck with all of your tries. The big countries have a large market and more opportunities. It’s very interesting to know about small countries experience. What kind of foreign practice may existing civil society organizations use in Georgia? Balazs Sator - I think it’s interesting to look at Western experience, also at Eastern experience. Now you are in front of introducing the system where the state is subcontracting services to NGOs. In this aspect, in any country there is a model which is interesting for Georgia. For example in Hungary there is an experience with the system of normative support: if you are applying to provide the service that state should provide; you are complying the standards set by the state, practically you are starting a service and are getting reimbursed on a normative basis a fix fee for each person you are helping. This is an interesting model. Another model in Czech Republic: they are testing kind of voucher system; if you are disabled person and you are entitled to receive certain services, you as a customer you get voucher and with this voucher you can pay your social service provider, it’s an interesting concept, we don’t know how it will work, but it’s very useful because it brings the market element to service provision. And in terms of government contracts, it’s interesting to look at Estonia, Croatia or even Hungary.There is a state fund to support NGOs. In all of these three countries they are supporting the operational(running) costs of the NGOs. In general it is rather difficult to raise money for operational costs. It’s always easier to raise for programs but donors often reject paying for the costs of the operation. All of these three funds they do support such costs. I suggest you to look at the preparation process of such funds in Ukraine. They are in between, the law isn’t approved yet but they are in the preparation phase.. so it might be interesting for Georgians to understand and use their experiences. Hopefully in a couple of years you will have a state fund (if this is what the NGOs need) that will help to develop this sector: not individual topics or lobby groups but the sector in general. And again the source of funding can be different, it can be taken from lottery, it can be taken like Hungary from remaining amount of the one percent ( originally it was the money that is not designated by individuals and was staying in the state budget). Donors play a huge role, but can’t be permanent. When a country is not stable, for example, in Georgia, we had the parliamentary elections, presidential election is coming. So, the economic situation in the country is not stable. Donors wary. How can non-governmental organizations achieve financial sustainability in these conditions? Balazs Sator - It’s always easier for ones who manage to have good image within society, they are seen important, good and recognized. For such NGOs it’s always easier to lobby, negotiate, apply for funding because society feels it’s also their interest that such NGOs exist, so there is a motivation to support these types of organization. In case of smaller organization it’s a bit difficult because smaller NGOs cannot compete with the systems (marketing, PR, fundraising) of big NGOs. When you are big NGO you have good funding when you are big NGOs, you have people who are dealing with contracts, people who make presentations, communicate with donors to show how good you are. Small NGOs don’t have capacity to do that. So they cannot use the same methods. But it’s not hopeless, because they are more connected to their clients – people they help – so they can tell stories, they know the details and this is important to convince a donor. I think that individual fundraising and corporate fundraising will become much more typical in Georgia than it happens now. You can say that NGOs cannot access your rich people, but you can also say that you just didn’t try enough methods how to find them or how to find other less/not rich but individuals that feel for your cause. NGOs should start to build their own audience (people who likes the NGO, who are interested in what they are doing). After they should think of asking the same supportive audience for donations or regular giving. Maybe they will have evidences that they can start face to face programs or any other fundraising method. It is working in much smaller countries, why it should not work in Georgia. Georgia exports wine, water – and selling it in big volumes. Why not to try to ask a small, truly small percentage from each Nabeghlavi or Borjomi sold for good causes. I don’t know how much bottles they sell but I guess millions of bottles per month. Just one Euro cent would mean a huge income. I think there are also great elements that can help the growth of fundraising: the cultural heritage and the pride of people here. If you are able to find the donors having these values and you can show them that you are important in culture and history protection, helping the ones in need you will find a way how to get the funding. One million Georgians who live abroad is not a small audience for fund raising. Why not to try to raise from them. They live in countries where might be much more sophisticated philanthropic culture. Everybody knows what NGOs do and again the question is how to find this people, how to catch them, how to get them on events. Offering those opportunities to show how good they are, how proud of their country they are, how they can donate.

