From January 1, 2019, the Law of Georgia on Accumulative Pension has been fully enacted in Georgia, respectively, transfer of contributions of those employed and employers to the Pension Agency, as stipulated by law, has been initiated. Results of the last two months show that new regulations have created a challenge to civil society organizations and, in general, to N(N)LE-s in a lot of directions. In particular, Davit Tivishvili, Doctor of Economic Sciences, Financial Manager of the "Civil Society Institute”, explains what problems this type of organizations face and how they can be solved. Read more (geo)…

From January 1, 2019, a new tax regulation for civil society organizations has been enacted - the rule that stipulates their taxation with income tax has been amended. What does this change for the third sector and, in general, how healthy is the tax environment which civil society organizations have to operate in? These issues were clarified with Levan Paniashvili, Chief Lawyer of the “Civil Society Institute”.  Interviewed by Maka Jaiani  Read more (GEO)…

Why should we actively use the right to vote? What benefit does freedom of elections bring to the country? How should the state, civil society organizations act to make sure the electoral system becomes stronger and the rate of participation of citizens into political processes increases? Tatia Kinkladze, a lawyer of the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED), shared her opinions about these issues with the web-portal of civil society organizations - csogeorgia.org. Read more (geo)...

„In Georgia, a source of state authority is people”, - it is stated in the Constitution of Georgia. Where, when and how can people express that they represent the source of authority? In what way should people notify state officials about which of the steps, made by the officials, they like and disagree with? To what extent should a protest of people go when the officials do not listen to them any longer? Mobilized around these topics due to recent developments, csogeorgia.org talked to Sulkhan Saladze, Chairman of the Georgian Young Lawyers' Association. Read more (geo)…

''Human is the main value'' - this phrase has probably been heard many times. What stands behind these words? Why should human be the main value? What should the state do to protect human, their rights? What role do civil society organizations have in carrying out these processes correctly? These are the issues which Vakhushti Menabde, a constitutionalist, lawyer talks about. Interviewed by Tekle Karosanidze More…

By Lali Shalvashvili What is volunteerism? As a general practice, in short, this is a selfless and voluntary activity for the society's benefit. Two years ago CSO "Mariani" has invited volunteers for recording audio books for the visually impaired. Many individuals have showed up to provide free assistance. More often now we find announcements about this or that organization inviting volunteers for the children's homes or shelters of the elderly, summer camps or offices, for taking care of animals or the environment, etc. Volunteer clubs and programs are being set up, they are joining international volunteer networks, etc. Yet, this does not at all mean that volunteerism is well-developed in Georgia and that problems do not prevail in this respect. According to one of visualizations of CSO "Jumpstart" (17.02.14), among 135 countries, where over the last month the population had carried out volunteer activities for some other organization, Georgia is on the 68th place. The same visualization illustrates that 36 percent of population on average in the US, United Kingdom and Norway pursue volunteerism on a monthly basis. Their activities constitute approximately 4 percent of the countries' Gross Domestic Product. In case of 36-percent volunteerism in Georgia, according to visualization by "Jumpstart", volunteers would annually perform work worth of 581 344 000 GEL. Under the organization's data, 81% of the Georgian population have not served as volunteers (2013 data). Culture of volunteerism is very actively developed in numerous western states. "Pupils, college and university students are obliged to volunteer and they get credits for it", the Director of the Civil Society Institute, Vazha Salamadze says. Moreover, without experience of volunteerism they may not be admitted in the university, have not sufficient credits, and fail to receive a diploma. Why developing the culture of volunteerism matters? Such a development pursues several goals. "In the first place, it develops individual's skill to assist others, i.e. it makes them more humane. Secondly, although volunteerism is non-reimbursable work, youngsters learn the culture of labor. In addition, all of this is important for the economy, because this is selfless, free of charge labor", Vazha Salamadze states. Further, in some European states including Poland, volunteers have become one of driving forces of CSOs – three-fourth of Polish organizations do not have paid staff, and a pretty similar picture is in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary. Usually, volunteers are mainly youngsters and pensioners. While youngsters gain knowledge, experience, helping skills and new contacts from all of this, pensioners share their experience, knowledge and skills with others. "Such mutual benefit is important for the youth as well as pensioners. It is important for the adults to maintain a social status, they not only watch TV at home, but are socially active, teach, assist...", Vazha Salamadze says. In the US, many elderly individuals become members of various organizations, and some participate in volunteer works for building houses for the homeless. Best example of this is the "Peace Corps", which operates more than five decades in 139 countries worldwide, including in Georgia since 2001. US volunteers – youngsters or the elderly teach at schools, provide business consultations to representatives of small or medium business, etc. What prevents the development of volunteerism institute in Georgia? Several studies have identified hindering factors, including improper informing (study by organization "Helping Hand"), lack of volunteerism tradition and social problems (study by the Young Republican Institute), and most importantly, absence of relevant legislation (study by the Civil Society Institute). There is no legal definition of a "volunteer" and "volunteerism". Therefore, no rights and duties of a volunteer as well as benefiting organization exist. This is identified as one of the key problems in all three above-mentioned studies. Furthermore, in some cases it is very difficult to differentiate between a volunteer and an intern, because the legislation of Georgia is silent on them. Such wording is found only in international acts and conventions. For instance, the Recommendation by the United Nations General Assembly, which recommends member states to regulate the issue of volunteerism by domestic legislation. However, as noted above, it has a recommendatory nature. "Adoption of relevant legislation will not introduce culture of volunteerism automatically, if there is no will, volunteerism will not be introduced and developed in Georgia. Yet, the law is a tool for removing obstacles that organizations working on the principles of volunteerism encounter, or that hamper the development of these institutes", the lawyer of the Civil Society Institute Archil Tsertsvadze says. The Civil Society Institute has developed a draft bill regulating the volunteerism, which is already initiated in the legislative body. It defines not only volunteerism but the rights and duties, which a volunteer and benefiting organization should have. i.e. legal relations, and in addition proposes tax amendments, etc. Specific provisions of a draft bill developed by the organization protect the rights of a volunteer. For example, a volunteer requires protection mechanisms for avoiding injuries during work or for further protection in case such injury occurs. "If a volunteer's health is damaged while performing work, an organization must reimburse treatment costs. But because s/he is not an organization's staff, under current tax norms such reimbursement is taxed pursuant to other regime than in case of an official staff. Same applies to costs borne for raising qualification and business trips", Archil Tsertsvadze says. When an organization has one or two volunteers, even business trip expenses may not be such a huge burden, but there are organizations in Georgia with 50, 60 or more volunteers. Business trips of 50 volunteers require substantial finances, the lawyer of the Civil Society Institute says. Yet, in case of such expenses, the draft bill developed by the Civil Society Institute provides for a "softer" approach. If a volunteer is ready to spend time, energy and does not request reimbursement of business trip expenses, an organization will not be obligated to reimburse, but if a volunteer makes this request, an organization will be obligated to reimburse them. If an organization lacks such desire or finances, legal relations will not occur. Another key initiative will affect foreign volunteers present in Georgia. We all know that legal grounds for being in a foreign country are limited – this requires the right of legal presence, i.e. a visa. Authors of the draft law propose the initiative to issue a "volunteerism" visa, which by its classic meaning is not a working visa. Experience of the European states shows that development of the volunteerism institute is directly linked with its legal regulation, as well as provision and facilitation of programs. Various methods are applied in western states to foster volunteerism. For instance, according to the "Helping Hand", in the United States of America volunteers are awarded with the President's special prize.

