The views expressed in this report are those of the authors of the report
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Open Society Institute – Sofia
or the Trust for Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe.
The authorship of the text is as follows:
Part one
Petya Kabakchieva
Part two
1.1. Petya Kabakchieva
1.2. Desislava Hristova
1.3. Desislava Hristova
1.4. Desislava Hristova
2. Krisztina Arato and Peter Nizak
Part three
1. Desislava Hristova
2.1. Desislava Hristova
2.2. Petya Kabakchieva
OPEN
SOCIETY
INSTITUTE
SOFIA
Trust for Civil Society
in C entral and E astern E urope
CIVIL SOCIETY
IN BULGARIA:
NGOs versus Spontaneous
Civic Activism?
Assoc. Prof. Petya Kabakchieva
Desislava Hristova Kurzydlowski
Bulgarian Report for the Study
Has our dream come true?
Comparative research
of Central and Eastern European
Civil Societies
Grant Number CBI_2009_11
(Civil Europe Association)
Funded by
Trust for Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe
Sofia • 2012
Address:
Open Society Institute – Sofia
1000 Sofia, 56, Solunska str.
Тel.: (+359 2) 930 66 19; Fax: (+359 2) 951 63 48
E-mail: [email protected]
Web OSI-Sofia: www.osi.bg
© 2012 Open Society Institute – Sofia
ISBN 978-954-2933-19-9
Acknowledgements
T
his text presents the results from a comparative research of seven CEE countries, entitled “Has our Dream become true” (2009-2011). The research was
funded by Trust for Civil Society in CEE and organised and co-ordinated by Civil Europe Association, Hungary. The main drivers of the project are Dr. Krisztina Arato
– the leader of the project and Peter Nizak from Hungary – they have developed
the project and are the main contributors for elaborating its theoretical model and
hypotheses – thank you very much Krisztina and Peter for your devotion to the research and to the causes of civic engagement! We are grateful to all the members
of the research team from Czech republic, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia
– all the methodological tools have been defined in close collaboration with them
and their active participation contributed to the final outcomes and structure of the
paper. The quantitative study in Bulgaria was carried out by Alpha Research; thank
you, colleagues for the precise work. The host of the Bulgarian research was OSI-Sofia
and we are very grateful to Veliko Sherbanov and Julia Sotirova for supporting the
organisation of the project. Antoaneta Getova helped us with some of the tables –
thank you, Tony.
And last, but not least we are deeply indebted to all our respondents, who agreed
to share their opinion about the present state of the Bulgarian civil society and who
do care and work for its future enhancement.
We beg the pardon of our Bulgarian readers for the English language of the text,
but, due to the fact that this is a comparative research paper, the working language
of the project was English. The translation in Bulgarian should have lead to re-writing
of the text, but both of us had been already involved in other undertakings. We beg
the pardon from our English speaking readers, too, because English is not our native
language.
Lastly, we decided to publish the text, as it was presented in its final version at
the end of the project, with all its shortcomings, because we are convinced that the
public debates about the future of the Bulgarian civil society are one of the most
important for the future of democracy in our country.
Petya Kabakchieva
and Desislava Hristova Kurzydlowski
September, 2012
5
Table of contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7
Part I.
THE INITIAL DREAM – THE MORAL PATHOS
OF BULGARIAN DISSIDENTS (1988-1989)
1. Introduction: Were There Dissidents
in Communist Bulgaria?
8
8
2. Causes for the Appearance
of “Non-formal” Organizations at the End of the 1980s.
10
3. The “dream” of Zhelyu Zhelev
11
4. What Were the “Non-formal”
Organizations Fighting For?
12
5. Conclusion: the realized, but not accomplished dream –
democracy without democratization
20
Part II.
CONTEMPORARY STATE OF THE BULGARIAN CIVIL SOCIETY
24
1. General Context of Civil Society in Bulgaria:
from Donor-driven NGOs to spontaneous activism?
24
2. Embeddedness of Advocacy CSOs
43
Part III.
SURVEY ANALYSIS
6
49
1. Quantitative analysis
49
2. Qualitative analysis
62
3. General conclusions
and policy recommendations
75
REFERENCES
78
APPENDICES
82
Executive summary
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
This study provides a comprehensive review of the state of civil society in Bulgaria as a derivative of the embeddedness of advocacy function within the citizens. It presents an overview of the various notions and concepts of civil society
in the beginning of the 1990s, its faltering development, challenges, achievements and current state.
The text is divided in three sections, each depicting a specific part of the puzzle: from providing background of the recent research (through an overview of
the dream of civil society), its concepts and historical development then focusing on the state of affairs at present, legal background, challenges in numbers,
impact and funding. Then the study presents and analyses in detail the results
of a representative quantitative survey of public attitude towards civil society
organizations (CSOs) in Bulgaria, as well as of qualitative research of representatives of those organizations in order to shape the present state of development
and provide some overall prognosis on the future of civil society in its advocacy
function in Bulgaria.
The dream of civil society in Bulgaria has been abstract, with primarily political
implications and thus was not sustained as a civil project. This lead to citizens’
alienation and low trust in civil society combined with low level of participation.
Furthermore, NGOs do not manage to fully embody the concept of civil society
and to channel citizens’ needs and demands, which is conducive to their problematic embeddedness. On the other hand, spontaneous grass-root movements
appear in the civil society arena in Bulgaria able to mobilise civic participation
and influence policy changes.
The most serious problems NGOs need to address refer to their dependency on
state financing, lack of embeddedness and inconsistent institutional frame they
are working in.
The most embedded areas for advocacy are children’s rights, rights of disabled,
citizens’ security, social policy, healthcare and education, environment. There
are successful examples of campaigns in these areas. Further efforts to facilitate
CSOs-citizens communication in these sectors are necessary.
There are two trends that characterise the perspective in civil society development in Bulgaria: of changing NGOs and maturing grass-root activism. The
former will act more and more as state allies, the latter – as critical opponents of
the state and advocacy activists.
This study claims that regardless of the seemingly low level of citizens’ involvement in the institutional settings of civil society in Bulgaria, there is a trend in
raising civic activism and sustaining participation when personal motivation is
at stake. There is a shift from massive political campaigns in the beginning of the
1990s to smaller-scale private causes, sparked by personal interest and bonding
small groups together, who act as civil actors.
7
PART I
The Initial Dream – the Moral
Pathos of Bulgarian dissidents
(1988–1989)
Petya Kabakchieva
1. Introduction:
Were There Dissidents in Communist Bulgaria?
I
n referring to “dream” in this text, I mean the causes that Bulgarian dissidents
stood up for in their struggle against the totalitarian authority, and their representations of a desirable social order that would replace the communist regime.
When the topic of “civil society” and “advocacy” are problematized in the text, this will
be pointed out specifically. For the purpose of this analysis, I have used the statutes
of the organizations, the texts of public appeals, recollections of dissidents, recently
conducted interviews with some of these dissidents, and studies of the dissident
movement in Bulgaria. I should point out with regret that such memoirs and studies
are not numerous, as were not the organizations themselves. Incidentally, it may be
assumed that a retrospective view differs considerably from the live impressions 20
and more years ago.
Unlike the other socialist countries, in Bulgaria there were no “outbursts” of resistance to the regime, and the dissident movement appeared relatively late in time.
The causes of this “meekness” are many and varied, and we cannot discuss them here
in detail. We will mention, nevertheless, the intense industrialization and urbanization of the country under the communist regime, Russophile attitudes stemming
from the idea of Russia as the liberator of Bulgaria from Ottoman rule, the tactics
of the authorities to attract and win the support of outstanding figures of the Bulgarian intelligentsia. The Bulgarian Communist Party led a consistent policy of ideological construction of statuses – salaries in the different professional branches were
constantly changed, there were considerable differences in remuneration within
the separate branches, while the most prestigious professions, those of doctors and
teachers, received the lowest salaries during the whole period of communist rule.
In this way, status inconsistency was purposely maintained: the highest paid professions were not prestigious, while the prestigious ones were not well paid. This
status inconsistency impeded the formation of clear group identifications and interests, respectively, of group self-consciousness; hence, this key precondition for the
8
PART I. THE INITIAL DREAM – THE MORAL PATHOS OF BULGARIAN DISSIDENTS (1988–1989)
emergence of civil society was lacking (Kabakchieva 2009). In this sense, the most
vivid demonstrations of civic resistance were sporadic and appeared comparatively
late in time. Raymond Garthoff, the U.S. ambassador to Bulgaria in the 1970s, pointed
out: “In Bulgaria during the 1970s, there was almost no visible political dissidence... The
only self-declared dissident, who barged into the embassy, was obviously mentally unbalanced.” (http://212.39.92.39/e/prosveta/istoria_11/62.html)
Historians, and the participants themselves in the organizations called “informal” at the time and “dissident” at present, are not unanimous in their estimate as
to whether there were or were not any dissidents in Bulgaria. The most outstanding
supporter of the view that Bulgarians had not reconciled themselves to communist
rule is Mihail Nedelchev, who, in his introduction to the Bulgarian section of the International Dictionary of Dissidents, asserts that in Bulgaria, since the very establishment
of communist rule and until its fall there were many different forms of resistance; according to him, one indication of Bulgarians' non-acceptance of this rule is the fact
that there were 450 000 personal files in State Security, files of people considered
dangerous by the authorities (Nedelchev 2001). Dimitar Ludzhev, historian and participant in these organizations in the 1980s, refers with pathos to the “revolution”of
1989 (Ludzhev 2008). Others are more skeptical: with mild irony, Petko Simeonov
calls the strivings of Bulgarian dissidents a “democracy within the kitchen” (Simeonov 1996: 51), tied to “the dream of a free, democratic, and just society” (Ibid).
Evgeniya Ivanova, active participant in dissident organizations in the late 1980s, who
was even arrested then, though briefly, is even more bitterly self-critical: “Most regrettably, our “liberation” came – as ever – from the East. Which is not the Polish or
the Czech or the Hungarian case.” (She is referring to Gorbachev’s “perestroika” – note
PK: Ivanova 2006: 341). For now I will leave this question open and will return to it at
the end of this discussion.
Inasmuch as I am interested in the views of the so-called dissidents that were
publicly declared during the time of the communist regime, I shall not touch upon
the repressions in the late 1940s or the armed resistance, limited in scope, in the early
1950s. Nearly all authors are unanimous that dissidence, defined as an open, publicly
declared anti-communist position, involving, moreover, a vision of some alternative
to the communist order (Zhelyu Zhelev gives such a definition in his book Despite
Everything 2005: 216), appeared only towards the end of the 1980s.
Previous to that, there had been separate cases of criticism of the authorities
coming from certain representatives of the intelligentsia in the late 1960s, cases of
banned artistic works, such as the pointed epigrams of the poet Radoy Ralin, certain plays by Ivan Radoev and other playwrights, certain films; but overall Bulgarian
creative artists confined themselves to an “Aesopian” critical language; there were no
repressions until the 1980s.
9
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
2. Causes for the Appearance
of “Non-formal” Organizations at the End
of the 1980s.
I
should point out that, though the first overt anti-communist dissident actions
started in the late 1980s, the first cases of resistance to the communist power
began in the early 1970s, when the mass renaming of Bulgarian-speaking Muslims
was initiated, a fact that was carefully concealed at the time by the media and is even
now often overlooked by Bulgarian historians. In March 1973 rebellions took place
against the renaming campaign: one vivid example was the village of Kornitsa, Blagoevgrad district, when many people were convicted and interned. Though this cannot be qualified as an act of conscious anti-communist resistance, the people clearly
did not accept the change of their names, and that was the first time that the topic
of human rights and their defence appeared in this country. As we shall see, the first
pointed and openly declared criticism of the regime was focused on the defence of
the freedom of religion and cultural identity.
In the mid 1980s some more serious discontent began to appear against the
communist regime, this time not only among Bulgarian citizens of Muslim persuasion but also among part of the intelligentsia (below I shall discuss the reasons why
this occurred at that particular time) and were responded to with repressions on the
part of the authorities. The measures against the Turks were harsher, including jail
sentences and internment; they were milder for the intellectuals: those of them who
were members of the communist party were excluded from the party; those who
were not were dismissed from work. The first more significant scandal among intellectual circles took place in the autumn of 1987, when at a communist party meeting
in Sofia University, four well-known professors and party-members of long standing
took the liberty of openly speaking out against the communist regime and the leader
of the party, Todor Zhivkov. What followed was immediate expulsion from the party
and dismissal from work. They were expulsed not by the primary party cells of which
they were members, for their colleagues declared support for them; they had to be
expelled by the higher-level organizations. This proved to be the start of comparatively more active resistance of the intelligentsia against the communist authorities
and the appearance of dissident organizations in 1988 and 1989.