What are the developments within the civil sector, what has changed from the elections until today and what is the sector expecting? We interviewed about these topics the Executive Director of "Transparency International – Georgia" Eka Gigauri. Interviewed by Lali Shalvashvili. What are the achievements of CSOs and what should they still achieve? Let's start with pros and cons of the sector... Eka Gigauri – This is a rather difficult question. We always talk about pros and cons, and I believe one of the huge problems of CSOs is their dependence on grants. On one hand it is great to have a grant and project, or to research something, but on the other hand it is necessary to react to some urgent issues. One may face a problem, as the activities implemented as part of the grant may not be a priority at all during that moment, and a totally different issue may be relevant. And all of this is linked to the allocation of extra time and human resources. You mean that the priorities of some specific project may not meet the demands of the time?  Eka Gigauri – Of course. For instance, we have the three-year project and the events planned three years ago may not be relevant at all, even after one year. And especially in Georgia, where the situation changes very often and accordingly it is extremely difficult to predict what will be important. Predicting the effective advocacy campaign several years ahead is not an easy task as well. Yet, this is not problematic for our organization in view of its funding structure and human resources. Apart from the project activities, we have the capacity to engage in other affairs. Exactly half of our activities relates to civil activities that may not be covered by any project. We implement many new and interesting initiatives on volunteering bases. Pursuing activities beyond projects is somewhat difficult for comparatively smaller organizations. What is the way out? We all know that the international donor organizations are almost single source of funding of the NGO sector... Eka Gigauri – I believe way out is that every single person must acknowledge we are the citizens of this country and should participate in the civil activities. In addition to our own business, all of us – myself, you, others, business representatives must be interested in solution of various problems, such as landscaping, cleaning or other problems. Georgian society should care about empowering the groups of such activists. I say this because donations or contributions from business or citizens to NGOs are extremely rare. Disorganized cooperation with business is named as one of the drawbacks of NGO activities, but it is said to be a two-sided problem...  Eka Gigauri – Business could not build such relations with the sector either. Until today this was triggered by the political environment as well, for example we are the critical NGO and therefore they would not be eager to cooperate with us. Some people have told us about this directly. Further, I think they do not acknowledge that they can do something for the district and community where they live, be it the environmental protection or something else. This may not be their interest at all, but these issues affect the public life. I reckon the way out lies in an information campaign, through which we inform everyone to take care of local problems together. We had a meeting with business representatives, met with the representatives of associations and wished to achieve certain cooperation - for instance raise the issue of business accountability - but they did not express any interest.  We discussed international organizations and funding sources. Is the NGO sector ready to offer the proposals and topics to international organizations so that the project activities do not lose relevance?  Eka Gigauri – Our funding gives us, let's say "flexibility", because the management and financial structure is set in accordance with international standards. However, it is not like this in every organization. Hence, I believe the donors should revise their strategy. If they want strong organizations to become stronger that is fine, but if they want small organizations working on the local community problems to be empowered, they should think about revising the policy. This may involve more risks for them, but it is life a certain vicious circle - in order for the businessmen and citizens to donate, NGOs should demonstrate that they have achieved the objective and discuss issues that are of everyday concern to the population. Such issues may be related to water supply, road renovation or cleaning from waste. It is very important that groups are available on the spot to work on local problems. They require funding for this. When business or a citizen sees that they have solved something, they will support and promote their activities. Therefore, I believe the donors will change the strategy in this respect. I think the organizations operating in the region know the local problems better than, for example, me. This is their advantage. They may not draft the grant proposal in accordance with the requirements and the work and trainings have to be delivered in this respect, but it is a fact that they are better aware of local problems. What kind of impact does the civil sector have on the society? According to the surveys published in recent years, the awareness of the sector is modest...  Eka Gigauri – If someone says that during the pre-election period the civil sector was weak, I would really disagree, as we have achieved a lot before the elections.  