CSO web portal has interviewed Davit Losaberidze about the civil society and CSOs, i.e. non-governmental organizations. Interviewed by Lali Shalvashvili Let's start with the civil society. There is an ongoing worldwide discussion over this issue, on some occasions this term implies only the unity of non-governmental organizations, and sometimes it has a broader meaning... How do you interpret civil society? Davit Losaberidze – There are broad and narrow interpretations of the civil society, but intermediate versions also exist. Here, based on the history and mindset of the society, non-governmental organizations are perceived more as the civil society and there are reasons for it. During the Soviet rule all kinds of activities were simulated. After its collapse, the society became allergic to social, civil or any other activities, and it comprehended the state and business sectors as the only truth. Therefore, only organizations working with support from the western grants were considered as the civil society. As already noted, past life was the reason of allergic reaction. There was a civil society during the Soviet rule, but it was a quasi-civil society – e.g. the writers', composers', painters' unions, labor unions, Communist youth movement, etc., i.e. what had lost functions and was a supplement to the state administrative system, as well as attempted to swindle the West. It is a lie that during the Soviet times nobody looked and compared to the West – there were phrases like: "Let's catch up and overtake the US", or "Our is better", etc. Such competition stems from the complex of inferiority and is characteristic to the society with depreciated values. This does not mean it has no values at all, of course it has, but they are depreciated. I personally agree with the opinion that the civil society is everything beyond a private life, family, state and business. Hence, we can regard civil activities as something not related to the state governance or discharge of business functions and gaining economic profits. In this sense, civil society is a broad term and covers non-governmental organizations, political parties, where people unite around some idea. This does not mean they do not fight for power, but they do fight for power in order to push through principles they believe in. Whether these principles are right or wrong is a different matter, but political parties also fall within the segment of a civil society. Further, there are professional unions, teachers' managers' and pensioners' unions, who do not strive to gain huge profits but to introduce certain values – promotion, advocacy. In this respect, civil segment includes religious organizations and media as a source of information and not as business. Moreover, neighbors sitting by a spring and discussing some issues – are a part of the civil society. This activity neither grows the harvest, cleans up the house, cooks a dinner, nor achieves economic wellbeing – this is a human desire to socialize. Such a form of life in this segment is a civil society. Georgian feast is also a civil society in this sense. In short – a unity of active, thinking people united by some common interests is a civil society. You have thoroughly formulated the essence of the civil society as such, but it would be interesting to know your assessment of the civil society in Georgia. I am asking this because there are different opinions. Some say that the civil society is in embryonic form, or that it is underdeveloped, etc. What is your view? Does it manage to raise or advocate pressing issues? Davit Losaberidze – In the first place, what one can see on surface is that the values in Georgia are mixed, but this is not a Georgian phenomenon and it's like this everywhere. We are in the search of ourselves – we don't have established visions, opinions yet, but this is not about citizens but about the so-called elite, intellectuals, who are characterized with extremities. Some say we are the best and how could someone teach us anything, and some say in a negative context we are behind someone, etc. Can you refer to concrete, relevant examples... Davit Losaberidze – Of course, the history of social-democracy and the development of advocates of liberal values in Georgia is a good example. We turned out to be greater Catholics than the Pope, and whatever the European socialists and social-democrats did not dream and think about seriously, in Georgia this became a reality and it was not accidental that the social-democrat and subsequently the Bolshevik ideologies as part of the Empire were nourished by the very Georgian element – Chkheidze, Tsereteli, then Stalin, Orjonikidze, Beria, etc. This was a divergence – "It's not good and better must be done and the Europeans do not know" – this is characteristic to a type of thinking of the Mediterranean society (Spain, Italy – especially its South – Sicily, Greece, Asia Minor, Levant, Caucasus). We are not immoral society but we are the society without morals and shift responsibility on others – "devil has seduced me", "s/he has put an evil eye on me", etc. The unity of such individuals has difficulties in finding its own objective and starts looking for a patron. That's why we often hear – I wish Stalin or Aghmashenebeli would come to life, or beloved Bidzina or Misha – we are constantly looking for someone who would do something. I'm not saying the entire society is like this, but whoever has ambitions for elitism, they are full of such element, are afraid of responsibility and are driven with a desire to blame everything on others. I can bring a second example from the contemporary history – Georgian libertarians turned out to be greater libertarians than those in the homeland of libertarianism. No one discusses radical liberalism unilaterally in the homeland of liberalism. Let's take one of Friedman's discussions as an example, in which he proves why the Ministry of Defense must not be commercialized: it surely could become a business with less expenses, no? He asks a question and answers it himself – in case of business, it can easily calculate that losing a war would bring it more profit and therefore an army may directly surrender to an enemy. Hence, there are circumstances beyond an economic expediency, which should be taken into account. Second example – in the United States, where there is a liberal system, when one of the strategic objects – a large port was on sale and the citizens of America's allied countries – United Arab Emirates and Kuwait expressed interest in purchasing it, the US Government has blocked these offers and has sold the port for a much smaller price to Americans. Georgian libertarians have turned a blind eye to such examples and we all remember the phrase that "Everything is on sale except for the honor". I wanted to show with these examples that we end up in extremities, which is a cultural provincialism. It's also provincialism what we often hear about the civil society – we are not good, the Georgian civil society is only a feast really and nothing else, or we are Asia and who would bring us to the Europe. On the other hand we hear – how come someone could teach us something, we are such an old and tolerant people. Such assessments are characteristic to those with an ambition to have answers to all questions. Importantly, we must take into account that stating that the civil society is in embryonic form or that it starts existing now is definitely wrong. Of course it's also wrong to state that in the 7th Century B.C. we had a civil society that is still a model for the Americans. We are the nation, ethnos with thousands-year-old culture, which is still being formed. We have disadvantages and advantages, we are like others in something and different in something else, we have our individual face, we are behind others in something and ahead of others in something else. We should simply understand what we want and how we should behave. As for the facts from the history of the Georgian civil society: the first non-governmental organization in 1879 was established not by the businessman, judge and politician Ilia Chavchavadze, but by the "non-governmental activist" Ilia Chavchavadze and it was the "Society for Spreading Literacy". The roots of the civil society lied in those rural meetings in Guria, when the population gathered to discuss global politics, or when the residents of Kartli or Kakheti decided at village assemblies how to build a channel in the village, etc. Those saying that no such experience exists, should at least negate these facts, better corroborate their opinions, and bring relevant examples. You have referred to experience from the 19th Century... This was an initiative from the bottom, can you draw parallels with the current situation? Davit Losaberidze – When one talks about the society's ripeness or its failure to ripen, we often hear the phrase that the civil society has matured or has failed to mature, but let's say yoghurt can mature but not the civil society – this is a constantly developing process. I'll bring one example from the current reality. In 2014, amendments were made to the Election Code on April 19, by which the citizens' initiative groups were given the right to nominate independent candidates at the elections. Signed amendments were published on April 24, and the deadline for nominating the candidates was expiring on April 29. As our intellectuals would say, our "unprepared and bad society" managed to set up initiative groups in five days in all municipalities of Georgia, and 15 thousand citizens have not only understood and comprehended this information, but they have nominated up to 3 thousand candidates at the elections. For some reason, people talk about Elisashvili only, but if we look at the percentage of winners in the elections, the ruling party in the Sakrebulos (city council) is followed by the very independent candidates. Anyone can search for these statistics. I'm not saying these candidates were winged angels or were not driven by different interests, but it's a fact that the society has managed to initiate its vision, which means that the society understood all of this within 5 days and it seems it has felt this moment intuitively, understanding that something must have been done. No one could say that these 15 thousand people read the Legislative Herald online on a daily basis and get familiar with legal amendments. Therefore, saying that the society has not ripened is not correct. Let's move to non-governmental, i.e. civil society organizations. You have mentioned that a certain stereotype of organizations was created after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Can this explain the current attitude of certain members of the society towards CSOs or this is one of the reasons? Davit Losaberidze – There are lots of reasons. Yet, a significant role in this respect is played by the state, establishment, which often deliberately and upon need pursues campaign against the civil society. This applies to the rule of Gamsakhurdia, Shevardnadze, as well as Saakashvili and the "Georgian Dream" – both Ivanishvili and Gharibashvili. There are facts to prove this, which I know, but which I cannot state individually due to observance of ethical