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.

We have interviewed Lena Taylor - Wisconsin State Senator. Interviewed by Mariam Patatishvili 16000 NGOs are registered in Georgia. But in fact, only 2000 of them are operating at present. What about Wisconsin? What’s the role of non profits in the state? Lena Taylor - I don’t know the number operating in US. But non profits are very important component of our society. They help to do what government cannot always do. They help to provide services to people in the community, educate people in the community, they are very important part of our society.  How do they cooperate with the government? Lena Taylor - Non profits contract with the government to provide services. For example, we have organization called "Social Development commission”. They do contracting with the state to help to provide work training, to help to determine people are eligible for different services. And they even provide child care services. We pay non profits to provide services. Sometimes they have very big contracts, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and sometimes millions, depending on non profits. Do Non profits facilitate the participation of citizens? Civic engagement?  Lena Taylor - Most definitely. They are close to citizens, even more than government. They are dealing with people, on day to day bases. And making sure that various issues that people have are answered. So yes, they do. You had meeting with NGO’s, got information about sector’s activities. What kind of advice would you give them and what experience could you share from them?  Lena Taylor - I encourage them to be to be resource helpful to the parliament, to show them that they provide good services and they get outcomes that help the parliament to help people. And they have to work together; one NGO isn’t strong as a group of NGOs. It was just very encouraging for me to see type of services, and there was one gentlemen that stood out for me he was strong fighter for women’s rights and I said he is a feminist, he is a very strong men for women’s rights and he was admitted there need to be more women in parliament, more women in important roles and government and in society. It was good to see that there are organization doing that kind of work and I would be able to connect with them.  Youth parliament was very encouraging. We don’t have youth parliament in Wisconsin. And it was encouraging to see the youth parliament, to see so many young women in the youth parliament. It was exciting to see their work youth parliament had already done to have a directive fact on the laws that are being made in the country. And I encouraged them to do volunteerism work with the parliament. To be a connection between people and government. To help to make it be more transparent and more open. So people would be able to share their concerns and people would be able to get answers from their government and from their elected officials. And they also played a part in doing a meeting with me at the university and I encouraged them to do that even more and to invite their parliament to come to the meetings like they did with me.  How does your office cooperate with the sector? Do they offer a better service? Is there a high degree of confidence? Lena Taylor - There is in a high degree of confidence in the services non profits offer and in the collaboration that we do together with legislators offices. Because its being going on for long time. But some non profits don’t have credibility because they have got money and didn't do good services or didn't document to the services they did. So it looks like they took money and used it in way they shouldn't. So one of the things that I spoke about with non profits was importance of to do good work and show outcomes of work they did in order to have good credibility. How do you use electronic media to communicate with society?  Lena Taylor - It has such a huge role in everything I do, because of email, facebook, twitter just every way I couldn't function if there wasn't technology and those methods to communicate. I have hundred and 16 thousand constituencies in my districts. If I have to go each of them individually it would take a long time, I would never get to everybody. But when I’m able to use different kind’s mechanism like facebook twitter email. I’m able to get to them a greater number to people who I want to inform about various issues. I would encourage members of parliament to do the same. Because everybody has cell phones you can text. There always will be people some people you have to go to the door, there will be people you can get by letter. But you can get so many people if you will use technology.