Do you mean the whole sector? Eka Gigauri – We can say we felt and exercised influence on certain decisions and developments. We all saw this who cooperated among each other. The sector is weak to a certain extent, but there is readiness to involve the civil sector in everything.  However, the attempts to involve the sector were there after 2003, at the initial stage of the newcomer authorities...  Eka Gigauri – That is correct indeed. Now I do not know and cannot say it will remain like this, but our activities really influence certain processes. As for the trust, even the agenda of our organization includes issues that are not everyday problems for the population. We always try to do the work that concerns the population. Election legislation, let's say, is important, but the insurance policy is even more important for the population. That's why we have free of charge consultation centers and work on insurance issues as well. In my opinion, the civil sector enjoys growing trust every time when the trust towards political parties diminishes, i.e. when the population does not know who to listen to and wants to learn the expert opinions. In general, trust is also subjective.  Civil sector is a certain tool for every member of the society for bringing his/her voice or opinion to the authorities. Do the population use this mechanism and if not, is the lack of information the reason for this?  Eka Gigauri – The population do not use this tool because they think this path will not lead to nowhere. Generally, our citizens are passive. Probably because they have other concerns – I mean the social background. If one asks a citizen what can be done to increase the level of employment, the response is that nothing can help. There is a general attitude among the public that a certain political force will come and solve everything. Such expectation is wrong, citizens should be actively involved in everything, one man cannot change anything.  What is the role of NGOs in this regard?  Eka Gigauri – Over years we try to form the group of activists that will work on local problems on volunteering bases. We assist in terms of dissemination of information and informing the authorities, but we could not mobilize this people, as doing something for free is still a problem. They think they should be paid for solving the local problems. The experience of western states shows that donors do not fund the NGO sector, these are self-organized groups fighting for some objective, which is very good.  Although a short period of time has lapsed after the elections and there is no time for full-fledge analysis, still, what has changed in the sector at a glance?  Eka Gigauri – Many things have changed. The objective before the elections was to hold democratic elections and people to enjoy the right of a free choice. Situation was grave in terms of human rights also. The attitude within the NGO sector was that their ideas were ignored, the government was closed, etc. Owing to this, we were mobilized to hold democratic elections. Obviously, the situation after the elections has changed and now everyone acts and thinks differently. In the opinion of some, more time should be given to the government for it to do something, and they believe criticizing is not reasonable. Another part thinks a sound critique is necessary from the beginning in order to avoid the same mistakes. This kind of diversification has occurred within the sector. In addition, some have moved from the sector to work on the government. I think the sector will arrange gradually and find its role. Now we have a bit messy situation.  You noted that the sector should find its role. What do you mean? And as you mentioned different opinions, is it better not to criticize the authorities today or to the contrary, sound critique is better?  Eka Gigauri – I believe criticizing is better and our activities attest to this. They need constructive criticism just now. We understand that a short amount of time has lapsed after a new team has arrived in power, but we should not make the mistakes that will be difficult to fix in the future. Accordingly, we find that after the elections we should continue acting just like prior to the elections. As for the role, I meant exactly the monitoring, reference to the problems and a constructive critique. And another issue has also shown itself – after the government has expressed the desire to involve the civil sector, the latter must comprehend its responsibility over the issues, on which it recommends to the government, and identify the ways for their implementation. In several cases the sector may face problems.   Why?  Eka Gigauri – Because when the recommendations are transformed into a draft bill, it may turn out I was wrong and the recommendation may not work. One needs more expertise in specific issues, and should work on a policy and plan that the authorities must implement.  But even for recommendations, wasn't the NGO sector always responsible for them?  Eka Gigauri – Of course. Our organization did not have this problem either at the time or now, we do not lack the expertise either and really tried and try to discuss concrete issues.  After 2003, the authorities at the time have offered NGO sector to cooperate and have invited it to various councils. What differences or similarities do you see?  