principles, moreover, when this would take place during the private talks. But in general I could say that many attacks against non-governmental organizations were financed from the state structures so that even the members of anti-movements were not aware of it. For instance, the Anti-Soros movement – as soon as the funding (project) was over, the movement was ended, and similar cases are indeed apparent. Nevertheless, certain part of the Society still believes that CSOs are traitors, devourers of the Christ, pagans, Masons, etc. On the other hand, when you talk to a certain part of the society and cite the activists from the 19th Century, and when they find out that Ilia and the activists of his generation were raising the same issues that we confront today, they are extremely delighted with cleverness of Ilia Chavchavadze and almost no one comprehends that almost nothing has changed in this or that area for such a long period of time. Today we face the same problems and no one will solve them for us. Let's say no one will come from the USA or Burkina Faso to do our job. As for the internal factors, let's start with sources of funding of CSOs – there is no huge practice of corporate social responsibility in Georgia. As a rule, business is assisting individual citizens in social hardship or builds churches. At that, this is happening spontaneously. Second form of funding is the state funding, and we can assert directly this was and is happening on political motives – usually ahead of the election processes. I'm not saying that all CSOs are perfect and without flaws, but part of them works in line with the interests of donors, which sometimes do not take into account the local needs. When you go to some village where people are hungry to explain to the locals why it is important to save Antarctic penguins or the Chinese panda, this will obviously fail as inadequate to the real public needs... These are conventional examples probably, I have not even heard about such projects. How derailed is a chunk of projects implemented by CSOs from the real needs and problems? Davit Losaberidze – It surely is. For instance, they were demanding in one of the projects to take into account the gender issue. I'm far from thinking that there is huge discrimination at legislative level in Georgia, but discrimination is evident at everyday level. When one of international funds says that we are so behind in this area that we should set up the councils and achieve such success at legislative level in protecting the women's rights as in Pakistan, it's a bit strange. Especially when they know very well that in case of a rape in Pakistan, a woman is stoned to death as a prostitute, and that the sharia law is in force in that country. They have other problems and we have others. Unfortunately, the concerns are being unified at international level, and a part of our CSOs follows project requirements, of course knowing there will be grants but no results. Elitism is another problem of CSOs – they have formed even their own slang. We use terms "deadlines", "justifications", "outputs", "inputs", which are totally unclear for common citizens. Whereas, civil society exists because it should be civil and simple, everyone should understand everything. These are the ins and outs of the CSOs, as well as their disadvantages. Let's turn to external problems now: in the 1990s it was prestigious to work in a non-governmental organization (even because of a relatively higher salary), and now it's not prestigious anymore because the civil service has taken over once again. The process was launched in 2003 and is continued successfully today. Everyone dashes towards the civil service. Business or other fields are limited and therefore this is the only guarantee for well-being. Thus, there is no ration in the third sector and if we look at CSOs from the age perspective, the sector is aging under a direct, biological meaning. To sum up the disadvantages – those are the elitism of CSOs, dependence on donors and absence of own funding sources, political interests to discriminate against them, inadequate actions in response to public needs. And advantages – what has the sector brought about after independence, i.e. does it have any positive achievements? Davit Losaberidze – Professionalism was accumulated in the sector. In the 90s of the last century, academic segments as well as those characteristic to middle class were totally destroyed. Many systems were closed down, many were commercialized and the work on many issues has shifted to the very non-governmental sector – linguistics, social fields, etc. State sector representatives should not be offended but often the level of professionalism in the public sector is so low that CSOs are much stronger in justifying some issues. Yet, this does not mean that professionals are working in every CSO. Their share is small there as well, and sometimes part of CSOs works on and talks about such absurd things because of the grants that any soundly thinking civil servant could easily give a killer response. However, I still think that qualification was somewhat accumulated in the non-governmental sector, and it is not accidental that people from the very non-governmental sector are recruited by the authorities. It's a fact that CSOs have some say. Even those who have no idea what a non-governmental sector is, do not know its history and look at it negatively, say they have discussed this or that issue with the CSOs. They say so because it's a good courtesy to have the CSOs involved, while there are over 10 thousand CSOs in the country and they all have their opinions, some of them are big, some small, and some exist on the paper only. As for the civil society in general, the fact that several attempts of introducing authoritarian regime in our country have failed is the achievement of the very civil society. I mean not CSOs only, but the entire civil society. Georgian society could not put up with either excessive ultra-nationalism, corrupt clan system, or the southern type fascist authoritarian system. Of course a political battle was going on and one force was oppressing the other, but the decisive word in 1989, 2003 and 2012 was triggered by the public critical attitude – this is a result of gradual development of the Georgian society, and the fact that the public has this power and can do it means we are not an eastern-type society, we are a western-type society. Can you draw parallels with the civil society of other countries, even post-socialist states... Davit Losaberidze – Firstly: we are not as developed as let's say Slovenia or Poland, we don't have such a feeling of mass social responsibility as in Scandinavia. I think we are ahead of the Central Asian states, and are at the same level of civil society as in Egypt, Algeria, etc. We are ahead of the Central Africa, Latin American states, and are far more ahead of Russia, ahead of Armenia, and behind the Turkish civil society, again, far more ahead of Azerbaijan. Secondly: all of this relative and dependent on the environment and policies of the authorities – in Georgia the authorities could not manage to ignore the sector to the end. Thirdly: during the economic collapse part of people has found a small and free space in a non-governmental sector. As already noted, we are not at the same level as the Turkish civil society; we remember 2 million people who have protested in Istanbul to protect the park. Although Turkey is a large country and 2 million are 2,5% of the population, but 2,5% of the Georgian population, i.e. 100 thousand people have not protested to protect a plane-tree in the street. Turkey has gone through the period we are experiencing at the moment in the 1980s, and it is therefore ahead of us. Now, when I observe the Ukrainian civil society and the development there, I'm remembering what we have gone through in the 1990s, and not because we are good, no, but because we are smaller, we were closer to the center of democratic developments and we were beaten earlier. At the end of 20s-30s of our century Russia will witness the same processes. This wave will reach Russia as well – I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, I'm just saying this will happen, but noting at the same time that this will be a dangerous phase for Russia's neighbors. We should find a good shelter before then – NATO or something else if available. You have mentioned funding of CSOs. When experts talk about CSOs, they always stress that alternative sources of funding could not be identified and that the majority of organizations are not membership-based, which is viewed as one of the alternative sources of their income... What is your approach towards these issues? Davit Losaberidze – Both opinions are correct. CSOs could be also blamed for this, but the activities of membership-based organizations are related to a number of difficulties. For instance, if I offer people to be independent observers at the elections and send them to another region for them not to have problems at their place of residence – will they take the documents and go? Most importantly, they should have free time, money and less problems. Is it expected that something like this happens in mass? Not unfortunately, because the society has a lot of problems and issues we have discussed is not its priority. As for a dialogue with the business – Georgian business has a skeptical view of relations with CSOs. There is also a view that if one wants to do something, he could do it without money as well, but how could one manage this - go around the regions without money, one should eat something, spend a night somewhere, and if one wants to disseminate materials – he could print them. Nothing is possible without the time, human and all other resources... Do CSOs manage to have influence on the authorities and the general public? Davit Losaberidze – There is a certain influence on the authorities, especially when the interests of one part of the authorities and the civil society coincide at least partly. If political groups do not have anyone to draft their vision in certain areas – they use the resources of CSOs. I mean all Georgian authorities. Whether the authorities subsequently take into account these initiatives or not is a different matter. We won't listen to you because you're bad – one cannot hear something like this, but they tell us – we'll probe into this, let's see, but... etc. Relations with public are even graver, if you give them right messages, the society will surely react. For instance, let's remember "This Affects You Too", "Must Carry" and "Must Offer" campaigns, people have reacted rapidly not because they have suddenly fallen in love with the CSOs, but because the public interest was strong and it was fully mobilized in this regard. Obviously, other factors have also played their role and only this campaign was not decisive. What are the values that the civil society should be built on... Davit Losaberidze – Reacting to adequate interests of the society, or searching-identifying these interests and subsequently reacting. Further, professionalism and most comprehensive, which covers everything - Weber-like Protestant ethical norms – value-based and not overly-mercantile approaches.