The causes of the appearance of comparatively more active resistance in the mid
1980s are connected with an interwoven combination of circumstances:
By that time, with the coming to power of Gorbachev, “glasnost” and “perestroika”
had begun in the Soviet Union. These processes were referred to as a means of legitimization by Bulgarians when criticizing the official authorities here. The Bulgarian state,
having officially subscribed to the Helsinki Agreements, was pressured in 1987 to grant
citizens the right to establish non-formal organizations and to introduce “civil society”
into its official terminology. The government’s declared policy was, in fact, quite ma-
10
PART I. THE INITIAL DREAM – THE MORAL PATHOS OF BULGARIAN DISSIDENTS (1988–1989)
nipulative, for in 1984-85 the state launched a new and terrible act of human rights
violation: the renaming of Bulgarian ethnic Turks. But this took place in the context of
a relatively greater openness of the system to the world; conditions now admitted the
creation of several organizations for defence of human rights. The ecological crisis of
Chernobyl in 1986 was followed by yet another. In 1987 and 1988 chemical plants in
Giurgevo, Rumania, were polluting the air of the Bulgarian town of Ruse, causing diseases among its population, especially children. Environmentalist problems became an
open critical issue. Last but not least, in the early 1980s a serious economic crisis began:
basic commodities were often missing from stores, a regime of restrictions on the use of
electricity was introduced, etc. All these events fuelled the first civic protests and led to
the creation of several dissident organizations, which carried on their activities amidst
constant surveillance and harassment by the secret police.
As the only recognized dissident in Bulgaria was Zhelyu Zhelev, I shall present
his position separately. The other “dreams” had been represented in the statutes and
declarations of different “non-formal organizations” which appeared in the late 1980s,
so I will analyze them in order to reconstruct the dream.
3. The “dream” of Zhelyu Zhelev
T
he only person who can be defined as a dissident of long standing is the philosopher Zhelyu Zhelev, who eventually became President of Bulgaria from August
1990 to 1997. That is why I will briefly present here his biography and his “dream” as it
was expressed in his policy-stating article of 1988. Because of the criticism of MarxismLeninism in his doctoral dissertation, in 1965 he was expelled from the Bulgarian Communist Party, lost his job at the University of Sofia, and was banished from Sofia. Later,
he returned to Sofia and began work in the Institute of Culture in 1975. In 1967 he wrote
the book Fascism, which was published much later, in 1982, and seized from bookstores
immediately after publication. What is curious is that in it the author makes a comparison between the Italian, German, and Spanish fascist regimes but draws no comparison
with communist states, such as was contained in Hannah Arendt’s famous book Totalitarianism; yet the Bulgarian censors believed the hidden analogy would be discerned
by readers... Thus, what was considered at the time to be the most scandalously anticommunist book, in fact contained no visible criticism of the communist regime; it was
prohibited because it might possibly have occurred to some readers that it is critical by
analogy; in other words, not the book itself but the fear of critical public attitudes towards communism was what actually led to its withdrawal from bookstores. In any case,
after the banning of his book, Zhelyu Zhelev came to be perceived as a rebel against
the system and became a guru for others discontented with the regime. That is why in
1988 he became the main initiator of one of the best known dissident organizations in
Bulgaria, the Club for Support of Glasnost and Perestroika1 [Restructuring]. Further
From the Russianwords “glasnost”, meaning “publicity, openness, transparency”, and “perestroika”, meaning “restructuring”.
1
11
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
on I shall discuss the values upheld by this club. Here is what the creed, the “dream”
of Zhelyu Zhelev was, as expressed in his article of July 1988, entitled “The Great
Historical Time of the Intelligentsia”: “The true intelligentsia...has always strived and
will strive passionately for freedom, democracy, publicity, and openness...without a
free, in no way restricted, exchange of opinions, without free movement of ideas and
people, without free access to all the information, without guaranteed publicity of
the results of scientific research and artistic activity, there can be no authentic intelligentsia” (Zhelev 2005: 212). Unless these conditions are present, the intelligentsia
cannot fulfill its main role and its “main social purpose – to be a spiritual leader of
civil society in creating for the latter new ideas and spiritual values” (Ibid). The whole
article represented an appeal to the intelligentsia to stand up to the bureaucracy
(Zhelev claims that the editor-in-chief of the newspaper in which the article appeared
limited himself to removing the attributive “party” before “bureaucracy”); appearing
here is the idea of the values of civil society, which are identical with the values
of the intelligentsia: the freedom of personality is a key value. Unquestionably,
this article was a civic act that clearly declared the values and interests of one group
as opposed to those of another. What troubles me in his reasoning is that it seems to
echo the elitist pretensions of communist ideology: the intelligentsia is looked upon
as the leader of civil society, and the latter seems destined to passively receive from
it the new ideal, the new spiritual values; the intelligentsia is above civil society, not
part of it. This implicit elitism of Bulgarian dissidents subsequently backfired on them
and on the ideology of civil society: the latter was supposed to be “built”, “constructed”,
from the top downwards. Perhaps that was when the trap was first set that led to alienation of people from civic participation, which was perceived not as the personal
choice of citizens but as an alien rhetoric imposed upon them. Zhelyu Zhelev’s thesis
today seems similar to what he upheld more than 20 years ago, yet there is a difference: he now refers to the freedom of the concrete individual, and the earlier elitist
claim seems to have grown more modest: “liberal democracy begins with man, the
separate person, the human individual, the human as a personality, the person who
implements ideas, who gives not only to himself but to society through his work, talent, genius” (Zhelev, interview, archive, 2009).
4. What Were the “Non-formal”
Organizations Fighting For?
I
shall briefly present the first independent civic organizations, established in
1988 and 1989, their most active participants, and their “dreams”. These organizations had difficulties in obtaining official registration, and were therefore known
as non-formal, as the “group of non-formals”. The reader will notice that these organizations had differing profiles and ideologies; hence it is understandable that their
initial “dreams” for the future were also different.
12
PART I. THE INITIAL DREAM – THE MORAL PATHOS OF BULGARIAN DISSIDENTS (1988–1989)
4.1. Independent Association for Defence
of Human Rights (IADHR), 1988. Iliya Minev’s dream
This was the first civic organization created in the time of the Bulgarian communist
regime but independent of the communist party and state. The Association was established on January 16, 1988 in the small Bulgarian town of Septemvri. Its founders were
16 men and women, all of them with strong anti-communist positions, and most of
them former political prisoners, convicted for conducting anti-communist propaganda.
The initiator and the leader of IADHR was Iliya Minev. He was an interesting figure. Born
in 1917, he graduated in industrial chemistry in France and after his return to Bulgaria
became one of the leaders of a youth nationalistic fascist organization, the Union of
Young National Legions. Remaining steadfast in his rejection of communist ideas even
when they became the official state policy, he was sentenced to life imprisonment for
anti-communist propaganda and spent a total of 33 years in various Bulgarian prisons!
Perhaps it is paradoxical that a person with very strong nationalistic leanings eventually became one of the most active defenders of the rights of Bulgarian ethnic Turks
and Roma... Other members of the IADHR were Edward Genov – one of the few Bulgarians to have openly protested against the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and
been imprisoned for that; the priest Blagoy Topuzliev, a fighter for religious rights both
of Christians and Muslims, also a political prisoner. Later, many Turks became activists
of this organization, including Zeynep Ibrahimova, etc. In the summer of 1989 IADHR
membership reached the number of 500. All of them were subjected to severe political
repression, and ultimately all its leaders, with the exception of Iliya Minev, were expelled
from Bulgaria in the spring of 1989. These people were also the first to establish contact
with foreign media, especially Radio Free Europe and Deutsche Welle, and spoke there
of the violation of human rights in Bulgaria, especially of the suppression of the right
to free expression, religion, cultural identity. None of these people was to become part
of the political establishment in Bulgaria after the “gentle revolution” of 1989. It is hard
to give a simple explanation for this; one reason is that most of them never came back
to Bulgaria; a more substantial reason is that they had distinctly stated they stand for
civil organizations, not for political parties; as Iliya Minev put it: “We are not interested
in power, we want to liberate our fellow-citizen from fear. Tomorrow, when society lives
under democracy, we (the civic organizations – m.n. PK) shall be the balancing force
among the parties, and we shall require from the citizens tolerance, legality, and order” (Gadjev 2003). In the programme of the Association, it was clearly indicated that
IADHR intended to remain an independent, above-party organization, so that, through
its newspaper, which it would begin to publish, as well as using other legal and peaceful
means, it would monitor the observance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria, the Penal Code, the Labour Code,
and other relevant legislation.
Part of the dream of these dissidents was to fight fear itself, fear of the state authorities. But the core of the dream was to achieve respect for human rights. In fact, their
13
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
very first public act was to send an appeal, on December 19, 1986, to the Conference on
Security and Co-operation in Europe, held in Vienna. The appeal, signed by Iliya Minev,
Tseko Tsekov, Edward Genov, Stefan Savovski, and Bozhidar Statev, stated: The conference in Vienna must not conclude its work before the most basic human rights are ensured
for all European nations, rights such as that of free movement and emigration, the right of
objective information, and the right of free labour. Until the day comes when every citizen
in Europe shall be able, freely and without fear of persecution, to express his thoughts, opinions, and convictions in written or verbal form, the Helsinki Process will not have justified
the trust invested in it.” They also sent a declaration in which they subscribed to the first
joint document by dissidents from East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and
Rumania on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution, a document appealing for democracy and independence of the countries of Eastern Europe
(htpp://www.decommunization.org).
Similar statements were made by Iliya Minev: “My creed is freedom, democracy, legality... A public figure has a single task: in accepting the state order chosen by the people, to
monitor the non-infringement of freedom of thought, of speech, of religion, and of the party
preferences of the individual...”
In January 1989 the priest Blagoy Topuzliev wrote an open letter to the media in
which he stated the aims of the Association: “...national sovereignty, representative democracy, division of powers, freedom and respect for the individual... My ideal is God’s
kingdom on earth, the antechamber to which is the full and unconditional respect by
all governments for the rights, freedoms and dignity of all human beings, of all of God’s
children...” (htpp://www.ceacbg.com).
Zeynep Ibrahimova, an activist of the IADHR and of the Democratic League for the
Defence of Man (see below) claims in an interview given in 2009 that: “the leaders of
the Independent Association had the courage to taken upon themselves the hard task
of working for the restoration of the violated rights of the forcibly assimilated Pomaks,
Turks, and Roma. ...I want to specially mention the activity of Petar Boyadzhiev, without
whose role as coordinator, the Association would hardly have had the success it did.
He provided information to Western radio stations broadcasting in Bulgarian, organized interviews for Western journalists, ensured our protection through the advocacy of
various international organizations for the protection of the rights of dissidents in the
Socialist Bloc countries” (Obektiv 2009). This was the first time that the notion of advocacy was mentioned; in this case, the power centre to which advocacy was addressed
lay beyond the Bulgarian borders.
4.2. Democratic League for Defence of Human Rights
in Bulgaria (DLDHRB) The Democratic League was founded in November 1988 by Sabri Iskender, Mustafa
Yumer and Ali Ormanlu, all of them political activists fighting against the renaming of
the Bulgarian Turks, and politically repressed by the authorities. The main goal of the
14
PART I. THE INITIAL DREAM – THE MORAL PATHOS OF BULGARIAN DISSIDENTS (1988–1989)
organization was the defence of human rights, especially the rights of minorities, and
freedom of expression. Here is the retrospective assessment of the Programme of the
League, made by one of its leaders Sabri Iskender in an interview in 2009 (he was interviewed by Daniela Gorcheva for the newspaper Mediapool on March 19 of that year):
“the goal set there was: discrimination between people must be abolished, there should
be no discrimination – some are Bulgarians, while others are Turks, Gypsies, which
means second class people... to give people the right to exchange letters with people in
other countries, the right of correspondence”. The Democratic League worked in close
cooperation with the IADHR; the difference between the two organizations was mainly
in the ethnic identifications of its members: most of the members of the DLDHRB were
ethnic Turks. That is why DLDHRB was the main organizer of the mass protests of the
Bulgarian Turks in May 1989 against the cultural and political violence of the Bulgarian
State, which was pushing them at the time to migrate to Turkey. This was the organization with the biggest membership; Petko Simeonov states in his book that in May 1989
the League's membership numbered 10 000 people.