Eka Gigauri – I cannot say anything about others and will mention the example of our organization. We always - back then and now - were a part of an anti-corruption council. Previously our presence was nominal, it seems for some to say that we were included in the council – we were unable either to lobby the positions or be involved in defining the strategy. We were given the strategy paper few days before the meeting, and we could not either examine it or even read it. This was a nominal involvement apparently. Now the situation is different – we are fully involved in the process and are the co-participants. I do not know about future cooperation, but the difference is that now partnership is not formal.  Certain NGOs were affiliated with the previous authorities. Is the same danger there now?  Eka Gigauri – Such a danger is always there. When I mentioned in the beginning about the sector finding its role, that was what I meant. The civil sector faces this challenge – a co-fighter from yesterday may become a high official. As already mentioned, one part believes there is no time for critique now – everyone have their own choice.  NGOs that prefer waiting, are they strong organizations? Is their influence on the public substantial?  Eka Gigauri – In our sector the organizations' employees personally are more well-known than the organizations themselves. When I talked about loyalty, I meant persons who have moved from the sector to the government now. I don't think prominent organizations would have to face this issue.  Political events have a certain impact on the activities of international organizations. In which direction can they change or revise the policies towards NGOs?  Eka Gigauri – They may revise the areas (directions). One trend that is identifiable is that the former state officials, deputy ministers or other officials have established NGOs and they gradually occupy a certain niche. Frankly speaking, there are many respectable persons among them who were not a part of unlawfulness and who did a good job for the country. Yet, among them are the former employees of agencies that raise too many questions. On one hand, their experience and knowledge is great – at least in terms of reforms, we do not possess as much information as they do. On the other hand, the values are at stake. I meant persons who had to deal with human rights issues, could affect certain issues but did not do it, and now plan to do this from NGO sector. This is hard to understand. They may have good results even, but I think they will have difficulties in doing this work.   When such questions arise, will you be able to cooperate with them at least over concrete issues? Eka Gigauri – Sure. If they join the statement concerning, for instance, illegal dismissal from work or violation of other rights, why not. We said this earlier and say now as well that the more signatories our initiatives or statements have, the better.  Let's go back to international organizations, in which direction can their programs change?  Eka Gigauri – I believe they will work more on social problems. This area should be emphasized more. I do not say that the justice reform for example is less important – we have a rapid progress in this respect – this is mostly owed to the donors and these issues are equally important.However, it's a fact that the social background must change.  How would you rate the activities of NGOs on the 10-point scale?  Eka Gigauri – By 5 points as a sum total. Organizations are stronger in the large cities and I would give them 7 points separately, and 2-3 points in the boroughs and rural areas.  What are the three values that the civil sector must be built on?  Eka Gigauri – Impartialness, civil activity, i.e. the volunteer spirit and statehood thinking and the protection of national interests.  In some cases statehood thinking means non-disclosure of certain information. What did you imply by it?  Eka Gigauri – State interest is the democracy, transparency, accountability, etc. Truth and democratic principles are the very state interest.

Challenges of the civil society, its past, present and future - these are the topics we talked about with Keti Khutsishvili, Executive Director of "Open Society - Georgia" Foundation. Interviewed by Lali Shalvashvili Dear Keti, there are different views about "civil society" as a term. How would you interpret it? Keti Khutsishvili – the term "civil society" emerged back in Ancient Greece. Aristotle referred to polis as "association of associations" and considered it successful if every free citizen was actively involved in its life. As for the modern understanding of the term - it was formed much later, in the treatises of the 18th Century philosophers Adam Ferguson and Thomas Paine and crystallized finally in the works of the 19th Century French thinker Alexis de Tocqueville. After his travel to the United States of America he wrote the work that became the classics on the topic of democracy and civil society development. Tocqueville was the first to talk in modern context about the significance of free associations between the state and individuals based on the interests, needs, activities, or other principles, which, in his opinion, protect individuals from potential dictatorship or despotism, warrant free development of individuals in the society, and at the same time link the society to the state. The concept of civil society continued developing in the 20th Century and became of special concern after the start of a new wave of democratization and the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the 1990s, on one hand free states emerged