CSO web portal has interviewed Lasha Bakradze about the civil society and CSOs, i.e. non-governmental organizations. Interviewed by Lali Shalvashvili Mr. Bakradze, there is a permanent worldwide discussion over the term "civil society". Some in Georgia consider under this term non-governmental organizations, but on several occasions they refer to a broader notion, how do you interpret it? Lasha Bakradze – I believe the Georgian society made a huge mistake, partly under the influence of western ideas, when it apprehended the civil society as non-governmental organizations. This was a tremendous mistake, because I firmly believe that the civil society is formed by individuals who think freely, exercise certain influence over the public, and who formally may not be even affiliated in certain organizations. When we talk about organizations, these should not be strictly non-governmental organizations only. This could be a concrete union set up around a specific issue, which fights for resolving a concrete issue. For instance, we can refer to the Sakdrisi issue, or unions as part of the campaign against cutting down the plants. I think such public groups have greater influence than CSOs. It must be especially stressed that CSOs established in Georgia are not set up from funding of its members, i.e. they are not established with a founding basis but someone sets them up and hires the staff later. They are mainly dependent on foreign grants and I criticize them over this very often because they primarily think who will announce a grant competition and what can they receive funding for, and not about the country's needs. Obviously, this cannot form the real civil society. Individual freedom, freedom of assembly, etc. are crucial for the civil society. If the state does not guarantee this, forming the civil society is impossible. Civil society could not be formed in the Soviet Union because the authorities fought against it. For this very reason, building the civil societies in the post-Communist states proved to be difficult – we did not have this experience for a long time and unfortunately, developed partly in a wrong direction, because the West thought CSOs were the basis of civil society. Yet, it's hard to assert this was totally wrong, because there was no other foundation for building the civil society. If we want the civil society not to experience such problems in a long run, it is key to acknowledge that not only CSOs and organizations funded from somewhere, but individuals and humans build the civil society. Classical definition of the civil society – is the society beyond the state, economic sector, family, and in Georgia I would add the church, which is active and unites around a concrete problem, can express its opinion and fight to resolve this problem. Therefore, civil society is a broader notion than the union and the unity of CSOs. You have mentioned the society united around Sakdrisi and landscaping issues, they express opinions, are active around these topics, i.e. they are active groups... How would you overall evaluate civil society in Georgia? Lasha Bakradze – It is rather weak, we witness this on a daily basis, civil society in Georgia is in embryonic form. It failed to develop some tool, with which it would have influenced or could influence now the authorities and policies pursue by the authorities then and now. Finding such tools is quite difficult, but such experience exists and the society should fit to it. You refer to the western civil societies and their experience... Lasha Bakradze – Yes, but often when we say the "West", we mean all legal, civilized states. Among them, Japan is not the West, but it has extremely interesting experience that we can learn a lot from, because on one hand there is a very traditional society and at the same time - modern. Civil society has achieved success in many African states as well, which is also a great example for Georgia, where there is a huge confrontation within the society. There was even worse confrontation in South Africa, but they have managed to take steps towards civilized co-existence – the oppressors have repented, while those who were oppressed years ago, have managed to at least partly forgive the oppressors. We can also bring the Ugandan example, where two confronted ethnic groups have annihilated each other, but there are efforts for them to live together. Therefore, a lot can be learned not only from the civilized western world, but at a glance from relatively underdeveloped societies as well. We could learn from them even more if we don't purse the nose, which is frequent in our country. You said the civil society in Georgia does not have any influence over policies of the authorities, and on the other hand we fail to use knowledge and experience accumulated in various civil societies worldwide... What is the reason? Does all of this require more time? Lasha Bakradze – I believe we had sufficient time but we failed to find tools, with which we would have forced the authorities to solve this or that issue. For instance, let's look at the activities around the Gudiashvili Square, which did not have significant influence on further developments. Numerous other examples could be brought to illustrate that the society lacks energy and patience. It does not comprehend that one rally and one petition does not solve everything, that the society has to stand together in a long-term perspective. There were people at these rallies who are not quite sympathetic or fond of each other, thus showing that there are issues of concern to the public. However, they don't have the power to unite, stand together and resort to long-term methods of protest, of course if finds so necessary for achieving the goal. This is not happening yet. To draw parallels with the post-Soviet states, how did they manage to form the civil society there? Lasha Bakradze – If we put the Baltic states aside and talk about the post-socialist countries, one could say they have achieved great success in this regard in Poland, Czech Republic, East Germany. A lot could be copied, seen and learned from the Baltic states as well as these countries. One of the key factors I believe lies in the fact that there is confrontation and dissenting opinions in all developed societies, but there are issues, around which they can unite. These countries had such tradition, but the lack of tradition is not the only reason – the Caucasian countries have traditions different from the European ones, which to some extent hinder the formation of the civil society. Your approaches are quite critical, can you refer to any positive example from independence until now? Lasha Bakradze – I have already brought several examples – Guerilla Gardening, protests around the Gudiashvili Square and the Sakdrisi issue, collection of signatures in relation to May 17 if you like. Civil society is in embryonic form. Situation was the same, let's say, 10 years ago? Lasha Bakradze – It is more active now, which raises grounds for optimism, that we are heading towards the better and people gradually learn how to protest against this or that issue. Involving artists in such protests is very interesting, and the form of protests is equally important. Let's recall May 17, when a small public group has organized a rally in the Pushkin Square with the shoes – this is a good and interesting form of protest, it did not have huge impact but has survived in the people's memories. I will continue with criticizing the CSOs – several years ago one of the US organizations has funded a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic project in Georgia. Of course it wasn't a bad idea, and several CSOs have won and received funding. They have produced huge posters of people wearing ethnic clothes. This is a typical example of idle CSOs, which did not have the idea and which have repeated what was done in the Soviet Union for 70 years – when the photos of people wearing national clothes of 15 republics were exhibited. The outcome was exactly the same. This is a typical example of grant-guzzling and this is a clear example of how the money was made without the desire to achieve any outcome. By the way, I come across the criticizing of CSOs in other places as well. There is a very good Indian female writer Arundhati Roy, and I read her article about the work of CSOs in last decades in India. Situation looks a lot like the Georgian reality. My critique is not similar to that of the conservative-reactionary groups, who claim that CSOs corrupt the society or are fed with the western monies. The object of my critique is the fact that CSOs often do not think what this country needs, but they ponder about what could the money be received for. Nevertheless, I should say CSOs are very different from each other. I was to ask exactly this – organizations do indeed differ by organizational structures, working style, attitude towards work, etc. You have mentioned a project of one of the CSOs, can this example be generalized with respect to entire sector? Lasha Bakradze – It cannot be generalized, they differ from each other dramatically. I bring examples to make it clear what I criticize, what I don't like or do like. I can bring plenty of positive as well as negative examples. A CSO by itself is a great thing, I don't even discuss this. Neither it is bad that there are sources of funding for the CSO activities, I don't discuss this either. But they cannot exist only because someone will fund some of their activities. Often, when a certain issue is being discussed, I come across such an answer – "it's good but no one will fund this", or "we should get funding first", etc. If the society is healthy, I don't think it should be thinking only about which topics could be funded. Of course, doing a lot of things without funding would be simply impossible and it is