4.3. Public Committee for the Ecological Protection
of the City of Ruse
This committee sprang up as a spontaneous response of empathy on the part of
representatives of the Bulgarian intelligentsia, especially painters, movie makers, writers, for the citizens and children of Ruse, who were suffering from pollution coming
from the chemical plants in Giurgevo, especially in 1987 and 1988. The first to protest,
at the end of 1987, were six mothers from Ruse. Neshka Robeva, MP from Ruse and renowned trainer of the national artistic gymnastics team, supported the protest. There
followed an exhibition on pollution in Ruse, organized by the Union of Bulgarian Artists;
the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party responded by replacing the
leadership of the supposedly autonomous Union of Artists... Moviemakers also backed
the protest and, after the screening on March 8, 1988 of Breathe, a documentary on the
Ruse issue made by movie director Yuri Zhirov, the more than 400 people gathered in
the Home of Cinema issued the following declaration:
1. The chemical plants near Giurgevo must be dismantled.
2. For this purpose, the collaboration of competent international organs should
be sought in order to make an objective assessment of the ecological situation
in the region and to adopt measures for a radical solution to the issue.
3. Data on the ecological state of Ruse should be broadcast in daily bulletins on
Bulgarian television and radio together with the weather report.
4. The solution to the ecological problems of Ruse requires the organic uniting
of public initiatives and state concern. This is why it would be expedient that
the state authorities encourage public initiatives in this direction, including the
creation of a Public Committee for the Ecological Protection of Ruse.
15
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
“To save Ruse is our duty as human beings!”
There is a clear moral pathos in this appeal and it contains no serious political demands
that might have threatened the political power; on the contrary, it is proposed that the committee act jointly with the state. To students today it seems inexplicable how this peaceable and unaggressive declaration could have been perceived as a great political threat
by the communist authorities. The strong response of the Central Committee of the
BCP was symptomatic of its authoritarian style of governance: the communist leaders
found it inadmissible that any citizens should give them advice, even of the meekest
and most reasonable sort, regarding any policy. The declaration provoked an enormous
scandal and resulted in the expulsion from the Communist Party of members of long
standing such as Sonya Bakish, wife of Stanko Todorov, longtime Prime Minister of the
People’s Republic of Bulgaria and still member of Politburo at that time (he resigned
from Politburo in protest against the expulsion of his wife), Georgi Mishev, a well-known
Bulgarian novelist and screen writer, who was the first president of the Ruse Committee,
and some others. Malina Petrova, movie director and organizer of the founding of the
Committee, subsequently had difficulties to subsidize her films, etc. All the well-known
members of the Committee were summoned to the Central Committee of BCP and pressured to leave the Ruse organization; some gave in to the pressuring, others did not. Ultimately, the Committee failed to become institutionalized and was gradually dissolved.
Its most active members refused to reconcile themselves to this and became founders
and members of the next dissident organization, the most popular one of all:
4.4. Club for Support of Glasnost and Restructuring2
The initiator of the creation of this club was the longtime dissident Zhelyu Zhelev;
he was supported in this initiative by his friends, scholars from the Institute of Sociology
of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Culture at the Ministry of Culture, as well as by supporters of the Ruse Committee. In his Memoirs (Simeonov 1996),
Petko Simeonov recalls that Zhelyu Zhelev, having in mind the brutal way in which the
Ruse Committee was dismantled, devised a preliminary strategy for legitimizing and
protecting the new club in such a way that the communist authorities would find it hard
and embarrassing to eventually dismantle it. The strategy was this: among the founders there would be not simply members of the communist party, but party activists of
long standing who had taken part in the anti-fascist resistance movement, who were
very popular and held key positions in society, so that any attack upon them would
provoke a strong response in Bulgarian society and in the West. Thus, of a total of 87
founders of the Club, 48 were members of the BCP, according to Dimitar Ludzhev, one
of the founders and a well-known historian. Among the initiators and founders of the
Club were Blaga Dimitrova, probably the most popular Bulgarian poetess and writer at
that time, whose works were translated in the West,3 the pro-communist poet and par-
16
2
From Russian: glasnost means “transparency”, and perestroika, “restructuring”.
3
John Updike devoted a short story to her, entitled “The Bulgarian Poetess”.
PART I. THE INITIAL DREAM – THE MORAL PATHOS OF BULGARIAN DISSIDENTS (1988–1989)
ticipant in the anti-fascist resistance Hristo Radevski, author of “cult” odes dedicated to
the Party;4 the director of the Institute of Social Management at the Central Committee
of BCP, professor Ivan Nikolov, the well-known Bulgarian sociologist who had worked in
various organs of BCP, professor Chavdar Kyuranov, the notable Bulgarian academicians
Aleksey Sheludko and Kiril Vasilev, popular movie directors, writers, many professors.
The numerous communist party members participating in the Club made it very different from the start from the anti-communist Association for the Protection of Human
Rights; the two organizations never reached an agreement to work together and later
became mutually opposed.
The place where it was founded also indicates the intention that the club would
not be illegal and would be institutionalized: it was founded on November 3, 1988 in
Auditorium 65 of Sofia University after a meeting of the Scientific Communism seminar,
some of those gathered there remained after the end of the seminar in order to found
the Club and sign up as members. It was agreed that the presidency of the Club would
be rotation-based for periods of two months (later the members claimed that the purpose of this was to enable another member to immediately replace a leader in case of
the latter’s arrest). The presidents were elected in the alphabetical order of their names:
Maria Boykikeva (a philosopher), Nikolai Vasilev (a philosopher), Georgi Velichkov (a
writer), Ivan Dzhadzhev (a philosopher), Zhelyu Zhelev (a philosopher), and Nevena
Stefanova (poet and playwright).
The main aim of the Club, according to the Programme Declaration voted on that
same occasion, was: “to discuss publicly, in full openness, the most topical issues and
urgent problems of our society, which directly affect the destiny of our nation, its recent
past, its immediate present, and its visible future. More specifically, the Club will discuss
questions regarding the state of the country’s economy and the living level of the population, the complex and increasingly grave demographic problems, issues related to human rights in our country, the ecological situation and prospects for its improvement,
the rates of transformations, the actual level of glasnost, etc. ” This goal of the Club
was to be achieved “by holding meetings, organizing discussions and meetings with
eminent specialists that are able to competently clarify the problems, with outstanding
Bulgarian intellectuals, public figures, political figures in positions of responsibility in
the state and party apparatus, engaged in solving the problems that interest us” (Ibid).
It is clear that the Club continued the policy of the Ruse Committee for eventual
possible co-operation with the state and party apparatus, and that its objectives were
to take part in politics, i.e. in decision making; its orientation was more pragmatic and
tied to social goals, without insistence on radical change; in this it differed from the
Independent Association for the Protection of Human Rights, which clearly demanded
political change that would guarantee the freedoms and rights of every individual and
genuine division of powers.
Here are some of his “cult” verses addressed to the Party: “I know, I believe, that you are right,
even when you fall into error”; I am tempted to give one more example: “In your severe strictness,
gentle as a mother are you”.
4
17
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
This compromise stance of the Club is also evident in the following paragraph of
the Programme Declaration: “The founders of the Club believe it necessary to explicitly
stress that it will work entirely on the basis of the Constitution of the People’s Republic
of Bulgaria and within its framework, on the basis of the existing legislation, and in full
support for the decisions of the 1987 July Plenum of the CC of BCP, in struggling resolutely for their practical realization.”
The Programme Declaration defined six separate areas of “high national interest” in
which Club members would carry on discussions:
1. On the economic situation;
2. On human rights and civil liberties;
3. On demographic problems;
4. On ecology;
5. On issues pertaining to Bulgarian culture;
6. On the unsolved problems of Bulgarian history.”
Behind these broadly formulated areas were the clear positions held by Club members against the violation of the rights of Bulgarian Muslims, their critical attitude to the
so-called Revival Process (this was the veiled meaning of point 6 – opposition to the
thesis of official Bulgarian historians, who claimed that Muslims in Bulgaria were not
Turks but ethnic Bulgarians who had been converted to Islam); support for the demands
of the dismantled Ruse Committee; a new type of economic policy that demanded the
introduction of market mechanisms, etc.
Despite the protective strategy of the Club, the leadership of the Communist Party
recognized the possible danger of allowing debates on policies related to these important areas and started to pressure the Club members through constant surveillance
and summoning; part of the party members were expelled from the Communist Party
and dismissed from work, some were arrested, though for short periods of time. But
the Club members did not give in and the Club survived. Moreover, it carried on active
work especially in the field of human rights; many of its members gave interviews for
Radio Free Europe and Deutsche Welle. On January 19, 1989 several Club members were
invited to breakfast at the French embassy by the French President François Mitterand,
and commented there on the Bulgarian situation. The activity of the Club acquired international fame and this made it impossible for the communist authorities to deal with
the members more brutally. The other cause of this relative leniency was, as I pointed
out, the Club's comparatively milder critical stance with respect to the regime. The basic
means of critique and resistance were declarations and official statements. Disagreements began between Club members as to whether this should remain a debate club
of intellectuals or it should clearly declare itself as a political organization with claims
for participation in political power; the latter view was upheld by Zhelyu Zhelev and
the sociologist Petko Simeonov. At a meeting held in the beginning of November 1989,
Zhelev declared the political pretensions of the Club in a way that clearly shows the
intention to follow the Hungarian model of Democratic Forum:
18
PART I. THE INITIAL DREAM – THE MORAL PATHOS OF BULGARIAN DISSIDENTS (1988–1989)
“If we want to keep pace with the times and the events occurring inside and outside the country, the first thing we should do is to make the greatest efforts for unification of non-formal civic organizations into a united forum, whatever its name, whether
it be democratic union, democratic front or simply democratic forum.”
After Todor Zhivkov fell from power, this desire for unification of the “non-formals”
was in fact realized on December 14, 1989 with the founding of the first opposition
party in Bulgaria under the name Union of Democratic Forces and with Zhelyu Zhelev
as its first chairman; later he would become the first democratically elected president
of Bulgaria.
But in the spring of 1989 the Club’s lack of a more radical approach to politics led
to the splitting off of some of its younger members into a new organization called Ecoglasnost.
4.5. Independent Association Ecoglasnost
This association was founded on April 11, 1989 and elected the well-known actor
Peter Slabakov as its chairman. It included young people, likewise mostly philosophers,
who would later take an active part in Bulgarian politics in its early stage after 1989:
among them were Aleksander Karakachanov, Krasen Stanchev, Deyan Kyuranov, Dimitrina Petrova, Krasimir Kanev, etc.
Here is an excerpt from the Programme Declaration of the Association: “those who
make strategic decisions, including such in the sphere of ecology, are not those who
suffer the main consequences of the implementation of these decisions. The members
of the public movement Ecoglasnost declare their adherence to the cause of the people
suffering the consequences, in view of the need for ecological self-defence of the population. They are determined to unite their efforts towards a deep-going social-economic
restructuring. They see as their main strategic means in their struggle, the complete
ecological glasnost [= publicity], which is a precondition for democratic public control
over the ecological policy of the country.”
Several points stand out in this programme declaration. First, the members of
Ecoglasnot insist on a more deep-going social-economic restructuring compared
with the members of the Club for Glasnost and Restructuring. Second, this is the first
time that the notions appear that the sufferers of the consequences have a cause,
that the population must protect itself: the elitist pretension of other dissident organizations have been surmounted in this one. That is why the members of Ecoglasnost went into the streets and started petitions for ecological causes among the
population; these were no longer meetings of small numbers of people in enclosed
spaces but an attempt to mobilize large numbers of citizens. That is why the militia seized the collected signatures; some activists of Ecoglasnost were beaten and
briefly arrested. The next event they organized was also on a mass public scale: on
November 3, 1989 they organized a mass procession in the centre of Sofia (according to some sources, 10 000 people took part, according to others, 4000) which ap-
19
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
proached the parliament with seemingly ecological demands; but the main slogan
was “Democracy”. The activists of Ecoglasnost prided themselves that it was their
mass-scale actions, different from the “conspiratorial behaviour” of other organizations, that had contributed to the fall of Todor Zhivkov's regime (Aleksandrieva, L.
and A. Karakachanov 2009).5
All these organizations ultimately influenced the public climate, “infecting” public opinion with an enhanced dose of criticalness towards the communist power,
which became manifest in the exuberant public demonstrations following close
upon Todor Zhivkov’s fall from power.
5. Conclusion: the realized, but not
accomplished dream –
democracy without democratization
A
nd so, the “non-formal” organizations that arose at the end of the 1980s were
unquestionably an expression of a revived, genuine civil society.6 Using the
rather broad definitions of ‘advocacy’ adopted by the research team, these groups
were definitely advocacy organizations as well, for they struggled for social change
Some other “non-formal” organizations arose in 1989, with more specific and concrete goals,
that is why I shall not comment them in detail. Those organizations are: The Committee for the
Protection of Religious Rights, Freedom of Conscience and Spiritual Values. Its main goals
were:
5
1. Respect for the principle of non-intervention of secular organizations and authorities in
religiousmatters.