CSO webportal has interviewed the Editor of "Batumelebi" newspaper Eter Turadze. Interviewed by Lali Shalvashvili How would you assess the activities of the civil society organizations (CSOs)? Mass media is somewhat close to the sector, and therefore the assessment of media representative is especially interesting … How is the sector viewed from outside? Eter Turadze – I will judge by a concrete example how does a specific media organization and me as one journalist see the role of this sector and what is our attitude. I believe the non-governmental sector is a significant support for us - journalists, and especially when we need the opinions of competent persons throughout our activities. Unlike other experts, they are impartial, informed and they do not require explanations on the importance of assessing this or that issue or comment. As for our concrete media outlet, we enjoy even a broader support. For instance, the Georgian Young Lawyers' Association has been providing legal aid and consultations and defending us in courts over years, when we could not even afford paying fees or retaining a lawyer. This cooperation still continues. Thus, for me as media representative and journalist this sector is important. Of course I see its importance in the society's development from the other perspective as well, and in this respect the sector is crucial, also requiring in my opinion further development. You mentioned that the sector also requires development, what did you mean? And you have discussed current relations between concrete media outlets and the sector mainly in a positive context, let's discuss problems that you see in the sector's activities, and how should they develop … Eter Turadze – One of the challenges that the civil sector will face is a certain trend, according to which the sector is criticized more recently than before. To be more precise, it becomes active periodically. Again just recently we had another regional example in Batumi - there was a huge wave of critique against NGO sector, and media has actively worked on this topic. A group was declared to be traitors, and a poem was written on the topic titled "Girls and Boys from a Non-Governmental Sector", in which they were called aliens and persons who sold their souls for money to fight against national interests, traditions, etc. The problem lies in a fact that the sector has failed to bring its real objectives and purpose to the society, it is not fully open and there is a certain closed circle that knows what the sector is about. Hence, link between the sector and the society is not strong but weak. There were cases in this region when the respondents thought this or that politician was representing NGO sector. There are persons from the sector known to the public, but the organizations where they work or which they head are less known. I believe this is the sector's problem and they will need more efforts to let more people know about their objectives. What is the reason behind the sector's failure to convey its objectives to the population? Eter Turadze – There could be a lot of reasons, for instance lack of human resources. To judge once again by regional examples, unlike large organizations situation in regional organizations is different in terms of resources. There are organizations here with a small staff. Do you mean Adjara-based organizations or the Batumi organizations? Eter Turadze – NGO sector is rather scarce beyond Batumi and therefore I mean Adjara when I mention scarce resources. Most probably they lack resources - both financial and human, and perhaps their obligations related to specific activities are so large-scale and complex that they no longer manage to inform the public about their objectives. They have concrete target groups to work with but they cannot manage to work with other persons and groups. I know they work very hard and have a loaded work schedule, but nevertheless they are less known publically. On the other hand, another reason may be that we are a post-Soviet state and the notion of NGO sector is still new for the society. 20 years may not be enough for people to understand well the importance of this or that sector, and perhaps this is a problem of general education as well. So you think this can be a two-way problem: for the society as well as for the sector? Eter Turadze – I see it this way. Yet, I believe NGO sector should make the first step to overcome the barrier lying between the public and the sector. In view of regional examples, which trends have you observed – has number of CSOs grown or declined, have they become more active or to the contrary … Eter Turadze – Statistically there are many CSOs, but there are 7-8 organizations in the region that are active and engaged in processes. Several organizations have emerged nowadays that are active, and one or two youth organizations were set up, but so far their activities are limited to organization's mission statements only. Organizations working years ago are still functioning, but I cannot say the quality of their work has improved or deteriorated. They stand on the same level as during the previous authorities. However, compared to the period of Aslan Abashidze, representation of this sector in the region has improved considerably. You have mentioned that two decades are not enough for the population to well comprehend the notion of the sector, and that the sector works with concrete groups within the project frameworks. Don't people that they work with have information on the sector? Why don't they themselves set up CSOs? Isn't this one way or the means for launching an advocacy or monitoring campaign and doing this much better than just one person? Eter Turadze – People who have benefited from the good called NGO sector may have a desire to help others, but this requires relevant knowledge, experience, and the fund-raising skills. By the way, during the recent wave against NGO sector we wanted to inform readers about the sector and interviewed one of the first representatives of NGO sector Davit Zurabishvili, who had mentioned that people should have certain skills to participate in the activities of NGO sector. One can learn this. The sole desire is not enough, i.e. certain skills are required. Either one learns this in some organizations as a volunteer and starts forming-developing, or one is very gifted and manages to do everything independently. In case of the region, people who have benefited from the sector's services are somewhat dispirited in various ways. Let's take the Democracy Institute for instance, which works on the rights of minor inmates. It