extremely important that funding opportunities are available, but there are issues that could be solved easily and should not be postponed in the distant future. The society got used over 20-25 years to the fact that it is worth showing activeness if respective funds are available. This is very unfortunate, I don't like this and I don't think anyone likes it. I have one example - there is a small market by the Public Service Hall on Sundays – I would say this is the very embryo of the civil society, it's not organized by the authorities, people go there themselves, are happy with what they do and this has become a place of assembly, getting acquainted with others, and conversations. To look at this a bit differently – are these people happy or they just sell something to receive income? Lasha Bakradze – People don't go there only because they sell something, but because this is a certain means of communication and the market is self-organized, it is not planned from above – the initiative comes from the below. It seems this market has nothing to do with any of the problems, but we see the self-organization by individuals without any interference – this is the civil society. This is not the same as Tbilisoba, which is planned by the authorities and is a clear example of an event invented from above, reiterated by all subsequent authorities. This is a totally unnatural, non-public celebration. One can find similar events in other countries as well with the authorities supporting their organization, but this does not mean that the authorities plan literally everything abroad. I would say that Tbilisoba is a clear example of an anti-civil society. But general public participates in Tbilisoba... Lasha Bakradze – I understand that a lot of people go, but we are talking about the civil society and such events bring zero and adverse results in terms of activeness of the civil society because everything is managed from the above. We need baseline democracy. Let's take as an example a village channel, which may flood the village. What is the village population doing – they gather and demand that the authorities pay attention and the demand goes on. The fact that the village can do a small work by itself is lost. There was no bulldozer in the village, they did not have anything and they always depended on someone, they had to write the application in the collective farming, or the district (Party) committee and it still continues this way – these are the remains of communism. They don't want to do anything but to close the street and demand – they cannot go beyond this. This is the example of a failed civil society. Antonio Gramsci discusses civil society in an extremely interesting context, according to which the Marxists have asked themselves – why did the revolution take place in Russia and not where Marx was saying – in the developed capitalist countries. Gramsci has a very interesting and right answer to this – he says that when the waves of revolutionary masses collided with the fortress of bourgeoisie, it turned out that this fortress had outposts in front of it and these outposts were the civil society. So basically Gramsci says that the civil society is a negative phenomenon for the revolution, but he also claims that the leftists can also use the civil society for their political battle and objectives, and that is why it's important. In Russia, where there was no civil society, the fortress that people thought was non-destroyable was taken down very easily. I have referred to Gramsci's description of the civil society because there is one thing that had never occurred in Georgia over years – none of the authorities have wanted to give up more for the civil society. So you mean that the authorities had to take into account problems identified even by the small groups? Lasha Bakradze – Yes. Some may say this is not a function of the authorities, but this is not even a concern in established states. I refer to countries, where they do not acknowledge the extreme significance of a healthy civil society for the country's stability, of the very civil society that criticizes them. The civil society failed to find tools, with which it would force the authorities to take into account its opinions, because its demands and opinion was ignored for a very long time. When you mention ignoring of public opinion and public demand, do you mean the Soviet past? Lasha Bakradze – No, I mean the last rule of the National Movement, when the public opinion was ignored, and there was no communication between the society and the authorities. Propaganda is not a means of communication in democratic states, it is used in authoritarian countries. A healthy civil society is a crucial factor for the country's and nation's stability, which the authorities have failed to see before and hopefully will see in the future. You talked about civil groups united around the Gudiashvili and Sakdrisi problems and their protest. Representatives of non-governmental sector were expressing their attitudes over these issues, and some of them were obviously participating in the rallies... What is the role of CSOs within the civil society? Lasha Bakradze – The role of CSOs in Georgia is big because it is the most active part of the society, as well as the role of certain individuals is big. In 2004 a lot of people moved from the civil sector to the authorities and there was a great mourning. This also indicates that we do not understand what the civil society is – a person, individual of course can one day be in some organization, and on the other day in the authorities, and there is nothing tragic in this. Journalists, writers, painters are representatives of the civil society and it's not at all necessary for them to be in some CSO. Of course, this is their right. To be more clear, what is the sector's role within the civil society and what do you think should it be? Lasha Bakradze – The more CSOs are set up financially built on membership fees, the healthier and more enduring will such organizations be. Of course they can raise extra funds somewhere else, but the funding from their own members is of crucial importance – they would be able to resolve certain issues on their own. But this is problematic in our society because the financial state of the public is uninviting. ... And we bump into, let's say, a vicious circle – the public's financial state is uninviting, and most probably certain part of it will fail to pay the required membership fees and so on. Is there a way out? Lasha Bakradze – Yes, it is partly a vicious circle and nevertheless, I think it's possible to make steps forward... How would the non-governmental sector develop without the support from the west? Lasha Bakradze – I cannot even imagine, because in the 1990s, in light of the total economic catastrophe, nothing would function at all. Along with criticizing it, I can say the sector does a lot – probes into the data of various state agencies, etc. Of course it would be very difficult to do this without funding, but we are witnessing the declining funding sources, and therefore we have to identify ways of further development and prevent the failure of activities. Should this have happened in the 1990s, the activities should have been terminated for good... Obviously the sector's role is important, we cannot count on the authorities that is free of control. This requires organizations and organizational groups, which work on this or that issue for a long time and have relevant experience. It is clear that such organizations are needed and essential. We have said that a certain part of the non-governmental sector cannot switch to a membership-based model yet. Why do you think active members of the society fail to establish membership-based organizations? Lasha Bakradze – It is a very difficult question. On one hand we lack experience, and on the other hand there is the Georgian individualism in Georgia, which can be hardly called individualism, owing to which it is hard to unite around an idea. We clearly witness this in politics as well – in fact we do not have parties united around the ideas, but have groups united around the individual leaders. One should say the time for large parties is up in the West as well, i.e. a lot is changing not only here but abroad also, and we try to keep pace with the civilized world and stand in the row. We are heading more or less in the right direction, but the speed is non-satisfactory and a faster pace is desirable. Does the non-governmental sector have impact on the authorities and the population? Lasha Bakradze – It has and can have even larger impact. In Georgia, a lot depends on the attitudes of representatives of this or that CSO and the authorities, not only at institutional but at personal level as well. Impact on the society also depends on whether some organization is well-known or not. There can be many good CSOs that general public may not be aware of. Media also has an extremely narrow vision and we see a small group of people only, whereas much more is done and informing the society about this would be very important. Unfortunately, media does not or cannot do this. The authorities exercise the same approach - when their representatives see the need, they use the activities of this or that CSO, but when they do not have interest, they ignore them. There is an almost similar situation in the West, but the society there is much more active and the authorities know that their very voice sets the grounds for the victory of this or that party in the elections. The authorities in Georgia often turn a blind eye to this and prefer lining up with a more influential organization such as the church for instance. List three values that the civil society must be built on... Lasha Bakradze – Rule of law, democratic development, recognition of values common to all mankind.