2. Freedom of religious education for youths and students.
3. Freedom of religious information.
4. Freedom of charity activities of the religious confessions. The right to open hospitals, orphan
homes, and boarding houses.
5. Maintaining peaceful coexistence between different religious confessions.
And the Independent Trade Union “Support” (founded and headed by Dr KonstantinTrenchev), the goal of which was to protect the rights of the employed. This union was an antipode
to the official trade unions and was also strongly involved in the defence of human rights. It is noteworthy that this was the only one of the dissident organizations that survived the changes and still
exists today, under the same leader and with a relatively large membership...
6
They match all the characteristics of civil society in the definition adopted by the research
team: „civil society is the arena, outside the family, the state, and the market, created by public-oriented actions, organizations and institutions to advance shared interests. This broad understanding
includes three potential layers of the concept. First, civil society includes the actors and impacts of
organized interests (NGOs, local community organizations, charity, voluntary, etc., organizations).
Second, part of the civil society is not formally organized but creates collective social actions and
movements. Third, civil society is present at the level of the individual as expressed in active citizenship, volunteering, and participation.”
20
PART I. THE INITIAL DREAM – THE MORAL PATHOS OF BULGARIAN DISSIDENTS (1988–1989)
in the name of the public good.7 But in order to define their dream with greater precision and to determine whether it came true or not, we should look at their concrete
visions regarding social change. In this perspective we can distinguish at least two
types of organizations with different goals and different profiles.
5.1. The forgotten non-elite “dreamers”
The goals of IADHR and DLDHRB were to bring about a change of the social order
towards individual freedom and guaranteed respect for all rights of the individual, as
well as a radical change of the communist regime in the direction of democracy. The
members of these two organizations were mostly from the province; those of DLDHRB
were predominantly Turks; the people in IADHR did not conceal their anti-communist
orientation. These organizations had relatively clear political aims but had no pretension or striving to take a more active part in politics, and did not wish to form as parties but insisted on remaining a civic corrective to how politics was done. They did not
define themselves as an elite and sought no contacts with the political elite either before or after 1989; many of their members left Bulgaria. That is why after the change
in November 1989 they gradually became marginalized and now very few people and
historians write about them or remember them. The leader of IADHR Iliya Minev died
poor and forgotten in 2000. The political capital of DLDHRB was “expropriated” by the
party Movement for Rights and Freedoms, but none of the leaders of DLDHRB is now
taking part in political life.
Did their dream come true? As regards the respect for basic human rights, including religious and cultural self-determination, yes, it did. As regards the achievement of
a working democracy, judging by the data from the European Values Study (2008), no, it
didn’t: for 87% of the respondents are dissatisfied with the way democracy is developing in our country (35% are strongly dissatisfied). Their dream that there should be civic
organizations playing the role of an influential corrective to the political parties also
failed to materialize, judging by the CIVICUS survey and by the survey conducted as part
of the present project. In the statements of the few members of these organizations
who still occasionally take part in public life, there is clearly evident disappointment
with the way democracy happened in our country. For instance Ms. Ibrahimova, one of
the activists of those organizations, feels that “Although a multi-party system exists and
citizens vote freely, the thinking minority, committed to the problems of the country
has been pushed out of public and political life thanks to the easily manipulated majority. The winners are those who hold power and money.”
7
The definitions of advocacy, adopted by the team, are the following: “[e]very activity that focuses on changing policies or securingcollectivegoodscan be called an advocacy function (Jenkins
1987: 297). According to another, moredetaileddefinition, advocacy comprises all activities that
“push for changes in government policy or in societalconditions”, “serve as a link between individuals and the broader political process, ... bring group concerns to broader public attention and ...
push for policy or broader social change, not only on behalf of those belonging to a group but also
on behalf of the general public” (Salamon et al. 2000: 6).
21
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
5.2. From civic activism to political participation –
the “successful” dreamers
The goals of CSGP and IAE were not so radical as regards a change of social order; they also demanded greater democracy and respect for human rights, but were
mainly focused on achieving greater ‘glasnost’ [= publicity] and ‘perestroyka’ [= restructuring]. Despite their written programme declarations, their views on the future
organization of society were rather abstract. The membership of these organizations
included representatives of the intellectual elite of Sofia, and many of them were
members of the Bulgarian Communist Party. A large part of the members clearly declared they wanted to take part in the processes of decision making, i.e. from the very
start, the ambitions of this portion of dissidents were political in the narrow sense,
i.e. they wanted to take part in the governance of the country; so it is not accidental
that they became the founders of the first opposition party, the Union of Democratic
Forces, and active participants in the political life of the country in the first years of
the so-called transition. The dissidents in these organizations definitely had a greater
political influence on Bulgarian political life, firstly, because of their fame as professionals and the connections of some of them with the communist elite of Bulgaria;
secondly, because, living in Sofia, they were more publicly visible; thirdly, because
their demands were milder; and fourthly, precisely because civic action for them was
a road to entering politics. Those of them who did not wish to occupy themselves
with party politics became active participants in civil society in our country, but they
gradually withdrew into their separate professional spheres.
Did their dream come true? The answer to this question given by the dissidents
themselves who took part in these groups is not a simple one as it was for the first category that I have distinguished. Most of them are successful professionals now too,
as they were in the past, and they have found their place in society. In the memoirs
that some of them have published there is no expressed feeling of disappointment
with what has been achieved. Zhelyu Zhelev claims in his book and in interviews he
has given, that the basic aims for which they strove, democracy and market economy,
have been attained, as well as accession to the European Union (this last was never
originally a goal of the dissidents. But probably it is now perceived as a sign that we
have become a “normal” state8).
Nevertheless, there is clearly some problem with the democratization of the
country, for the surveys I mentioned indicate great disappointment in people with
democracy, and show the lack of (an) active, strong civil society; moreover, people do
not believe in the power of civic action. The causes for the present situation are many
and varied. One of them, I believe, stems from the fact that the dissidents themselves, those who were eager for change, despite all their differences, had one com8
These goals were retrospectively formulated in a similar way in 2009 by Alexander Lilov, an
ideologue of long-standing of the Bulgarian Communist Party; he also asserts that they have been
achieved.
22
PART I. THE INITIAL DREAM – THE MORAL PATHOS OF BULGARIAN DISSIDENTS (1988–1989)
mon characteristic: they were abstract dreamers, humanists fighting for human freedom and dignity, and far from pragmatic, “mundane” strategies. “The non-formals”,
writes Petko Simeonov, set an “ethical measure of behaviour for Bulgarian society”
(Simeonov 1998: 662). It eventually became clear that, alas, moral behaviour was not
enough to bring about radical change; it “uncorked” the energy of society, but later
proved helpless in the face of economic pragmatism. While the dissident dreamers
were fighting for human rights and dignity, other, much more pragmatically minded
strategists were tracing the future development of the country. But the latter should
be the topic of a different study and a different text.
Were the dreams of dissidents embedded in society? Taking in mind the fact that
the dreams had been quite abstract as well as the wide spread political enthusiasm
after the fall of Todor Zhivkov, the political change had been desired by all. But recent
surveys show that people are heavily disappointed by the functioning of democracy
now. So, the dream materialized in establishing democratic institutions, but not in
democratization of society as culture and practices.
23
PART II
Contemporary State
of the Bulgarian Civil Society
1. General Context
of Civil Society in Bulgaria:
from Donor-driven NGOs to spontaneous
activism?
Petya Kabakchieva
T
he development of civil society in Bulgaria has been a faltering experience.
The resurgence of the concept is a contemporary phenomenon, subscribed
mainly to the post-communist realities. However, (according to) various researchers, the origin of civil society in Bulgaria can be recognized in authentic forms of
civic activity in the mid 19-century cultural community centres – the so – called “chitalishta” (Gavrilova, Elenkov 1992). After the liberation from the Ottoman Empire in
1878, different types of civic organizations appeared, most popular of them being
the women’s organizations, charity and professional organization, and trade unions.
Then during the inter-war period was characterized by a clash between two tendencies – struggle for autonomy of the organizations and attempts of the state to put
them under its control. In 1934 a Legal Act on State Supervision on Associations was
issued, which declared a strong state control over civic organizations. This tendency
reached its peak during communist period (1944 -1989) when the party- state controlled every activity and created quasi-civic organizations, most of them with obligatory membership. The total monopolization of the state over economy, property,
policy and society with the mimetic existence of “civic activities” and over-centralization of decision-making and power is the legacy to transform in the 1989 when the
previous regime collapsed.
Here we shall briefly outline the development of civil society in the recent 20
years, starting with its re-birth in late 80s and continuing with its peaks in the years
after “velvet” revolution in 1989. Hereby we briefly present the constructed by our
team categorization of the main stages in the development of the Bulgarian civil
society.
24
PA R T I I . CO NT E M P O R A RY S TAT E O F T H E B ULG A RI A N C I VI L S O C I E T Y
1.1. Stages in Development in Civil Society in Bulgaria
► The rebirth of the Bulgarian civil society: 1988-1989
The rebirth of the civil society in Bulgaria after about of 50 years quasi existence
of state governed “civic organizations” was in 1988 with the appearance of the first authentic civil organizations, dedicated to defend human rights, already commented in
part one. As we wrote, the main reasons for the resurgence of the concept in Bulgaria
are complex: the processes of “glasnost” and “perestroika” started in the USSR in mid
80s – since Gorbachov’s turn over; the renaming of the Bulgarian ethnic Turks in 1984,
being a terrible act of violation of human rights; the ecological problems in late 80s.
These instances mobilized civic energy and fueled together the appearance of the first
dissident civic organizations with the first protests, which though not a critical mass,
still deserve mentioning as being the first appearance against communist power.
The names of those organizations clearly show their basic objectives: Independent Association for Defence of Human Rights (founder Iliya Minev); Public Committee
for Ecological Defence of Rousse; Club for Support of Glasnost (from Russian - the
word “glasnost” meaning “transparency”) and Perestroika (founder and leader was
the future Bulgarian president Zhelyu Zhelev, “perestroika” means “transformation”);
Democratic League for Defence of Human Rights in Bulgaria (lead by Sabri Iskander);
Independent Trade Union “Support” (founded and lead by Dr Konstantin Trenchev);
Independent Association Ecoglasnost. The key issues for these organisations were
“defence of human rights” and establishing such democratic mechanisms, which
could guarantee those human rights. Therefore, we can conclude that the initial
dream of the first Bulgarian civic activists at the late 80s had been advocacy, in
the wide understanding of advocacy, accepted by the team, and they organized
several international advocacy campaigns. On December 4th 1989 they formed
the first Bulgarian anti-communist political opposition coalition - Union of Democratic Forces, led by Zhelyu Zhelev (the president of Bulgaria: 1990-1997) and thus
they lost their civic image, starting to pursue political power. The peak of enormous
civic activity in Bulgaria was in the early 90s when large numbers of people went to
squares, defending their right of freedom and human dignity.
► The “gentle” anti-communist revolutions: late 1989-1990
This was the period of the largest outbursts of civic protests against the communist government – Bulgarian Socialist Party (ex-communist) won the first free
elections in 1990. This period could be named the period of “square” participatory
democracy – thousands of people went to central squares of Sofia and other large
towns in Bulgaria in order to defend their ideological values – either right or left. In
the central areas of the capital Sofia, a “City of Truth” had been established for several months, where people lived in tents, calling for the Communist government to
resign; students also were supportive of this cause, and occupied largest and oldest
25
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
Bulgarian university – the Sofia University. This period ended with success for the
protesting people – the Communist government resigned.
► The institutionalization of NGO sector: 1992-1996
According to various social surveys the peak in registration of largest numbers of
different NGOs is in this period – some of the researchers state that the peak is in 1992,
others in 1993, third – in 1995 and 1996 (Kabakchieva 2001: 169). Unfortunately, the
database of the registered NGOs does not provide numbers in its best and the public
registry was only founded in 2001 when the new legislation was introduced. What is
important to highlight, however, is that in those years the process of institutionalization of many NGOs has begun; and the NGO sector has become visible (in media and
sociological surveys) after 1995. In 1995, the program PHARE for the development of
civil society started and it triggered further the process of founding NGOs in 1995 and
1996 – the NGO sector began to construct itself as foreign donors’ projects.
► The civic revolution – the overthrow
of the third Communist government: January – February 1997
In 1995, Bulgarian Socialist Party won the elections again. At the end of 1996, the
banking system bankrupted. The average salary became 7 $ per month. This tragic
situation lead to enormous protests against the Communist Government. In contrast
to the protests in 1990, which united a lot of different people, in January 1997 the
protesters declared their group identity – the students (their slogan being “We are
the students, we are not afraid”); the doctors; the university professors; the teachers; the representatives of UDF party etc. The protests had been very picturesque,
artistic, although the tension had been enormous with a lot of policemen waiting for
an attack command. At the end of the day the future premier from the BSP was wise
enough to return the mandate and to agree to new elections.