would be extremely difficult for these beneficiaries to get rid of their problems so as to start thinking about or actually helping others. It's the same in case of GYLA - there is a queue of these people whenever you go there. They would hire private attorneys should they have finances. Therefore, when a person is loaded with problems, it is difficult to start thinking of others. Yet, the issue of public activity may be a part of our country's culture, and I believe we lack this very culture. Further, NGO sector is funded mainly by foreign donor organizations, and I don't remember a single case of donating money to a CSO, or supporting certain activities per se. This is a matter of culture probably, which also requires enhancement. Do you think NGO sector has impact on the society? Relations between the public and the sector are not so firm, and on the other hand the opinions of the sector reach the society via media. How could one assess all of this? Eter Turadze – I believe it has impact on the society, because persons employed in this sector still manage to create a public opinion. A public opinion in our and other countries is formed probably by concrete individuals, and especially in the countries like ours with the developing democracy. That is why I think that people working in the sector create public opinion taken into account more or less by the authorities, which is the chief generator of public opinion but which cannot fully ignore the opinions of this sector. For instance, Bidzina Ivanishvili has reacted to the critical assessments of the NGO sector. Another question is whether the politicians take into account the sector's opinions in their activities. I think the sector's representatives create public opinion, they often appear in media. We all know that media largely contributes to the formation of a public opinion, and frequent appearance in media results in popularity and thus expansion of these opinions among the public, yet sometimes accepted and sometimes not. Our society is not the society that controls the authorities or forms the public opinion. It is either governed by or accepting the public opinions formed by certain groups. And I believe the NGO sector is one of such segments. You have just mentioned the relations between the authorities and NGO sector. Do you believe there are any changes in these relations? Eter Turadze – We can judge this issue by concrete examples. We all remember the election of the Public Defender, when the NGO sector was told it could advance its candidate. This was the first test for the authorities to accept the sector's offer, and they have failed this test. At the same time, we remember that the Chair of the CEC was nominated from the sector and she was approved on the position. We can recall also the initiative of CSO "Identity" about the shelter when certain problems were created. The sector put forth the initiative and the Tbilisi City Hall expressed readiness to support the initiative. I cannot recall any important occasion during the previous authorities when the sector acted as a power worthy of consideration. I believe they were criticized. Although the changes in this respect are positive, I think the sector should not stop at this point. Why do you think the officials move from the power to the civil sector? Eter Turadze – Representatives of previous authorities have a huge experience of working in the NGO sector, they very well know the effectiveness, influence, possibilities of this sector, and I think this is why they have moved to this sector. In addition, they no longer need to acquire new skills. Representatives of previous or current authorities returned to business or NGO sector because probably they well know this is the short way for returning in power. As for the statement of BidzinaIvanishvili, I don't understand its essence and perhaps the future tells us what it was about.

Web portal of civil society organizations has interviewed lawyer Tamar Gurchiani on the current situation in the civil sector. Interviewed by Lali Shalvashvili Dear Tamar, you have worked as in the CSO sector, as well as in international and donor organizations, i.e. you could see the advantages and disadvantages of the sector as from outside, as well as from within... Tamar Gurchiani – I believe despite huge experience, the CSO sector is weak in Georgia. In "weakness” I mean neither organizational development, nor influence over the authorities. What I mean is the influence on the public sector. Relations with and influence on the public is, on one hand, the chief weakness of the sector, while on the other hand, having relations with them is the key advantage. As for the authorities, the sector may exert influence more or less. You have mentioned the sector’s relative influence on the authorities, which years did you mean? The sector’s activities may be conditionally divided in three stages... Tamar Gurchiani– I would rather assess the status quo, history has never been the subject of my studies. We can easily assess the influence over the authorities by the authorities that we are talking about. It depends more on the authorities than the CSO sector – if the authorities are open, CSOs have more impact and vice versa, when the authorities are strong and bureaucratic, NGOs have less impact. Unfortunately, everything was dependent on the authorities and not the sector. I’d go back to the first question – it is the disadvantage of CSOs that they broke the link with public. Did they really have this link? Tamar Gurchian i– This is the legitimate question and probably a red line of our talk. They did not have a link really. As I have already noted, this is the chief disadvantage of the CSO sector. I would refer to the case of "This Affects You” campaign. CSOs have demonstrated their power when the organizers of the campaign had appealed to people, telling them this was affecting them as well. The process was accompanied by the tools such as social media and traditional media, which have opened their doors and assisted in driving the campaign. Yet, the CSO sector has shown its real force when it discovered people as a body behind its back. It is a paradox indeed that the relations with the people are the weakness and the strength at the same time, and this very factor is linked to the sector’s legitimacy, awareness and other issues. You have mentioned relations with the public as part of the campaign, why do you think it was not and is not possible to always have such relations? Tamar Gurchiani – Before discussing this issue I would like to note that our advantage is the normal liberal