in the Eastern Europe, and on the other hand, the prospect of emergence of free states within the former Soviet Union appeared. During this particular period emphasis was made on the civil society as in these states directly, as well as in the donor countries, as it was easier and more acceptable for the donor states to assist the development of the civil society rather than the political parties or other groups. At the same time, new outlook on civil society emerged in the Eastern Europe, namely that the civil society is more than a link between the state and individual, and that this is what protects individuals from the state and enables them to better protect others' rights. When discussing the civil society today, we put huge emphasis on the civil society organizations (CSOs) directly, whereas the civil society is much more than the CSOs. The discussion around the term is still relevant, which was especially heated up over last 2-3 years, when the large movement focused on the social or human rights, which united broad public groups, was launched in the Middle East, for instance Egypt. New discussion raised the following issue - whether the term was narrowed down too much and whether the donors have put excessive focus on the assistance of CSOs when less attention was paid to the naturally emerging and other type of movements in the society. Obviously, this discussion will not be over today and tomorrow,, as it requires a lot of time. We have to consider this issue thoroughly as well. CSOs are a certain tool for the civil society for it to demonstrate and protect its position. What are the other roles that CSOs play in the development of the civil society?  Keti Khutsishvili – CSOs play a crucial role in the development of the society, and especially in the states similar to ours, as organizations are focused on concrete issues, such as social, human rights, rule of law related issues. They try to elaborate on these issues in a concentrated manner, develop policy lines in respective areas, and advocate them. I believe all of these functions and directions are of vast importance. Our society is developing and for this development to be rational, the entire potential accumulated in the CSOs must be utilized. Another role of CSOs is to bring their ideas, concept and policy works to a maximum extent to the uthorities on one hand and to the general public on the other hand. Policy works oriented on reformation and rational resolution of this or that area are, of course not always, but on certain occasions taken into consideration. Yet, when Georgia is of concern, often organizations communicate more with each other, donors, authorities, and in number of cases with due criticism and on principle, ut their ties with the public at large are weak. Often they do not represent any social group or lack direct and close ties with them. Frequently CSOs may be very active or carry out extremely important work, but general public may not be aware enough of this. What is the reason behind this? Keti Khutsishvili – as a first priority, wider groups of society should engage in the discussions on the importance and need of civil society, as well as in the activities of CSOs themselves. Often the activities and objectives of CSOs focus on boosting the civil activities, and when this is of concern, more interaction must take place with wider groups of society. Apparently there is no recipe for this. Let's go in further details. Why is the society unable to be wider engaged in the activities of CSOs? Keti Khutsishvili – there are various reasons. Firstly, in each particular moment the authorities are neither interested in CSOs finding an easy and direct language with the general public. Secondly, the society is interested more in economic and social issues rather than in human rights, development of democracy, ecology or other issues that CSOs work on. Of course this also means that the needs of each period must be taken into special consideration, and if social and economic issues are the priority for the society, more organizations should work on these topics. Organizations on one hand and donors on the other must pay attention to these relevant topics, as when the Georgian CSOs are concerned, unfortunately they are assisted by the international donors only. It would be ideal to have local donors in the country that would fund the CSO activities. Only under this scenario will the number of welfare and socially oriented projects increase. What are your observations and views about the achievements of the civil society in Georgia? Keti Khutsishvili – since 1990s the civil society in Georgia went through several stages of development. Before 2003 it seemed to be extremely developed, but we now realize that this was partly an illusion as its strength only overshadowed the weak state apparatus. This was a certain niche for intellectual individuals, where the talent, intellect and fervor were concentrated. In 2003 the situation changed - part of civil leaders moved to the authorities, part to the opposition, and a bit later to academic circles as well. This in itself is not a dramatic but natural process, which should have occurred. One could say the excessive energy that was accumulated in the civil sector drained out and dispensed. Although many of our colleagues joined the authorities, communicating with the authorities did not prove to be easy. Especially in the first years after the "revolution" the authorities did not accept any criticism and