► The “normalization” period: 1998-2006
This period was a period of political and economic “normalization” in the sense
of achieving the criteria for acceptance in the EU. The institutionalization of many
NGOs continued, many projects had been developed, sporadic protests on specific
issues appeared.
► The diversified activities within the arena of civil society
following the EU accession. Internet as mobilizing force
and forum of Civil Society: 2007 – ongoing
This period is characterised by the strikes of specific groups, defending their
specific interests – like teachers (2008), farmers (2008, 2009), ecologists (constant),
26
PA R T I I . CO NT E M P O R A RY S TAT E O F T H E B ULG A RI A N C I VI L S O C I E T Y
students (2009) – it looks like that there is no more opportunity of mobilizing a lot
of people for a common cause – there was such attempt in January 2009, but only
1000 people gathered. The most successful protests (those of the “greens”) combine different types of civic actions – demonstrations, petitions on every level,
including the level of the EU, expert evaluations, and constant debate on internet
forums. That is why we call this period the period of diversified civic actions. Another important characteristic of this period is the growing role of internet forums
for critical debate and mobilization of civic activities. For example, the consumers
share information on what to buy from whom and from whom not to buy, and thus
they can limit the activity of a certain company and defend their consumer rights.
To what degree this virtual engagement is a powerful civil factor, or (whether) is
it about to become one, is an interesting trend to follow concerning civil society
development.
1.2. Twenty two years after:
the state of affairs of civil society in Bulgaria
Desislava Hristova
The complexity of transition of Central and Eastern Europe lies in the simultaneity and depth of transformation combined with the various international factors. In
addition, society in Bulgaria is characterized by catching up modernization and compensatory mechanisms of development (Kabakchieva 2001; Dimitrov 1995). These
have direct consequences to the development of civil society as an ingredient of
change and democratic consolidation in Bulgaria. Civil society was the essence of
transformation in the early 1990s as main channel of alternative ideas, critique, democratic ideas of good governance and expertise.
► Trust in the others, trust in institutions, political participation
CIVICUS data from the Civil Society Index project9 reaffirms the findings of the
European Values Survey 2008 of widely spread distrust among Bulgarians both to
each other and to the major institutions in the country. According to the CIVICUS
representative survey when asked whether most people can be trusted, 70% of the
respondents think they need to be very careful. This trend is evidenced with very low
level of trust in institutions of representative democracy such as parliament, public
administration, government, judiciary, political parties and police.
9
Open Society Institute – Sofia (OSI-S) data on Civil Society Index, CIVICUS, surveys conducted
February-April 2009.
27
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
Data from EVS from 2008 shows that Bulgarian society is very atomized and fragmented, with very low trust to the others as well as to the institutions:
Table 1. Trust in others
Total
Sample
Generally speaking, would you say
that most people can be trusted or
that you need to be very careful in
dealing with people?
1500
Most people can be trusted
17.0%
Need to be very careful
79.4%
Do not know
2.9%
No answer
0.7%
Sample: all respondents, EVS, 2008.
Most of the respondents state that people take care for themselves not for the
others – the mean evaluation is 3.44 out of 10. More than 50 5 of people are interested in politics, but 87% are disappointed by the functioning of democracy in Bulgaria.
What they want most is more order in society and only 19.5 demand more citizens
participation in the decision making process. The less trusted institutions are political parties, the parliament and the government; the most trusted are those which are
“outside” the Bulgarian society – the EU, UN, the Church.
CIVICUS data from the Civil Society Index project10 reaffirms the findings of the
European Values Survey 2008 of widely spread distrust among Bulgarians both to
each other and to the major institutions in the country. According to the CIVICUS
representative survey when asked whether most people can be trusted, 70% of the
respondents think they need to be very careful. This trend is evidenced with very low
level of trust in institutions of representative democracy such as parliament, public
administration, government, judiciary, political parties and police.
According to the EVS 2008, 81.5% of the population has not participated in any
organization, while 86.9% have not participated in any voluntary activities. Here is
the data about respondents’ participation in different forms of political activities.
Table 2.
Would you consider taking part in the following forms of political activity?
Total
1500
Sample
Take part
Signing a petition
8.8%
Would like to take part
26.4%
Will never take part
53.2%
Do not know
10.3%
No answer
1.4%
10
Open Society Institute – Sofia (OSI-S) data on Civil Society Index, CIVICUS, surveys conducted
February-April 2009.
28
PA R T I I . CO NT E M P O R A RY S TAT E O F T H E B ULG A RI A N C I VI L S O C I E T Y
Take part
Joining in boycott
Would like to take part
16.0%
Will never take part
69.2%
Do not know
9.9%
No answer
2.3%
Take part
7.5%
Would like to take part
Attending peaceful demonstrations Will never take part
Occupation of factories or other
buildings
31.3%
50.9%
Do not know
8.7%
No answer
1.6%
Take part
Attending unofficial strikes
2.6%
3.1%
Would like to take part
15.1%
Will never take part
71.0%
Do not know
8.7%
No answer
2.1%
Take part
0.7%
Would like to take part
8.2%
Will never take part
80.2%
Do not know
8.6%
No answer
2.3%
Sample: all respondents, EVS, 2008.
► Participation in civic activities and trust in civil society and NGOs
The table below shows that the participation in civic organizations is very low.
Table 3.
Do you take part in any organisation or activity?
Total
1500
Sample
Social hospices for elderly, disabled or vulnerable groups
Religious or church organizations
Art, music, educational or cultural
activities
YES
NO
Do not know
No answer
YES
NO
No answer
YES
NO
No answer
1.4%
98.0%
0.1%
0.5%
1.3%
98.4%
0.4%
4.8%
94.8%
0.3%
29
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
Trade unions
Political parties or groups
Local communities actions fighting poverty, employment, housing
conditions, minorities’ rights
Humanitarian relief or human
rights
Preservation of the architectural
heritage, protection of the environment, animal rights
Professional unions
Work with youth groups
Sport and recreation
Women movements
Peace movements
Voluntary health organizations
Other groups
None
Sample: all respondents, EVS, 2008.
30
YES
NO
No answer
YES
NO
No answer
YES
NO
Do not know
No answer
YES
NO
Do not know
No answer
YES
NO
Do not know
No answer
YES
NO
Do not know
No answer
YES
NO
No answer
YES
NO
No answer
YES
NO
Do not know
No answer
YES
NO
Do not know
No answer
YES
NO
Do not know
No answer
YES
NO
No answer
YES
NO
5.0%
94.5%
0.5%
4.0%
95.6%
0.4%
0.9%
98.2%
0.1%
0.8%
0.4%
98.9%
0.3%
0.5%
1,9%
97.6%
0.1%
0.5%
3.6%
95.9%
0.1%
0.3%
1.5%
98.0%
0.5%
4.3%
95.3%
0.3%
0.9%
98.6%
0.1%
0.5%
0.4%
99.0%
0.2%
0.5%
0.9%
98.6%
0.0%
0.4%
1.6%
97.5%
0.9%
81.5%
18.5%
PA R T I I . CO NT E M P O R A RY S TAT E O F T H E B ULG A RI A N C I VI L S O C I E T Y
Based on the CIVICUS data more than 67% of the respondents have not taken
part in any of the actions activities or organisations. Besides, only 13.1% of the population has taken part in an NGO/civic association in the last 5 years. These findings
show low levels of civic engagement combined with low interpersonal and public
trust which is conducive to fragile societal relations and inability to sustain social
solidarity. Lack of sustainable societal connections and low trust combined with low
levels of civic engagement and participation in civic and voluntary activities hinders
the process of building social capital and of developing civil society (Putnam 1993).
Citizens are believed to prefer informal ways of participation, driven by personal interest and concern rather than the common good.
Citizens in general are shaken in their trust in the civic sector which is understood as the space where primarily NGOs operate. Overall, data show(s) that they
have relative trust in civil society, but are not active with regard to various citizen
initiatives. Their action potential lies with their personal motivation to solve a specific problem and achieve results in tackling the challenges faced. On the other hand,
NGOs are in a state of transition from the initial accumulation of experience and resources (provided mainly by external donors and EU) to their present establishment
as the legitimate representatives of citizen interests. This is situation is “transitional,”
because, on the one hand, the organisations have gained sufficient experience in the
last 20 years, but on the other, they do not enjoy the citizens’ trust.
Non-governmental organisations have still not succeeded in establishing themselves as a strategic and sustainable player in society. Today, the image of civil society
is of a weak, fragmented and unconsolidated arena. There are various reasons and
consequences to this, identified by various reports and studies:
● Civil society is a top-down and donor driven exercise with import of foreign
models leading to a mixed profile (Balkan Assist, UNDP, BCNL, Gancheva
2007).
● NGOs have more of a project oriented profile lacking the structural links and
sustainable internal communication combined with low capacity to influence policies (Gancheva 2007).
● There are evident discrepancies between the NGOs activities and citizens’
needs. The NGO sector is perceived as institutionally closed within itself and
there are serious information and communication gaps in the NGOs activities that lead to the negative image of the NGOs as a whole (Market Links
2005).
● One of the most radical views is that the NGO sector is unable to empower
the citizens (Balkan Assist 2006; OSI-Sofia 2011). The lack of direct communication citizens – organizations leave the citizens out of “civil society” and
obstruct grassroots activities.
● Financial and organisational sustainability issues raise questions about the
NGOs capacity to withstand their role in society (Dainov 2008).
31
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
● There are cases of conflict of interests worsening civil society image by rentseeking issues.
● Despite the recent positive developments in advocacy capacity and inclusion in the process of decision- and policy-making, the issues are still on the
agenda (Dainov 2008).
● Despite having developed over 200 national strategies in a variety of fields,
Bulgaria has recently embarked on developing official strategy towards civil
society. This results in arbitrariness of various state institution approach for
involving CSOs in decision making and providing funding to them (NGO
Sustainability Index 2011).
● The so-described negative trends have their counterbalance in the growing
number of grass-root initiatives able to mobilise and sustain civic interest
and energy, focused mainly on areas, where most of the challenges in public
policies occur.
The strengths of the Bulgarian NGO sector can be seen through its relatively
stable organizational profile; however, its image is influenced by the various negative
events on funding or unpopular activities combined with inadequate marketing. The
aggregated data of the CIVICUS Civil Society Index survey show that the civil society
sector in Bulgaria practice internal democratic decision-making and management
combined with highly perceived transparency of the sector and comparatively stable internal and peer-to-peer communication. However, the human recourses and
international linkages are faltering and unsustainable. The level of influence the NGO
exercise is instable and limited. Though the impact on social concerns and responsiveness is estimated as being low, the organisations themselves evaluate positively
the ability of the NGOs in general to influence and advocate policies.
According to the CIVICUS data, 47.5% of the respondents state that they have
trust in civil society, but 18.1% of the respondents think that there is no authentic
civil society. The (question of interest) is how they view civil society in Bulgaria: to
the question which organisations they consider legitimate, considerable share of the
respondents did not provide an answer (39.3%), whereas others (11.8%) clearly declared that they were not aware of any such organisation. Overall, more than half of
interviewees were hesitant, were not aware of, or could not think of any civil society
organisation. Further one tenth said they trusted none of these organisations without any indication whether they knew of any or they just responded negatively given
the Bulgarians’ distrust in public institutions and other organisations that had been
observed on various occasions. There were also voices that there was no civil society
in the country: ‘I am not quite sure what civil society means’; ‘...there is class society
and ethnic society, but not a civil one.11
11
Data analysed by Svetlana Avramova, Sociologist, Open Society Institute – Sofia for CIVICUS
Civil Society Index.
32
PA R T I I . CO NT E M P O R A RY S TAT E O F T H E B ULG A RI A N C I VI L S O C I E T Y
► Charity and donations
Contrary to any skepticism about charity in Bulgaria, the good news for the sector is
that the levels of donation are comparable to those for other Central and Eastern European countries. Regarding charity for 2009, business makes about 70% of all donations,
indicating a positive development of corporate social responsibility. In 2008, companies
and citizens in Bulgaria donated some 20 million Euro, and in 2007 at least 15 million
Euro, which is 15% more than 2006. Half of Bulgarians and over 65% of companies make
donations, and this percentage is constantly increasing.12 For 2009, over 45 million leva
(€22,500,000) was donated through various campaigns, which sustains the trend, though
with some limitations due to the financial crisis (Bulgarian Donors Forum 2010).