not-for-profit legislation and not the legal environment like in Russia for instance. Diversity is also an advantage, which should mean that various social groups must be represented in the CSO sector. Founding CSOs is easy and the number of registered organizations attests to this, however, it is astonishing that in reality the diverse groups are not represented – formally yes, but not factually. Source of the sector's funding may be the reason for this, it's not coming from the people, there is no their contribution there. It comes from international donors, CSO sector became dependent on the assistance, and accordingly whoever funds us, those set up our agenda and we feel responsible towards them. Whereas, where there is no feeling of responsibility, even elementary links vanish. Today the only link between CSOs and the people is established when the CSO sector offers concrete services. For instance, GYLA provides free of charge legal services. In such cases people are not represented or participating in the project, they only receive the service. Briefly saying, you mean the involvement of certain part of the population in the project activities only? Tamar Gurchiani – I mean the situation when the only link that I have mentioned above implies not representation of these people, but when the people are represented as beneficiaries and they are not project participants, when they should be. Citizen participation is what makes the CSO sector different from the bureaucracy, or business. Its interest does not lie in profits or management, but the activities originating from the specific society and based on the public needs. What is the reason for this? Why is the sector unable to find alternative finances to the donors' donations? Is the public attitude decisive as well? We often hear that the CSO sector is a vicious circle, etc. Tamar Gurchiani – Our society is not xenophobic as to dub any kind of assistance as grant-eating and demand from the authorities its prohibition. Yet, international donation is one of the factors facilitating this alienation. Of course we should not blame this on international organizations but we should be grateful to them for their support. This is the problem of CSOs and their wrongdoing – meaning that they manage to alienate from people. Alienation is a serious risk and danger, which we face. This alienation may absorb values that we guard and that are secured by international organizations. That is why all of us must be careful. Because the assistance comes from abroad, the population may think that the initiatives backed by them are forced and illegitimate at the national level. In order for everything to gain legitimacy at national level, CSOs must try their best to have the feeling of ownership emerged among these people and to explain to them that nothing is forced. You think there is such danger and attitude among the population? Tamar Gurchiani – Yes, and these are confirmed by the studies. CSOs are responsible for showing to the public a small division between the local and the global, so that people no longer are skeptic towards international assistance. There is skepticism among the population. Studies carried out as part of the Policy, Advocacy and Civil Society Development in Georgia Project have demonstrated also that awareness is low. We'll be able to talk about the sector's influence after we agree that after all the public knows what the CSO sector is. If the public think that the Labor Party is the CSO sector - and the mentioned study has shown this - then we should not aspire to in-depth discussions. We should view everything in an entire context – latest studies have demonstrated that 80 percent of the Georgian population has a positive attitude towards the European Union. Everything shows that our society is quite open, there is nothing alarming, but this does not mean that tomorrow will be the same. There is a freedom of speech in Georgia and quite many political groups and persons with doubtful education and reputation manage well to manipulate the population and deepen xenophobic feelings. That is why all of us together should be careful, we should not substitute international assistance entirely, but somehow should link to their assistance the population's financial support as well. CSOs must surely start developing the fund-raising strategy, which will be based on donations of concrete individuals. It may be that 2 or 5 GEL donated by each person may not affect the budgets of CSOs that much, but if one organization collects 1,000 persons and receives donations from them for the specific activity – they will thus gain legitimacy and confidence. If the CSO sector does not switch to this mode, the mentality of dependence on the assistance will deepen further, and, let's say so, will become inert and inactive, hence achieving the less effect. After all, international assistance is not an inexhaustible resource also, and in the course of time it will terminate just like in many other countries. Do you think the CSO sector is ready to offer to international and donor organizations the issues that are of concern and interest to public... I am asking this because sometimes they say organizations are unable to have an equal dialogue with international organizations and they have to fit projects to the grant proposals... Tamar Gurchiani – Donors announce priorities based on the study of needs and they are responsible for the relevance of these priorities. CSOs are not proactive to inquire into real needs and in number of cases they prefer fitting to the grant proposals. Yet, it's a different story whether the population is aware of its needs? Or does the CSO sector know what the population needs? This is where we need the sector's pro-activeness and the skill of prioritization. Unfortunately we live in the era where often media determines our needs, and that's why it is possible that the country's President can spend money in Taiwan or elsewhere, while according to the data of UNICEF, every fourth child lives in poverty. For instance, allocation and alienation of the state funds is the state prerogative, we have the right to participate, but do the people participate in this affair, or are their interests taken into account? The population itself is in uncertainty. What do you mean by uncertainty? Tamar Gurchiani – For example, everyone knew how the funds from the President's Reserve Fund were spent. In reality people did not protest. What did the CSOs do apart from providing the information, did they convince the public that this was wrong? Because the interaction between organizations