CSO web portal has interviewed the "Open Society – Georgia" Foundation's Local Democracy Development Program Manager Tiniko Bolkvadze. Interviewed by Lali Shalvashvili How would you assess the environment that non-governmental, i.e. civil society organizations have to work in? What are the similarities and differences between the current situation and that of five or eight years ago? Tiniko Bolkvadze – Just like when the previous authorities came to power, now the non-governmental sector was with high hopes. Approximately one year after the 2003 parliamentary elections, the authorities were open with CSOs for cooperation. Afterwards these links, let’s say were closed and there were only single examples of successful cooperation between the CSOs and the state sector. When the ways of cooperation were cut off, CSO representatives had to pursue mainly "watchdog” activities. As for the current situation, I would say the new authorities are not as open as in the aftermath of the 2012 parliamentary elections. In the first months cooperation was much more intense and successful, but gradually a trend of reducing the eagerness to cooperate comes up. I don’t think this concerns every ministry and state agency. There are successful examples of cooperation and this process still continues. In our case I would focus on the Ministries of Justice and Infrastructure, with which the intense work is underway. However, I couldn’t say the same about several other ministries, for instance the Ministry of Health, where CSOs meet much more obstacles. Nevertheless, if we overall compare and assess the CSO working environment during the previous and current authorities, there are probably better conditions anyway. You have mentioned that the authorities in the aftermath of the 2012 elections were in the beginning more open and eager to cooperate, so what do you think has happened? Why is the desire to cooperate fading away? Tiniko Bolkvadze – There is no straightforward answer to this. Maybe in some cases this is a fault of CSOs, when some of them may not be constructive or lack qualification to do something that would assist the state structures. Yet, there are other reasons as well. After the new authorities came to power, certain councils and various consulting bodies were set up with the ministries, and it may be that some of them have exhausted their functions. For instance, the Advisors’ Council was set up with the Ministry of Infrastructure, which worked on the draft self-government law. Today the Code is adopted, and possibly there is no need for the Council to work as intensely as previously. You have mentioned qualification of several CSOs as one of probable causes of declining cooperation between the authorities and CSOs. Can this picture be generalized with respect to cooperation between the authorities and CSOs as a whole? Tiniko Bolkvadze – No, of course not. If a CSO has relevant qualification and their interests concur in doing work jointly and achieving specific result – then cooperation is successful. You have worked in a non-governmental sector for years and observed their activities. What are the sector's achievements and what has it failed to achieve? Tiniko Bolkvadze – After the 2003 elections we all remember well how the cadres started leaving the sector in favor of the state structures. This was quite intense. Individuals have left the sector for the state agencies after the 2012 elections as well, but this was not such a bad loss as back in 2003-2004. I believe in recent years non-governmental sector has more or less strengthened and started replenishing. Several new CSOs were established that work successfully. For example, the Institute for the Development of Freedom of Information, which was founded few years ago and now, is one of the successful organizations. Overall, I believe the non-governmental sector is strengthening gradually. And another significant trend can be identified – the non-governmental sector witnessed the importance of coalition work, and that they can achieve more together than individually. Such partnership started from the end of 2011, we can refer to campaign "This Affects You Too”, Media Coalition. They have achieved much more than individual organizations, and especially when they had to carry out advocacy campaigns in extremely grave conditions. What about relations between the population and CSOs? Experts say the sector has failed to establish firm relations with the population... and this is perceived as the sector's drawback... Tiniko Bolkvadze – It is unfortunate but insufficient work with the population is a fact. Large organizations manage this more often. Over the last year "Open Society – Georgia” Foundation has supported at least 150 meetings with the local population only to discuss one draft law – the Self-Government Code. Yet, there is still a lack of relations and if the non-governmental sector is rebuked for that, this is definitely deserved. More work at a local level is needed probably. On the other hand, often large donors fund leading organizations to achieve tangible results. Accordingly, less attention is paid to the local, regional organizations, which are capable of doing much more locally than the Tbilisi-based CSOs. You have mentioned the advantages of coalition work. How come the coalition activities are not pursued to illustrate the population's problems? Tiniko Bolkvadze – We have started working with numerous CSOs on a new legislative initiative concerning citizen participation in the self-government activities. It should solve many problems only if the Parliament adopts it and accepts our ideas. In this case, Tbilisi-based or regionally operating organizations will have more opportunities to contact the local population. We must learn their opinion on the local authorities and their participation at the local level, i.e. we should get their advice. Accordingly, in the coming year we will work in this direction and try to remedy many gaps, as in terms of relations of CSOs with the population, as well as fixing the legislation. Can you be more specific about mechanisms that the initiative includes? Tiniko Bolkvadze – Legislative initiative is not formulated yet, and to be more correct, the relevant parliamentary committee has developed one draft law, which the committee has withdrawn later on. After that the citizen participation mechanisms were included in the draft Self-Government Code, but during the debates the Parliament has rejected this part, by referring to badly formulated articles of the Code. They provided for the establishment of councils at the level of villages, and districts in Tbilisi. We believe the regulations included in the draft law were not sufficient for ensuring tangible participation. Hence, we are thinking about alternative mechanisms or what could be added to the relevant part of the draft law to make it more perfect, and how could citizens participate in the local self-government activities without setting up the councils. You have mentioned "if the Parliament accepts the initiative"... Could it definitely not accept the issue concerning the citizen participation mechanisms in the self-government activities? Tiniko Bolkvadze – I don’t know what the Parliament decides. In the nearest future we will meet with the MPs, CSOs and representatives of the executive authorities where we will submit proposals at the level of ideas. We are interested in what would be acceptable for the Parliament, which must examine it, as well as for the Government, which must initiative the draft law. Therefore we will try to share the positions of legislative as well as executive authorities. Nevertheless, the position and opinions of the population will be most important. CSOs are being criticized lately and what do you think is the reason? Is this criticism right and how does the sector comprehend it? Tiniko Bolkvadze – It depends on the criticism. CSOs would have comprehended criticism absolutely normally, unless the Prime Minister would have used words such as "subversive activities”, "activities against the state”. In principle these were accusations against the non-governmental sector. Obviously, CSOs have comprehended all of this painfully. On other occasions criticism against them was not so painful. I therefore don’t rule out that sometimes criticism is deserved, but it would be better to weigh and assess the activities of these organizations prior to making evaluations. Recently I have read criticism against the Young Lawyers’ Association in relation to the May 26 developments. GYLA had to defend itself and prove it had definitely worked on this issue, they have done much more than just one report – they were meeting with CSOs, international organizations, representatives of diplomatic corps. I would ask representatives of the authorities to review the work of CSOs not only currently but in recent years as well, and to make serious accusations only afterwards. In one of the TV political talk-shows the Prime Minister has explained his comments towards CSOs and tried to tone it down to a certain extent... Tiniko Bolkvadze – This step of his had to be hailed indeed and the campaign "This Affects You Too” has mentioned this several times. Yet, this is different because when the Prime Minister makes such accusations, then other representatives of the authorities and MPs repeat the same, i.e. the Prime Minister’s statements are imitated by some politicians, which is rather unfortunate especially when many of them know very well what these organizations have been doing all these years. I must recall another phrase: "Where were they in previous years, why didn't they speak up about this?" – it seems CSOs should be reminding quite often about what they've done in recent years and how they've been reacting during the rule of the National Movement. I want to stress once again it was the hardest period when we launched the campaign "This Affects You Too". Everyone remembers grave election environment and the resistance from the authorities. We should recall people summoned by the Chamber of Controls, sheer terror, etc. If we take a look at our activities prior to the 2012 elections, I think the politicians in power should be less critical. Since we have mentioned "This Affects You Too" campaign, it turned out that part of politicians has criticized the phrase "They Are Still Listening", because it was perceived to be in an affirmative form... Tiniko Bolkvadze – Some perceive this in an affirmative form, and some don't. There is a differing opinion about this among politicians as well. We claim that the authorities are able to listen to approximately 20 thousand subscribers, we are not saying that representatives of some state structure are sitting and listening to 20 thousand subscribers. We believe this capacity of the authorities should be restricted by adopting the right legislation and introducing European standards – this is the goal. We have talked about this numerous times, but afterwards these words are interpreted differently. The Parliament has adopted this initiative and partnership was sealed, preceded by a "noise" around this issue. Accordingly, this is a bit confusing... What was the reason behind this criticism? Tiniko Bolkvadze – Those who voted for this draft law agree that current practice must change. Some were stating this publicly and some behind the scenes. The country's security was brought as a reason. We are saying there should be a balance between the country's security and the human rights standards. These standards must not be dangerous for the country. Part of the MPs who were criticizing I think have followed the Prime Minister's statement, without fully acknowledging the problem. Let's not talk about the Rustavi 2 case, but I believe a lot of people saw that someone may be listening to them today or in the future. Let's go back to the sector in general. In the beginning you have mentioned that the number of CSOs is increasing, and aren't older organizations vanishing in parallel? Tiniko Bolkvadze – New CSOs were actively emerging after the 2012 parliamentary elections. Large number of organizations founded in last two years mostly employs representatives of the previous authorities. Former civil servants have moved to the non-governmental sector, but there are exceptions as well. After 2003 international donor organizations have changed the policy and a large portion of finances was headed towards the state. What is your current observation of their policies? Tiniko Bolkvadze – In the beginning we have discussed causes of weakening the non-governmental sector, and the abrupt reduction of funding after the 2003 elections was one of the key causes. Now certain policies have changed, but I wouldn't say very harshly and leaving the sector without funding. Currently they have much more opportunities than in 2004-2005. Funding priorities always change, depending on the country's vector. In certain cases risks are assessed and the priorities are changed as prevention. Every donor approaches this in its own way. What are the three key values that the work of CSOs must be built on? Tiniko Bolkvadze – Loyalty to ideas and work, professionalism and good faith.