Studies conducted by the Bulgarian Charities Aid Foundation since 2002, as well
as by the Bulgarian Donors Forum in the last two years show that private charity is
on the rise. Donors are primarily corporations and companies, various organisations,
which allocate grants to encourage donation, natural persons. One positive trend is
corporate social responsibility, as well as the possibility for payroll donations. Statistical data are collected using mobile operators’ proceeds from text message campaigns, bank accounts of specific causes, NGO and company tax returns, as well as
citizens’ income-tax forms.13
Text-campaigns have proven as a sustainable fund-raising mechanism. Until recently there were issues with VAT on charity texts, which have been legislatively resolved and are expected to further facilitate the donations. Data from the Bulgarian
Donors Forum shows that the DMS (Donor messaging service) has accumulated 250
000 texts (each 1,20 leva) for 2009 and 750 00 for 2010. Various surveys (MBMD 2008;
OSI-Sofia 2009-2010; Gallup/Klassa daily 2011) have published data demonstrating
that the public prefers text-donations as a main tool of fund-raising. Most of the individual donations are through texts. They are channelled to campaigns for children
with disabilities, in institutions or in a need of a specific hospital treatment.
1.3. NGO Sector
Desislava Hristova
► Number of NGOs
Civil society in Bulgaria is primarily, but still incorrectly, recognized through the
NGOs. That is why here we shall give data related to Bulgarian NGOs. The Bulgarian
NGO sector is young and dynamic, which means it has both the potential for development and the downsides of lack of sustainability, trust and impact. Almost all of
the NGOs have been founded after 1989 (96%), resulting in more 30 000 in 2009.
12
Vessela Gercheva, The Frustrating Flirt between Government and Charity [Неприятният
флирт между държавата и благотворителността], 19 February 2008.
13
Data on the issue of charity gathered for a case-study carried out from Dessislava Hristova,
OSI-S for CIVICUS Civil Society Index.
33
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
Table 4. Number of organisations in Bulgaria14
2007
2009 (January) – 2010
Total number
26 696 (including trade
unions, community
centres and religious
associations, according
to National Register)
34 236 (including trade
unions, community
centres and religious
associations, according
to National Register)
Associations
-
24 465 (also including
sports club registered
as associations)
Foundations
-
5177 (17%)
In Public benefit
-
6809
Community
centres
-
3779
2011 (NGO Sustainability Index)15
34 000 (excluding trade
unions, community
centres and religious
associations)
9000
This growth in numbers, however, is not linked to growth in sustainability. The
numbers in late 2010 is estimated to be more than 33,000 registered under the Nonprofit Legal Entities Act alone, whereas 8,000 have public benefit status. According
to the Bulgarian Center for Non-Profit Law only 4,000 altogether submit reports to
the National Statistical Institute, and around 4,000-5,000 are considered somewhat
active, with 1,000 estimated to be permanently engaged in activity. There is no actual and statistically coherent and correct information about the civil society sector
in Bulgaria. There is no universal classification of activities or official database. The
organizational sample of the CIVICUS Civil Society Index provides further evidence
for that as it resulted in 40% organisations being practically non-existent in real out
of 200 organizations’ sample. The lack of reliable public data makes it difficult to provide a general estimate.
According to the BCNL study as part of the NGO Sustainability Index 2011, There
are over 34,000 registered CSOs in Bulgaria. Over 9,000 of these act in public benefit.
It is estimated that 70 percent of the organizations managed completed the registration process in 2011 as compared to the levels in 2008, a decrease of almost 680
CSOs.
14
According to data from the Bulgarian Center for Non-profit law from November 2012, there
are more than 35 000 registered organisations, 9900 in public benefit. 10 695 of the NGOs submit annual reports to the National statistics. The employees in the NGO sector are estimated to be
20 360, with 72 527 volunteers.
15
Bulgarian Center for Non-profit Law: http://www.bcnl.org/bg/articles/1070-%D0%B8%
D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81-%D0%B7%D0%B0-%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%
D0%BE%D0%B9%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%BF%D0%BE-2011-%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%
D1%8F.html
NGO Sustainability Index 2011: http://transition.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/dem_
gov/ngoindex/
34
PA R T I I . CO NT E M P O R A RY S TAT E O F T H E B ULG A RI A N C I VI L S O C I E T Y
► Legal Background
The Bulgarian Constitution guarantees the Right of Association through Article
44 that “Citizens shall be free to associate” as long as they do not act to the detriment of country’s sovereignty, national integrity or unity of the nation and do not
incite racial, national, ethnic or religious enmity or an encroachment on the rights
and freedoms of the other citizens. Following the legislative changes in 2001, when
the Non-Profit Legal Entities Act was introduced, the legislative environment is perceived as relatively enabling and favourable to the development of the non-profit
sector in Bulgaria. In general, the NGO law in Bulgaria provides sufficient freedom
for NGOs. This specifies the registration procedure of non-profit legal entities, the respective rules for their termination, management and relationship with the state. Under this law two main forms of NGOs in Bulgaria are recognized: Associations that are
membership-based and Foundations that are property-based organizations. Each of
them could be registered either as a public benefit or as a private benefit organization. The registration process is perceived as sufficiently fast and enabling. The law
lays the foundations of the non-profit sector in Bulgaria, mainly dividing the entities
in public and private benefit. The public benefit organisations are required to submit
annually financial information to the Public registry in the Ministry of Justice with
the aim of transparency and accountability of the organisations in public benefit.
However, there are problems with implementation of the measures relating to the
Central Registry of Public Benefit Organizations resulting in actual inadequacy of the
registry. The information is not regularly updated, nor it is user-friendly to navigate
and gather data on the financial resources or types and numbers of the organisations
in public benefit.
The legislation allows the conducting of profit activities of the associations and
foundations if so stated in the Articles of Association. The non-profit entities enjoy
tax exemption from taxes about their non-profit activities. The sources of income
include individual and corporate donations, members’ fees and project funds, fundraising campaigns and grants. In addition, the non-profit entities’ bank accounts and
interest rates (on the no-profit activities accounts) are subject to the same regulations as individuals, which results in no taxes on the bank accounts. Individual and
corporate donors enjoy a lax tax regime. The individual donors can have up to 5%
discount of their annual taxes. If it is a corporate donation, it is up to 10% discount
of the profit accounts.
The profit accounts however do not have any preferences and regulations as to
business entities apply, i.e. the 10% corporate tax. The profit and non-profit activities
have separate accounts balance. The position of experts is that further elaboration
of the distinction between profit and non-profit activities is necessary to avoid any
confusion on the matter.
The non-profit entities are obliged to submit an activity report to the National
Statistical Institute and a tax account declaration to the National Revenue Agency
up to March 31st. In addition, the Local Taxes and Fees law stipulates that non-profit
35
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
public benefit entities are exempt from local taxes on the donations and of paying
inheritance taxes. Fundraising campaigns do not entail VAT and recent amendments
in 2012 allowed to further stimulate text messaging campaigns.
The Non-Profit Legal Entities Act limits the types of activities of the non-profit
entities only in two cases – the political sphere and healthcare. This means that the
NGOs cannot conduct activities in the political realm and in the healthcare. The NGOs
are accountable to the Minister of Justice through annual and current monitoring
of the activities. However, this mechanism is not working in practice, which is conducive to less transparency of the NGOs. More specifically, the Bulgarian Center for
Non-profit Law (one of the leading advocacy NGOs in Bulgaria especially concerning
legislation) states in a recent position that the current non-profit legislation does not
provide clear-cut and transparent procurement mechanisms for funding to the NGOs
from the municipalities and the government. There are still issues with the state finance as being equal to state dependence. There is a certain amount of funding to
the NGOs in public benefit available from the State budget; however, there are no
transparent legislative mechanisms how it is allocated.
There are on-going legislative and administrative impediments regarding the
accountability and relevance of the public information about the NGOs. There is no
clear and uniform codification of the various forms of civic participation in drafting,
decision- and policy-making. There is no specific legal environment for advocacy to
enable the process. The current Legal Acts Law that regulates the consultation process in drafting from 1973 has been amended several times in order to incorporate the
demands of better drafting and good governance. However, there are still undergoing changes regarding the regulation of public consultations. There is a new draft
and set of rules on consultations to be discussed in this term of office.
Another legislative act that enabled the environment is the Access to Public Information Act, adopted in 2000, last amended SG No.104/05.12.2008 that regulated
the right to access public information of all physic and legal persons in Bulgaria and
defines the scope of responsibilities of all the state institutions and public bodies. The
Access to Information Program Foundation16 2009 annual report recommends main
steps in facilitating access to public information through ratification of the Convention for access to public documents, to amend the act in order to define the contact
body within the executive administration, also to reduce the prices and to work on
the internal rules of the administration in order to improve access to information and
implementation of the legislation. Some of the recommendations look at the publicity and transparency of the drafting of legal documents and public consultations.
Although the legislation in Bulgaria is perceived as satisfactory in the field of
NGOs status and functionality, still some issues require further amendments and
enforcement of the regulation. The Public registry of the Non-profit Public benefit
organisations demands clear concept of how to manage the available information
16
Access to Information Program Foundation Annual Report, http://www.aip-bg.org/annual_
rep_bg.htm
36
PA R T I I . CO NT E M P O R A RY S TAT E O F T H E B ULG A RI A N C I VI L S O C I E T Y
and how to guarantee accountability of the NGOs. Further regulation in state funding to the NGOs is necessary in order to avoid any ambiguity and doubts of dependence. Public consultations need codification of rules and procedures to turn into
practice. As of 2010-2011, the Access to Information Program Foundation calls for
further transparency in the Access to information Act, better accountability and facilitation on the administration behalf. In general, the legal background of advocacy
and NGOs status in Bulgaria is enabling its functions. However, there are still issues
that demand further transparency and responsiveness on behalf of the administration – as in Access to Public Information Act or better partnership and codification as
in ensuring uniform framework of public consultation17 or independent funding and
proper quality statistics.
► Profile of the NGO sector
More elaborate profile on civil society is mainly available through various reports on civil society conducted by the civil society organisations themselves and the
USAID NGO Sustainability Index, the thematic CIVICUS survey, the UNDP Human Development Reports. Unfortunately, there is no publicly available longitudinal data on
the types and profile of non-profit organisations, nor about their financial resources,
activities, available funds and management.18 There is no correct and quality statistics on the NGO sector and the available public register is not user-friendly and manageable. There is no universal classification and typology of the sector and most of
the organisations work in more than one field, often combining a lot of activities and
spheres in their mission statements.
In spite of the variations in types, it is interesting to note that education is one
of the most common spheres of NGO activity, together with service provision and
community development. EU issues and public policies are gaining further attention
in the scope of activity of the NGOs.
Table 5. Types of organisations
CIVICUS CSI , 2009
out of 156 organisations
Bulgarian Center
for Non-Profit Law 200519,
401 organisations
Bulgarian Center
for Non-Profit Law 2010,
NGO portal
Sport and recreation 16%
Education 11%
Education 14%
Education 13%
The recent Strategy for the development of civil society organisations in Bulgaria and launching a Funding mechanism are a positive direction for development that may conceivably lay the
foundations for better CSO-government relations.
17
18
The OSI-Sofia has submitted an official inquiry to the National Statistical Institute about the
sources of finance and financial balance of the NGOs in Bulgaria. Data will be incorporated at the
earliest convenience.
19
Bulgarian Center for Non-Profit Law (BCNL) “Survey of Nonprofit Governance Practices in Bulgaria”, Sofia 2006, http://www.bcnl.org/en/articles/173-survey-of-nonprofit-governance-practicesin-bulgaria-sofia-2006.html
37
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
Community centres 11%
Community development
11.5%
Community development
11.5%
Social services 7.8%
Professional organisations
10.8%
Professional organisations
10.8%
Regional and local
development 7.1%
Environment 9%
Environment 6%
Professional organisations
6.5%
Human rights 5%
Human rights 5%
Art and culture 6.5%
Public policy 4.5%
Public policy, advocacy and
legislation 5%
Environment 5%
Culture 3.8%
Art and Culture 8%
Church and religion 3.2%
Charity 3.3%
Economic development 8%
Farmer/Fisherman group or
cooperative 3.2%
Healthcare 3%
Healthcare 3%
Human rights 2.6%
Ethnic issues 2.8%
Youth policies 7%
Youth 2.6%
Advocacy 2%
International and European
issues, policies and
studies 4%
studies 1.2%
Advocacy 2.6%
International issues 1.2%
Public policies 1.9%
Trade and business 1.9%
Women 1.3%
Ethnic 0.6%
► Advocacy NGOs
The number of advocacy NGOs in Bulgaria is comparatively insignificant – a
share of approximately 2-3%, going up to 5% of the sector. Though there is no clearcut advocacy profile, various advocacy activities influence legislation, public policies
and public attitudes. Most of the campaigns are ad-hoc sporadic activities against a
specific public measure, legislation or a certain project of attempting to consolidate
civic platforms on national level for strategic actions and advocacy. The efforts of
the “greens” and of some of the social services providers in approving the legislation
are good examples in that direction. The green organisations are mostly visible in
public through their campaigns, protests, flash mobs and mobilization. They are visibly more consolidated as a cause and managed to raise public awareness on various
issues of concern – overdevelopment on the seacoast, thee winter resorts, legislative
impediments, GMOs, NATURA 2000, sustainable development. They have managed
to exert pressure through means of lobbying, advocacy and civic mobilization. Advocacy NGOs are also active in monitoring legislation and drafting in Bulgaria. A recent
example is the case of advocacy against amendments in surveillance and access to
personal data from the Ministry of Interior initiated by the Access to Information
38
PA R T I I . CO NT E M P O R A RY S TAT E O F T H E B ULG A RI A N C I VI L S O C I E T Y
Advocacy in Bulgaria
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
Foundation. The social services organisations are another
part of the advocacy spectrum.