recommendations, and their attitude was "we know everything, we don't need your advice...". Accordingly, the resources available in the civil sector were not utilized. In recent years this situation changed to a certain extent - new leaders have joined the civil society with new ideas and principles. By the way, no authorities of any state are ready to accept criticism; nevertheless, in recent years the authorities still have to take into account the recommendations of the civil society. Maybe not so often, but they have to enter into dialogue with the civil society and I hope this will become more frequent. In recent years CSOs have managed to bring human rights abuses to the front and protect the rights of individual citizens, reveal the property rights violations and contribute to their restoration, promote more transparency of media ownership, etc. Yet, there is a lot more to do in these and other areas as well. In addition to the issues you have raised, is there anything that the civil society failed to achieve? Keti Khutsishvili – we still could not achieve the stable society, which could develop without conflicts and dramatic changes. We still could not manage to change the authorities through elections peacefully and democratically, while the elections and electoral environment are one of the key focus areas of CSOs. The civil society itself exists for the country to develop through peaceful changes and norms set under the Constitution and other laws. The strength of the civil society will prevail whenever such changes are secured; not through politicization of the civil society, which would take on the role of political parties, but through creating the room for each individual to disclose his/her sympathy/apathy on one hand, and to make his/her choice and pursue his/her interests on the other hand. What kind of impact does time factor have on all of this? Was there sufficient time for this? Keti Khutsishvili – the theorists of civil society say that the strong civil society in itself does not guarantee the democracy, but the strong civil society can contribute to the country's democratic and peaceful development. Organization like ours cannot change much in essence in our country, but it will contribute to the development of civil society. If we compare our situation with other states, even with our neighbor states that we show huge respect to, our civil society is more active and CSOs play a much serious role - they can reveal and bring to a public scrutiny a problem and offer ways of solution to the authorities. Saying that CSOs do not play a role would be wrong - maybe the results of their activities are not always ideal, but their role is definitely important. What should be done in the future for the development of the civil society? Keti Khutsishvili – I believe a lot. On one hand, donors have their share of responsibility - they should not promote the implementation of projects in view of their concepts and missions, but based on thorough examination of the country's needs and local specifics. We must acknowledge that donors often elaborate their priorities and the CSOs have to adjust to these priorities willy-nilly. Every new strategy or concept must take into account local needs, and therefore the process must be bilateral and interactive - CSOs must be involved. Organizations themselves must expand their relations with the public to a full extent, arouse citizens' interest towards their activities, involve them more and provide them with the possibility to be active. There is a vast potential of volunteerism in Georgia, which was vividly demonstrated during the 2008 war. Almost all families in Tbilisi assisted the IDPs. This potential should be activated so that individuals are able to see the fruits of their activities. In addition, CSOs need more efforts for the coordinated and coalition-type work with each other. When there is a common objective, individual interests and desire to win a grant must not hinder the creation of the coalition. We understand there is a huge competition in the field, but when the needs of the country and society are concerned, personal interests must be put aside. Diversification of the sector, which is already underway, is equally important – organizations work in the social, human rights, and other areas. This process should continue. Many research organizations must be set up, as their importance in the development of the country's future policies and determination of strategic researches is enormous. Most importantly, the society must be open, showing, active and involved in the country's development, and at the same time tolerant towards the minorities. Unfortunately, we experience this problem as well and I could not say it was sufficiently attended to in recent years. Tolerance to different groups – this is what the society needs and CSOs should dedicate more work to these issues, because we as the state will not develop without it. On one hand, the majority must be actively involved in the public life, but at the same time if interests of all minorities are not taken into consideration and embraced, we will not become the country of future. Besides, in each particular moment the society should serve as a tool that solves the conflicts through discussion and peacefully. What are the three key values that the civil society should hold to and be based on? Keti Khutsishvili – Civil society should hold to liberal values: rule of law, priority of human rights and free development, and tolerance.