CSO webportal has interviewed the Chairman of GYLA Kakha Kozhoridze Interviewed by Lali Shalvashvili Let's start with the environment that CSOs have to work in. What is it like and are there any hindering factors? Kakha Kozhoridze – I believe there is no bad environment for the CSO activities, and especially after the parliamentary elections. Directly after the elections the new authorities were extremely interested in the experience of the CSO sector. They wanted to transform the third sector’s visions and approaches into concrete initiatives, bills, and ways of solution of certain problems. Our organization possessed such experience. For instance, major part of amendments made to the Law on the Common Courts, on which the first stage of judicial reform was built, was based on our opinions and ideas. This was at the first stage, when there was a great willingness to accept and share comments and opinions, however, I think working environment is not bad today either. In any case, some CSO or its staff is not threatened due to its position. Of course this should not lead us to complacency, because it should always be this way. When we’re better than someone else in this respect, it does not mean that there is an ideal environment. There are one or two bad examples in this respect, representatives of CSO "Multinational Georgia” have noted that the employee of the Minister of Interior had attempted to exercise pressure on their staff member. In the described working environment the organization’s success mostly depends on its activeness, correct work planning and professionalism. You have mentioned willingness to cooperate directly after the parliamentary elections. Does this mean that something has changed then on? What is the current situation? Kakha Kozhoridze – Willingness to cooperate was firmer at the first stage after the parliamentary elections. Now I have a feeling that willingness is weaker, but I couldn’t say it is totally absent. I can bring specific examples. We – the Young Lawyers, Transparency International and ISFED – have left the Inter-Factional Group, and not because they have not accepted our recommendations and proposals, but because they have not examined our proposals duly. We understand also that something will be taken into account and something will not, but when something is not taken into account we want to have a motivated response. When we saw that the Inter-Factional Group has not considered our proposals, there was no battle of arguments and there was a desire of political decision-making, we couldn’t find our place there and left it. Same applies to postponement of procedure for interrogating witnesses. The Parliament has changed its decision for several times. It was also unfortunate when they have put down our representatives’ posters in the Parliament. We have not violated any rule, the Regulations, or law, and therefore there were no legal grounds whatsoever for putting down the posters. Such examples also create bad impression and environment. Despite everything, I would still repeat that overall in general an organization can be successful in this environment and situation if it pursues professional and impartial activities. You have mentioned that the environment has changed in the aftermath of parliamentary elections. What was it like, could you identify parallels or differences... Kakha Kozhoridze – I think there is a better environment overall. Yet, there are exceptions in some respect today as well, when organizations may experience problems not reported in previous years. For example, attitude towards CSO "Identity” and its ideas makes me say this. By attitude you mean public attitude or the state attitude? Kakha Kozhoridze – Both, including the attitude of representatives of the authorities. On the other hand, problems of those times, when owing to the activities of some individual his/her relatives faced problems at work or something similar, are now gone. My family member has experienced such a problem and this is my personal experience, but nowadays I haven’t heard of any problems caused to the relatives of CSO representatives due to their activities. Do CSOs experience the same environment in regions as well? Kakha Kozhoridze – I haven’t studied this issue thoroughly, but as a citizen who is connected with CSO activities I could say that situation is the same. However, I would repeat that our organization has not studied this area but I have information received from our 7 regional offices. They cooperate with the local authorities, but talk about problems openly in case they exist. How would you assess the sector's activities as a whole, what has it achieved and what has it not? Kakha Kozhoridze – Discussing a systemic picture is a bit difficult. There are too many organizations, all of them with their action plans and it may be that the plans and objectives of many of them do not coincide, and that they do not wish to act jointly. Yet, there are issues demonstrating progress. For instance, GYLA currently chairs the CSO Coalition for Independent and Transparent Justice, and over 30 organizations affiliated in it work on judicial topics. This is an active coalition, which in professional terms has a say in the judicial reform process. The legislation partly accepts and reflects the initiatives of this Coalition. It is an achievement when along with the change of authorities you do not change your values and approaches, and when you saw the problems back then and see them now, you talk about them now just like back then – this is a consistent and continuing process and for this very reason you will deserve more public respect and the authorities will look at you differently. There are organizations associated with political groups. I believe this isn’t a problem – they may have a declared vision. There are organizations and coalitions, whose work and statements are reacted to and which can have positive impact on the processes. Sometimes several organizations may work on the same issue, but the activities of only one of them could be followed up. What could be the reason? Is it an organization's work quality that matters or there is some other reason? Kakha Kozhoridze – I think the reactions of public and the authorities depend more on the duration of the organization’s activities. Further, time must demonstrate that changes in the political sector do not have impact on this organization’s values and impartiality. This year GYLA becomes 20 and throughout its existence we have produced numerous studies and draft laws, but I believe the organization’s key achievement lies in the values that have not changed over time. We are doing the same and like two decades ago. What has the sector failed to achieve? Experts claim and studies demonstrate that relations between the public and CSO sector are fragile and often they do not last beyond project frameworks... Kakha Kozhoridze – An organization’s activities in general are limited to a project and this is common. Some organizations may want to do more but this requires resources and the resources may be insufficient. In this case I would talk about GYLA as well – we really do not restrict ourselves with projects. GYLA’s legal aid centers function in Tbilisi and 7 regions – we have never said we would consult the concrete category of persons. Any individual can receive legal consultations from us, on any legal issue. Therefore, we do not have a problem of communicating with the population, and the fact that CSOs have less contact with the population applies to us the least, because the number of consultations in recent years has exceeded hundred thousand. Contacts contribute to the awareness of every organization and determine public attitude as well. What is the influence of CSOs over the public? Kakha Kozhoridze – It depends on the issue. There are issues in respect of which you feel public’s firm support. However, sometimes after raising this or that issue talks begin about you being an appendix of some political party. On the second and third day you raise a totally different issue and then they are confused – it’s hard for them to understand whether you are opposition or someone else. Sometimes this is what we get, but overall I think there are strong CSOs in Georgia, whose positions have impact on certain processes. When a legal assessment is needed, journalists are interested in our position, which also influences to a certain extent. Why do you think former officials move to the CSO sector? Kakha Kozhoridze – Deputy Ministers and Department Heads were told that labor relations with them were over and they had to resign from office. These people worked in certain areas for years and gained experience and qualification, and therefore they could not sit at home. They need the arena to apply their experience in work and accordingly it’s not surprising that these people set up organizations and express positions. I do not comprehend this process negatively. Yet, the attitude toward such organizations is a different issue, as well as the extent to which such organizations can remain neutral and impartial in light of previous activities of their founders. On several occasions there may be a positive attitude towards such organizations, and sometimes – negative. This requires time, one year is not sufficient for determining the choice of this or that organization and the sustainability of its visions. Let's talk about relations between international and local donor organizations and CSOs, it is often said that CSOs have to tailor to announced grant competitions and they do not offer donors issues of concern to the society... Is there more work for CSOs in this respect? Kakha Kozhoridze – Many projects were developed at our own initiative and we often offer project proposals to donor organizations. This is good because local organizations are much better at identifying problems. We haven’t studied this thoroughly, but in view of relations that I personally have with donors or CSOs it is obvious there is a lack of good ideas and innovative visions... More activeness is required. Grant competitions are the source of income of CSOs. Why relations with business could not be built to generate sort of alternative sources of income? Kakha Kozhoridze – This process really requires assistance. It would be great to somehow introduce the culture of citizens or business representatives