Through the Social platform of
organisations, they focus on
enhancing the role of service
delivery and in monitoring the
allocation of the EU funds in
Bulgaria.
1.0
3.0
5.0
7.0
The NGO Sustainability Index20 shows that issues
Fig. 1. NGO Sustainability Index 2011
of political dependence affect
advocacy organizations. Since joining the EU, the main funding flows through the
government and creates corruption and financial opportunities. The Index score is
comparatively low and the perceived impact of the NGOs is considered limited.21 The
Civil society index for 2010 also suggests that the advocacy ability of the NGOs is
limited, however, there are numerous good examples of successful initiatives. NGOs
conducted several campaigns such as the campaign for adoption of the Law on Referenda and the campaign against the termination of tax benefits for donors or against
child abuse, GMO. Environmental organizations are continuously active against illegal overdevelopment in natural reserves and protected areas. There are various initiatives in enabling legal environment and creating opportunities for public consultation and NGO participation in decision- and policy-making; the participation of the
Civic Participation Forum in dialogue on Bulgaria 2020 for the future EU regional and
cohesion policy; the collaboration between the Child Protection Agency and NGOs.
► Finance22
Though after joining the EU, the international donors have withdrawn from the
country, there are still funds available through the Trust for Civil society in Central
and Eastern Europe, America for Bulgaria Foundation, a 3-year Bulgaria Fund through
the Balkan Trust for Democracy, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation,
the Netherlands’ Matra Program, the NGO Fund of the Financial Mechanism of the
European Economic Area (funded by Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) and smaller
operating grants of previously donor organisations. Main source of finance appears
to be the European Commission through the horizontal community programmes and
the structural funds, operated through the operational programmes by the state ad20
NGO Sustainability Index: http://www.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/dem_gov/
ngoindex/2008/bulgaria.pdf
21
Bulgaria Civil Society Index: Citizen Action without Engagement carried out by Open Society
Institute – Sofia.
22
Based on the data of the Bulgaria Civil Society Index: Citizen Action without Engagement,
NGO Sustainability Index 2009 and Bulgarian Center for Non-profit Law data.
39
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
ministration – mainly the Operational programme Administrative Capacity (OPAC)
and the Operational programme on Human Resources Development since July 2007
(in late 2007, and during 2008, OPAC provided roughly thirty-seven million BGN
(around 18.5 million euro for NGO projects − compared to the six million BGN (about
3 million euro) provided under PHARE Civil Society Development Programme).23
However, these resources and programme allocation are subject to severe criticism
on transparency, needs assessment and legitimacy. There is also state finance available to the NGOs through procurement procedures and the state budget. The state
budget, however, primarily targets specific organisations (considered quasi-civic)
and just a small share (around 7%) is available through calls for proposal to organisations registered in public benefit.
According to NSI data, revenues of associations and foundations have increased
between 2005 and 2008. The total revenues for 2005 and 2009 are approximately
€120,191,500 and €209,029,900, respectively, which indicates a significant increase
over the four years. However, the ratio for 2008 and 2009 shows that the economic
crisis affected CSOs revenue. In 2009 a there is an even worse picture, with a negative
balance and a stagnation in revenue compared to 2008.
As for the sources of funding, there is a relative increase in donations as a share
of revenues. Economic activities, such as public procurement and provisions of services, also account for an increasing portion of civil society revenues.
Additional information can be found through secondary research and the general
perception of the insiders’ look on the state of financial affairs in the NGO sector. The
CIVICUS 2008-2010 data on the finance define the following state of affairs – when
referred to the experts in the external perception survey of the project “What are the
main sources of finance”, 32.4% said that the NGOs are dependent on the EU funds
and programmes; 30.9% of the respondents claim that the NGOs are dependent on
foreign donors, 17.6% believe that the NGOs can raise their own funding, 11.8% see
the NGOs as dependent on all stated sources and 7.4% perceive the organisations as
dependent on the state. When asked for their source of funding, the organisations
define the following state of affairs of the NGO sources of funding – government
with 41% share, the local corporate finance, EU Operational programmes and EU programmes administered by the Commission with 30% each, then individual donations
and members’ fees with 20% share and the services/sales revenues with 19.5%.
There are only data on the financial balance of the Legal entities under the NonProfit Legal Entities Act and the required annual financial reports. The required data,
however, are mostly general dividing the entities in sub-categories of professional,
business, trade-unions, religious, political organizations and others. It is interesting
to note that funding has been increased in recent years with 2005 as a starting point.
The total revenue of the NGOs in 2005 is 240 383 000 leva (around 122 905 876 euro),
rising to 374 359 000 leva in 2008 (191 406 717 euro) an increase of 133 976 000 leva
NGO Sustainability Index 2008: http://www.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/dem_gov/
ngoindex/2008/bulgaria.pdf
23
40
PA R T I I . CO NT E M P O R A RY S TAT E O F T H E B ULG A RI A N C I VI L S O C I E T Y
(68 500 841 euro). As a share of revenue, donations share in the total income has
a relative increase, while the project-funding share decreases in the total revenue.
Business activities such as procurement, services and sales also have a relative increase as part of the revenues of the NGOs.
Given the project-based operation of most organisations, a large portion of
staff are employed under temporary contracts or do work for multiple organisations.
Employment in the civil society sector is characterised by instability and a variable
workload, which can be directly linked to the problematic funding of the sector. This
is also confirmed by the 2006 BCNL study, which showed that 37% of NGOs had no
permanent staff. In 40% of cases where there were permanent staff, the organisation
maintained between just one and four employees.
The Civil Society Index 2011 also confirmed that staffing in the sector is somewhat problematic in Bulgaria. A high percentage of organisations reported working
with volunteers. The number of volunteers indicated by the respondent organisations (including all people who are not permanent staff members) is significantly
higher than the number of permanent staff. Even though this is a positive trend, the
use of volunteers in the work of CSOs in Bulgaria is still underdeveloped. Volunteering in Bulgaria is only now starting to emerge as a practice, and the legal framework
proposed by the Bulgarian Center for Non-Profit Law is in development.
Despite the trend towards increasing levels of volunteering, especially among
young people (BCNL 2010), the extent of socially-based engagement remains very low.
Only 13.1% of all the interviewees in the EVS answered that they volunteered at all. According to a study of the Bulgarian Center for Non-Profit Law in 2010, in the past couple
of years, voluntary activities have been growing in the fields of environment and culture.
These two issues seem to attract people of all ages. Non-profit organisations in general
increasingly look to use the help of volunteers. Corporate volunteering has been successfully introduced in the last couple of years by the Bulgarian Charity Aid Foundation
and further enhanced through various joint activities of the Bulgarian Donors Forum.
The majority of organisations hosting volunteers in Bulgaria, about 95%, are not for
profit and working in public benefit (e.g. NGOs, foundations, youth centres). Only about
5% are public sector organisations (e.g. community halls, municipal structures etc.).24
1.4. Conclusion – civil society in Bulgaria:
twenty two years after
Desislava Hristova
As demonstrated in the European Values Survey and in the Civil society Index, civil
society development in Bulgaria is still characterised by low citizen participation in the
24
“Volunteering across Europe - organizations, promotion, participation” Country report for
Bulgaria (2010) http://www.bcnl.org/en/articles/913-volunteering-across-europe-organizationspromotion-participation-country-report-for-bulgaria-2010.html
41
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
institutional structures of the CSOs, weak societal links and problematic social capital
building. The citizens tend to not recognise CSOs as the representative of the authentic
civil society actions and rather entrust its trust in civic activist movements such as the
pensioners, students, environmentalist and local communities (CSI 2011). This is conducive to weak link between CSOs and citizens. Organisations show a tendency to become
more professional, for example through carrying out consultancy services, providing
expertise. However, this has the challenging effect of leaving citizens out and making
CSOs more distant. Furthermore, the CSOs are challenged by persistent financial instability and limited impact and abilities to participate in decision and policy-making.
Citizens prefer to stay within their family circle and their closest family members.
This is coupled with low trust in representative institutions and fellow citizens. The
predominant part of the citizens is seemingly indifferent and tends to get provoked
when their personal interest is at stake and they are personally affected. However, this
personal stake has the potential to get transformed into a substantial social movement. What are the preconditions to sustain this trend deserves further attention.
Accession to the EU has been a crucial moment in the development of civil society. It provides both challenges and opportunities. The EU’s support for civil society development represents a specific part of EU democratic conditionality focusing
mainly on building the capacity of NGOs and the development of a favourable fiscal
and legal environment, programme management skills and sustainability. However,
the incoherent and fragmented strategy of EU assistance on democratisation and the
informal constraints of the institutional framework of management of the funding
resulted in mixed overall performance. The sector is perceived as heavily dependent on foreign or state finance, which makes the organisations dependent on the
donor/government agenda. Concentrating resources in the administration and over
centralization of the procedure of funding brought problems of management, monitoring, implementation and impact on civil society. The legacies of command administration combined with the pressure to reform resulted in formality of procedures
and cases of corruption. Some commentators (Dainov 2008) point to the danger for
the NGOs to turn from critical commentators of the government to their non-critical
allies. This is also related to the problem of the forms and mechanisms of interactions
between civil society actors and the governmental and European institutions. What
is observed in the Bulgarian NGO sector at the moment is just the opposite to what
is desired by the participatory democracy proponents – most of the NGOs go to the
sphere of social policy. And it is no accident, namely because the European model
relies on the close interactions between the state and the NGOs in this area and
most NGOs are providers of social services. This takes the edge off the sector’s critical blade, making use of it mainly in this area. These negative trends require further
efforts by the key players in civil society in Bulgaria in ensuring consolidated efforts
in tackling the phenomena of rent-seeking in the sector. Boosting the advocacy and
watchdog functions with transparent funding and decentralized management of the
EU funds is an opportunity in this direction.
42
PA R T I I . CO NT E M P O R A RY S TAT E O F T H E B ULG A RI A N C I VI L S O C I E T Y
Against that background, positive trends are identified in enhancing good governance of the NGOs, elaborating a Code of conduct and self-regulation as mechanisms of positive identification of the organizations in ensuring accountability and
legitimacy of activities. Further efforts are put in consolidating the sector through
the Civic Participation Forum25, which is a platform of more than 90 NGOs trying to
confront challenging issues of the environment, deficiencies in civic participation
and building the positive image of the NGOs. Another positive trend is seen through
the new forms of civic engagement related to on-line associations and mobilizations.
The impact of those trends and processes is further to be explored.
2. Embeddedness of Advocacy CSOs
D r . K r i s z t i n a A r a t o a n d P e t e r N i z a k 26
2.1. Short theoretical background
H
owever long past it has and however widely it is used, there is no commonly
agreed definition for ‘civil society’. Moreover, there are other concepts being
in use, interchangeably, but with slightly different content: civil sector, NGO sector,
non-profit sector, etc. Most do not question, however, that civil society is the arena
of voluntary, unforced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values
(Merkel/Lauth 1998: 7).
The Centre for Civil Society, at the London School of Economics, considers civil society as a sector on its own vis-à-vis the three other main sectors: state, business and family:
„Civil society refers to the arena of unforced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from
those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, blurred and
negotiated. Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and
institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power.
Civil societies are often populated by organizations such as registered charities,
development non-governmental organizations, community groups, women’s
organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, trades unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and
advocacy group.”27
25
In the last couple of years, the Forum has gathered more than 120 member organizations
and has been officially registered. For more information: http://www.bgactivecitizen.eu/index.
php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=64&Itemid=92&lang=bg
26
The paragraphs 2.1. and 2.2. in this section are written by Dr. Krisztina Arato and Peter Nizak
as a common research framework for all the country reports. Specifics of the realization of this methodology for Bulgaria are provided in the paragraph 2.3.