and public is not profound, and many individuals come from the era when person was not asked of anything, processing of the priorities and needs is the responsibility of CSOs, and this is the real work to be done. The issue that you raised, this is a broader problem extending beyond let's say the "limits" of one sector only... Tamar Gurchiani – Of course, CSO sector is a part of the population as well. It has the problem of priorities, while the public has the problem of identification. What I say may not be an absolute truth, some may believe funding the defense sector is a bigger priority, but I believe that education of children, their social protection and so on is more important. Someone should think this over, no? We are at the stage of basic needs. You have mentioned the CSO sector that has a small interaction with the public. Why people themselves do not use this opportunity and set up organizations, through which they would bring their needs and opinions to the authorities at least. The sector, let's say so, is a certain way, means for at least this, why does not all of this happen? Tamar Gurchiani – People view CSOs as service-providers only and expect it to do something concrete for them. This is a wrong perception from the beginning. There is a hypothesis in management that a leader produces leaders. A good manager creates a leader from the subordinate and not a submissive person. The same applies to CSOs - CSO is a good one when it creates other strong players in the sector, and when it teaches how to solve problems. Of course, people should also change this position, become more active and confident. In one of the interviews you mentioned that no authorities needs a strong society and a civil sector. What did you mean? Tamar Gurchiani – We have often heard the rhetoric of various officials about supporting the civil society development, funding it, etc. Non-interference in the affairs of CSOs and non-hindrance is the only support that the state can provide. By non-hindrance I mean the legislation, and as for the development of CSOs, this is not the duty of the state. In reality and in view of the interests of the authorities, they are not all right with active citizens, whereas to the contrary, the state needs strong individuals. No authorities are all right when the citizens are well aware of their rights, demand satisfaction of their interests, and permanently control them. Is this the same in all states, or in the developing countries only, where the democracy is rather fragile? Tamar Gurchiani – How good the authorities are, they will not willingly allow the alternative control mechanisms. Good authorities will not introduce oppressive mechanisms like Russia, but they will not be satisfied either with being under public pressure on a daily basis. I will go back to the previous question and what I meant by non-hindrance - there are numerous issues requiring urgent solution, including the charity-related regulations, which require improvement, and if benefits are introduced, this would create and develop the welfare culture as well. Another issue for example - CSOs have the right to pursue supplementary entrepreneurial activities, but although this a supplementary activity and they do not receive profits, they are still taxed by the common regime. This has to be revised also. Many routine tax issues are to be solved, which we do not pay attention to, but I think we should start working on them. In these very issues I expect the state to play its role, which I already expressed as non-hindrance. Political reality has changed after the elections, and probably international organizations will also change their priorities, what do you think these changes will be about? Tamar Gurchiani – I do not have any information directly, but it is logical if it happens so. For instance, we have a more or less proper election infrastructure, and at this time in Pakistan, where in the recent elections 40 political subjects were killed and violence is a decisive factor in elections, there are larger problems and obviously they require much more assistance. International organizations identify the priorities by these very needs – they go where their assistance is needed the most. If election monitoring goes smoothly in our country, international aid will go to other states, which require more assistance in this respect. Nevertheless, I do not think international organizations will leave the country for all, but funding will be reduced definitely. We should cope with this reduced funding by some mechanism of fund-raising. Organizations will have to address the population and explain to them the importance of funding the CSOs, explain that the sector will work actively so that the Parliament adopts much better laws and decisions, etc. Business is another resource for funding, why do you think partnership between the business and CSOs has failed? Tamar Gurchiani – To say there are no relations would be wrong, business is involved in charity and acknowledges its social responsibility. There are several issues at stake here – is the business free? Or the rules that are established for business, are they public-oriented? I am not saying these rules entirely ignore public interests, but business has its own development stages and the question here is whether the business is at the stage implying high standard of social responsibility. Secondly, business cannot make free decisions unless it is liberated from the state's pressure. Do you believe the business is under pressure? Tamar Gurchiani – Based on what I see, I have an impression that business is seeking the new protector. I know this is a strict assessment. Let's discuss partnership between the authorities and CSOs. At the outset, both the previous and new authorities have invited the sector's representatives to certain councils, and during the previous authorities some organizations were affiliated with the authorities. Is there such a danger today? Tamar Gurchiani – To my surprise, many CSOs are not sensitive to this issue. If you participate in some decision-making, it is natural that you can no longer be an impartial observer of that matter. Yet, our CSOs manage to observe the balance well – on one hand, they receive the information and are involved in the work, and on the other hand, they do not receive funding for participation. That is why they maintain impartiality. What are the three values that the CSO sector should be built on... Tamar Gurchiani – Rule of law, fairness, good faith – observance of ethical standards.

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.