donating to organizations acceptable to them. This is an accepted practice in the US and Europe. In several cases the legislation prescribes that certain amount of an income tax is diverted to a preferable organization. In such cases the principle matters and not the amount. Similar idea is being developed here as well, and we support this idea. As for the failure to build partnership relations with business, it’s hard to say, maybe there is less experience in this respect. We had one case, in which we provided legal services to one organization. Although we lost the case, the client was so fond of our approaches and professionalism that after being convinced that the loss wasn’t our fault – the court did not render lawful decision – it amended its charter to transfer 7 percent of profit to our organization. We haven’t received the amount yet and don’t know what to expect, but in this case the amount is not important. Such initiatives are required in general so that in the long-term perspective these organizations develop and there are fewer reproaches about working on foreign grants and defending their interests. I should definitely say that none of donor organizations that we deal with has ever instructed us directly or indirectly to have some position on this or that issue. Our positions presented to the society on various issues are always ours and none of the donors interfere. I’m saying this in response to allegations that the organization’s positions are driven by the donors. I would like to repeat that I’m not sure what is going on in other organizations, but with us none of the donors has said anything similar. You have mentioned the mechanism of donating to organizations, which you think is essential. There are quite many CSOs in Georgia and this mechanism may "bypass" an organization, which works hard and does good things, due to a simple reason that public is not aware of its activities... and even symbolic donations may go to few CSOs... Kakha Kozhoridze – This idea requires good development. Certain portion of donations may be distributed according to the tax-payer’s choice, and the other portion – could be diverted to the CSO Development Fund, etc. This idea indeed requires contemplation and elaboration. What is the reason behind periodic expression of attitudes towards CSOs? Is this a campaign-type action or part of the population still does not have access to the sector and its activities and it only has fragmentary idea about the sector?   Kakha Kozhoridze – Lack of counter-arguments in response to the organization’s position on this or that issue could be one of the reasons. This is the very time when they say "oh they are grant-eaters, how could we believe them”, etc. I find they use this during discussions to avoid arguments, whereas a discussion concerns a concrete issue you have an expectation to hear critique. Reasonable critique is good and we really don’t think that CSOs shouldn’t be criticized and only the authorities should be criticized. We are ready to accept objective critique and analyze it. This will even help us. Overall I find that certain attitudes towards CSOs are more spontaneous – they erupt and then fade away. Was the CSO sector free during the previous authorities, did it criticize previous authorities, what were the reactions of solid organizations after the May 26 rally... These are the issues that former Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili has raised in one of the interviews with respect to CSOs... You are in charge of one of the solid organizations, what would you say about these issues?   Kakha Kozhoridze – GYLA’s position after the May 26 rally, and what then GYLA’s chair had said, explained and justified, has caused dissatisfaction among a part of the public. I can state with full responsibility that if anyone has said something about May 26, it was GYLA and the study drafted with personal participation of then GYLA’s chair and participation of our staff attests to this. No other organization has produced similarly criticizing and thoroughly analyzed study. To discuss processes of those times I can tell you that I was the coordinator of the Legal Aid Center and together with lawyers and my colleagues we had spent the night on May 26 in courtrooms defending the detained individuals. We were doing our best. Whether the court accepted our reasoning or not is another matter. I don’t think the court decision was behind everything that Bidzina Ivanishvili had said. In addition, it is very easy to clarify the organization’s position, there are recordings available online. I’m not saying this in response to Bidzina Ivanishvili personally, it’s that this issue is not new and generally it is easily available for those who are interested. What are the three values that CSO activities must be built on...   Kakha Kozhoridze – impartiality, adherence to principles, and professionalism.

The Memorandum of Cooperation was executed on December 12 in the Parliament of Georgia between the civil society organizations (CSOs) and the Parliament. The Memorandum was signed by the Chairman of the Parliament of Georgia, joined by the representative of up to 150 CSOs.We interviewed one of the initiators of the Memorandum signing the Head of Civil Society Institute Vazha Salamadze. Interviewed by Mariam Patatishvili Mr. Salamadze, what is the Memorandum about and why is it important? Vazha Salamadze - The document signed in the Parliament of Georgia consists of 10 paragraphs and I would like to focus on some of them. One of the key aspects is political - in this respect the Memorandum is important to the extent that for the first time in the Georgian history, the Parliament of Georgia has recognized CSOs as independent actors and equal partners. This is a very significant political step from the Parliament. Second aspect I would like to focus on relates to the state support of the sector's development. The very first paragraph of the Memorandum provides for the development by the Parliament and us of state concept on the support of CSO development in Georgia, which will be then adopted as a parliamentary concept. Further, as in Article 2 of the Memorandum we agree that the Parliament will facilitate the improvement of functioning legislative environment for CSOs, this already sets up in one context a political and legislative environment, in which we can freely operate and be effective to maximum extent. Involvement in the law-making process is a significant aspect. Several paragraphs of the Memorandum are dedicated to participation in the Parliament's activities specifically, including timely access to information, ensuring effective communication and the political tools of participation in the law-making and supervising processes. And finally, I would like to mention the recognition by the Parliament of Istanbul Principles on CSO Development Effectiveness as the basis for dialogue with us. Georgia is the third state after South Korea and the United States, which has individually recognized the Istanbul Principles.  Mr. Salamadze, could you please tell us about the process of developing the Memorandum. Vazha Salamadze - As for the development of the Memorandum, at the last year's meeting with the Parliament I have put this issue on the agenda and asked the Chairman of the Parliament to execute a document and set up a working group. The Chairman of Parliament has actively followed up on this issue and asked us to draft this document and launch consultations with the Parliament. The first draft of the document was developed at CSI's initiative. A working group was set up afterwards and the document has transferred to the CSO Development Effectiveness sub-group of the National Platform. Elaborated document was sent to member and non-member organizations of the Platform in spring, following which the document was finalized based on received comments and consultations with the Parliament. I believe the process was open, exposed and transparent.  A foundation was laid to the new tradition on December 12 as well... Vazha Salamadze - Apart from the Memorandum signing ceremony, the Parliament of Georgia has also hosted the meeting of CSO representatives with the Chairman of the Parliament. 22 representatives of the civil sector have delivered speeches, raised concrete issues and described the problems and ways of problem solution offered by this or that organization. The Memorandum has officially instituted the CSO Day in the Parliament of Georgia. Like on December 12th, we will meet with the Parliament on an annual basis and share our concerns and visions on the developing processes in the country.  At the ceremony the Chairman of the Parliament has stated that by this document CSOs have become partners of the Parliament of Georgia. How will the civil sector build on its partnership with the Parliament of Georgia? Vazha Salamadze - It will be a bit difficult for me to speak in the name of the civil society, but I can speak on behalf of our organization. To a certain extent, CSI has delivered leadership functions in this process and we should probably continue working with our colleagues and partners to establish general relations between the Parliament and the CSOs. On one hand, the Chairman of the Parliament has noted that the door is open, but one needs to enter this open door. Entering means that the other side, i.e. we must have sufficient competence and professionalism to identify problems and formulate ways of solving these problems, i.e. to create public policy alternatives, transform these documents into programs or legislative initiatives, submit them to Parliament and have skills for advocating and lobbying the solution of these problems. This is the very future task. I understand this partnership this way and this is how the speech of the Chairman was comprehended. And finally, is the document open, are there any criteria and is it possible today for the organizations to join the Memorandum? Vazha Salamadze - The Memorandum is not a closed document, so any CSO can join it any time. Full text of the Memorandum is available on the web page of the Civil Society Institute - civilin.org. Right here, any organization can join the document online. Both parties - Parliament and CSOs - can withdraw. However, the document is executed for indefinite period of time and it can be terminated only upon the will of the parties.