We interviewed on these topics the EU representative in Georgia, Mr. Oliver Reisner. Interviewed by LaliShalvashvili Mr. Reisner, the term 'civil society' is a subject of long-term discussions, what would your interpretation be? Oliver Reisner – Civil society is a collective actor and collective player. It is different in various countries in view of the states and specifics of the society. Key idea is that it is an intermediary between the state and citizens in the face of civil society organizations (CSOs), associations, and labor unions. It enables citizens to express their opinions or to be actively involved in various areas - be it religious associations, labor unions, environment protection or any other field as appropriately chosen by citizens. Therefore, CSO is a certain tool, means for the society to be involved in the activities of various areas and to voice its views to the authorities, or to be engaged in a dialogue? Oliver Reisner – It is crucial that in the dialogue between the authorities and citizens the interests of only one group of society or elites are not represented. All society groups and strata must be engaged in the dialogue process. You already mentioned that the civil varies by countries and there are many reasons to it. In your view, what has the civil society achieved in Georgia? Oliver Reisner – In 1994, when I arrived in Georgia to collect my dissertation materials, there were few CSOs. This was plausible back then, because the Soviet system did not foresee the civil society as an independent actor and player at all. In 1994 it was still difficult to prevail over the Soviet legacy. Whereas today there are CSOs of different capacity operating in various fields. Level of their development and capacity varies by fields and regions, for instance, they are quite strong in environmental protection, locally strong in the social field, while not so strong in the policy development in this area. All of this is based on my experience, observations, and information obtained from various studies. I believe we still do not know in substance where the civil society stands in Georgia, as various studies at our disposal examine individual sectors of development. One of the studies has demonstrated that today state institutions are rather strong, but the civil society is not as strong to be the part of equal dialogue. This is caused by various problems or reasons. In the first place, CSOs are not member-based, the organizations themselves are not accustomed to involving the citizens in their activities, while the citizens lack skills for being involved and expressing their views. The degree of participation is crucial. The population is engaged in Tbilisi more than in regions, where the resources are limited and citizens are only oriented on earning for living. We can see the difference between the development of CSOs by regions as well, evidenced by project proposals submitted for our competitions, i.e. which location submits more proposals. Adjara and Guria are active, while the rest of regions are less dynamic. What is the reason behind different levels of development by regions? Also, you mentioned the lack of membership-based CSOs, why are not many organizations based on this model? Oliver Reisner – It is necessary to engage more people. Yet, there are several reasons. One of them is that there is no such experience in Georgia. According to the widespread stereotype, the state and government must act and take care of citizens, and citizens must not take care of themselves. As if the "patron" will come and take care of everything on our behalf. This is linked to civil awareness. There are other reasons as well – socio-economic problems, because when the individual works for the whole day, the resources for being active are hard to find. There are people who would like to be engaged but they do not know where to go or lack self-organization skills. Back to the activities of the Society for Spreading the Literacy 100 years ago, the issue of membership was problematic. I wrote about this in my dissertation as well. In short, there are host of reasons, but I believe the civil society in Georgia is still under-studied. As already noted, there are studies but they examine separate areas and the attitudes and values of the civil society are not thoroughly studied. Membership-based cooperations were set up at the outset of 20th Century, is that right? If we're not mistaken, your dissertation covered this issue as well? Oliver Reisner – In the beginning of the 20th Century, cooperations were set up in the villages, which were oriented on solving the biggest issue of concern at the time - the form of society's self-organization. Large-scale movements were formed around the common problematic issue, and the overlapping interests of the elite and pheasants had its sufficient impact. The civil society was more active in the feudal environment than at the outset of 1990s, when protest or hunger rallies were the key forms of expression, because the society was not aware of other forms. In fact everything started from the scratch, and now there is a differentiated civil sector that grows gradually. You already mentioned above that the specifics of the country and society determine a lot, so what else must be done? Oliver Reisner – One of the key issues relates to values. CSOs may be based on different values and there may be a clash of values among them, but it is crucial to introduce mechanisms, which ensure the dialogue. For instance, today the religion is strong, what does it mean in practice, etc. This and other topics must be thoroughly covered by media. Obviously, when we talk about dialogue all members of the civil society should enjoy the possibility of participation. The society will strengthen through overcoming the conflicts and achieving the consensuses during the clash of values. Mr. Reisner, what are the three key values that the civil society should be based on? Oliver Reisner – Civil society must be patient and tolerant, it must bear high degree of responsibility not only before the family and relatives, but before the village, community, municipality, city, and the country. This should be done not only by talking but doing actual work. The third and equally important is the citizen participation, without which the civil society cannot function.