27
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/introduction/what_is_civil_society.htm
43
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
In our opinion, it would be a major mistake to simplify civil society purely to
civil society organizations. In our understanding, civil society is the arena, outside
the family, the state, and the market, created by public oriented actions, organizations and institutions to advance shared interests. This broad understanding includes
three potential layers of the concept. First, civil society includes enduring organized
actors and impacts of organized interests (CSOs, local community organizations,
charity, voluntary, etc. organizations). Second, part of the civil society is not formally
organized but consists of ) temporary and loosely organised networks and activities
(campaigns, events, social actions). Third, civil society is present on the individual
level of individual engagements, expressed in active citizenship, volunteering and
participation.
We believe that we can explore the nature of civil society in our countries if we
do not get stuck in the terminology problem. There is a wide spectrum of literature
dealing with the legal, financial status of NGOs, their activities are widely researched.
We believe that we do not get closer to civil society only on that basis. This is why we
– not denying the importance of the analysis of NGOs – concentrate on the functions
and the performance of civil society in our countries.
There is a large and growing literature discussing the functions of civil society
and the non-profit sector in social sciences. We cannot say that there is a consensus
on identifying the functions but there are definite overlaps in the different approaches. The problem is that there is a divergence in terms of exactly whose functions the
authors are talking about: the non-profit sector, civil society, NGOs, the voluntary
sector, etc. However, we believe that we can summarize the different approaches and
apply them to our definition of civil society.
If we look at the literature on the functions of civil society, some authors (like
Niemayr et al.) set up a system of functions, identifying and describing several of
them, others (like Salamon et al., J. Kendall, etc.) elaborate on one particular function.
On our part, putting it rather simply, we find 3 major functions of civil society: community building, service provision and advocacy.
Concerning the community building function of civil society, many approaches
share the opinion that participation by local citizens in non-profit organizations encourages social interaction and help to create trust and reciprocity, which leads to
the generation of a sense of community (Donoghue 2004: 8, Salamon et al. 2000: 7).
Community building thereby means as well the mobilization of a community on a
certain issue (community of interest) or on the base of locale (geographical community) (Donoghue 2004: 8).
Besides the impact of volunteer participation on the individual level, separate
functions for the larger society are served as well. Among these there are mediation
“between groups of individuals and the larger society”, the integration of “groups
into that society”, the provision of “opportunities for value communication”, for “development of community services”, for the “initiation of change, and the distribution
of power” (Kramer 1981: 194).
44
PA R T I I . CO NT E M P O R A RY S TAT E O F T H E B ULG A RI A N C I VI L S O C I E T Y
Other authors, when referring to the community building function, mention
positive impacts on both, the individual as well as the societal level. For instance,
Kendall quotes that participation in non-profit organizations (NPOs) “could foster
‘personal development’, improve social relationships, give people ‘control over their
lives’ and thus make society operate more ‘healthily’” (Kendall 2003: 113). In Hungary
for example, there are research projects that try to explore the correlation between
participation and physical health and data show that the correlation does exist (Kopp
et al. 2008). The popular concept of Robert Putnam, the issue of social capital can
also be included in the community building function area of civil society.
In terms of the service function of civil society organizations are targeted usually
to those individuals who are unable to pay for certain services, for those who are in
need. Usually these services fill the gaps where both the state (government) and the
market is unable to respond. (Kendall 2003: 92) They can range from tangible services
(food distribution, free condoms, shelter for the homeless, endangered mothers, etc.)
to intangible services (counselling, free courses, etc.) (Jenkins 1987: 297).
According to Jenkins, “[e]very activity that focuses on changing policies or securing collective goods can be called an advocacy function (Jenkins 1987: 297). According to another, more detailed definition, advocacy comprises all activities that “push
for changes in government policy or in societal conditions”, “serve a link between individuals and the broader political process, ... bring group concerns to broader public
attention and ... push for policy or broader social change, not only on behalf of those
belonging to a group but also on behalf of the general public” (Salamon et al. 2000:
6). We have to add here that this definition includes activities that are characteristic
of pressure groups and professional organizations, namely lobbying efforts for the
interests of a group, not the wider or general public.
Furthermore, we can split advocacy into two sub-functions called ‘policy advocacy’ and ‘citizens’ advocacy’. Policy advocacy means all those activities that focus on
changing policies or securing collective goods, which are directly addressed to “any
institutional elite” (Jenkins 1987: 279). Citizens’ advocacy refers to all activities that
focus on changing policies or securing collective goods, which are addressed to the
general public and aim at increasing public awareness or mobilize individual citizens’
advocacy about certain issues. The different activities connected to the public advocacy function can be legislative activities, political campaign activities, litigation, etc.
“Boycotts” – convincing a critical mass of public not getting involved in business with
a particular institution, demonstrations can be assigned to both sub-functions.
We identified the advocacy function of Central European civil societies as central
in our research. We had two reasons for choosing that. Certain theoreticians of the
system changing elite – in some countries – expected that our societies would become ones where citizens can stand for their rights and interests, able to organize, be
active in expressing their views and preferences, thus providing the day-to-day basis
of democracy. We argue that neither the analysis of the service function, nor the
community building function takes us closer to exploring the fulfillment of the origi-
45
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
nal dream. Second, in the mid-1990s a growing literature, on the basis of different approaches and methods came to rather similar findings and confirmed the “weakness”
of civil society in post-communist societies (see a collection in Howard 2003: 31-56).
They seem to share the idea that despite the relatively high number of civil society
organizations, civil society is weaker in these countries than in ‘the West’.
2.2. Short methodological background
On the one hand, our societies are considered as suffering from symptoms of
low level of trust and solidarity, and the general level of social participation is described as very poor (Howard 2003). Consequently, there is no (vibrant) civil society
in this area or its certain functions are said to be underdeveloped or even absent.
In methodological terms, this view builds predominantly upon individual-level evidence as citizens surveys etc.
On the other hand, our countries are comparatively developed in terms of the
number of civil society organizations, details of their legal frameworks, richness of
sectoral divisions or the structure of financing (state versus private donors). This
empirical evidence of considerable political engagement usually builds upon mesostructural level: it uses organizational surveys and focuses on institutionalized (organized) forms of activism, on their mutual interactions and also on their exchanges
with political institutions (Flam 2001; Petrova, Tarrow 2007; Císař 2008).
In our research, we were trying to precisely elaborate and understand the extent,
structure, and the nature of this discrepancy in our countries. It is clear that there are
many advocacy CSOs and some of them are very visible, active and also successful in
their missions. And it also seems that one of the main reasons of the relatively well
developed civil society infrastructure in our countries (apart from rapid opening of
political opportunities for various political actors) is the role of external supporters
of democratic change – i.e. of foreign donors, mostly from the United States. These
considered advocacy as the key function to stabilize new democracies and a lot of
issues could not be represented in our societies if this external support did not reach
particular actors here – especially human rights, transparency, environmental issues,
equal opportunities, etc. Although U.S., EU and private foundations, or state institutions supported service providers and community organizations as well, they focused mainly on human rights, advocacy, green and watchdog NGOs (Quigley 1997;
Carothers 1999).
Later on, as the donors supposed that after a while advocacy could stand and
survive without them, most of these support programs were ended and financing
ceased. Thus, foreign donors believed that advocacy organizations became widely
accepted and socially embedded in our societies, and that they also turned into economically self-sustainable actors. It seems that, however, the situation may be less
satisfying (McMahon 2001; Aksartova 2006).
46
PA R T I I . CO NT E M P O R A RY S TAT E O F T H E B ULG A RI A N C I VI L S O C I E T Y
Following these considerations, we turn to the general line of our inquiry: twenty years after the series of systemic political changes and the fall of the authoritarian
regimes, we want to explore the level and structure of the advocacy function of our
civil societies and assess the main obstacles for its proper fulfillment. We are not
interested in a quantitative empirical comparison of our civil societies with AngloSaxon standards or in testing hypotheses that were developed in different parts of
the world; we are trying to deeply explore and carefully evaluate contemporary state
of the evolution of key aspects of our civil societies functioning, and confront it with
original visions and expectations of the dissent elites.
In order to be able to answer to accomplish this undertaking, we reformulate
our aims into several key questions that we are trying to respond. First of all, and following the issue of discrepancy between organizational and individual level of civil
advocacy, we restrict our interest into collectively organized advocacy efforts, so we
focus on CSOs as the main bearers of advocacy function in our societies. Generally,
we want to find out an answer to the following question:
● What is the degree to which structures and actions of advocacy CSOs are able to
reflect on societal problems, to recognize, represent and channel them, in other
words, to what extent are they integrated into the society (life of citizens)?
In order to find the valid answer and deal with our research problem comprehensively, we further specify and transform it into four more focused and mutually
connected research sub-questions. The sub-questions are the followings:
● How these advocacy areas become “embedded”? (If citizens are involved, how
are they involved and how did they get involved? To what extent and how precisely citizens are involved in civil advocacy activities, and what are the main
obstacles of their involvement in organized advocacy activities?)
● What advocacy areas in our countries are most “embedded”? (Where citizens
are most involved? In what kind of activities citizens are most eager to be involved?
● Are CSOs embedded? Which CSOs are “embedded”? (Are there some common
features and motives of CSOs that integrate / don’t integrate citizens into their
structures and actions in both the least supported and the most supported advocacy areas?)
● How CSOs become embedded? (How CSOs integrate citizens into their structures and actions?)
As obvious from the above questions, the key concept of our research is embeddedness. Embeddedness is originally a concept applied to firms and/or individuals
and expresses that they are part of or enmeshed in a social network. The embeddedness of economic actors, mainly companies was analysed by Mark Granovetter
47
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
(Granovetter 1985) stating the companies do not operate only in the market but are
part of a particular social network. Putnam, in his popular book – Bowling alone –
used the concept of embeddedness for individuals (Putnam 2000).
In our case, we applied the concept of embeddedness to CSOs. In our understanding, embeddedness of civil society organizations means
● being known, locally and/or nationwide
● involving people in „passive ways“ – donations, signing petitions, etc.
● including people in the activities of CSOs in activities, like campaigns and
other activities, also to the strategic planning of the organization.
In order to find answers to these questions, we used both quantitative and qualitative research methods. In the quantitative part, we carried out surveys (800n) via
telephone interviews, in the quantitative part we used the focus group and interview
methods.
In the survey we intended to find out in which advocacy areas of citizens are
the most/least involved (either through their support, participation or organizing
activities).
If we found out that citizens were somehow involved, we asked them how are
they involved and how did they got involved to identify possible motives, channels
and mechanisms of their involvement which was later be compared with findings in
the interviews with CSOs.
We used telephone survey to map the advocacy issues and sectors (environment, human rights, community etc.), which people support/take part/organize
most or less. The list of advocacy areas were developed for all our countries by listing
and discussing possible areas/themes. On the basis of the findings we elaborated a
so-called “embeddedness index” that showed which are the advocacy areas that are
most embedded in our societies.
The research section of the project included 4 focus groups and 30 interviews.
The aim of the qualitative methodology was to get a picture of embeddedness of
advocacy organizations and their campaigns from the side of the collective actors
(NGOs and formally non-organized groups). In the case of focus groups we wanted to explore their attitudes towards embeddedness and in the case of interviews
we wanted to know empirical facts, how they relate to their „electorate”. These two
features of qualitative methodology are also connected by sampling strategy: focus
group technique could give us – among other things – an expert judgement on most
and least embedded advocacy CSOs and their campaigns within the least and the
most embedded advocacy areas.
48
PART III
Survey analysis
1. Quantitative analysis
Desislava Hristova
1.1. Personal level of embeddedness
T
he survey analysis focuses on two main layers of embeddedness: the personal
participation and involvement in civil advocacy and on the general embeddedness of various areas of advocacy actions. First we turn on the personal engagement in advocacy activities. The citizens do not tend to take active part in campaigns
or advocacy activities. A limited Fig. 1. Personal involvement in civil advocacy activities
percentage of the population –
only 6.2% – tend to engage in
Are you personally active in one or more
similar actions (figure 1). As beof the above activity areas or organisations?
ing very close to the standard
error, we cannot say with high
6.2%
93.8%
level of validity in which areas
the citizens are most active.
The areas 6.2% of respondents
are active in are these, considered most embedded: rights
of children and disabled, citiYes
zens’ environment, education,
health and social policy.
No
The survey also shows that
the citizens are not likely to
Source: Bulgarian Survey 2010.
engage on a later stage either.
Only 2.4% of the ones that are Table 1. Intention of future involvement
not active have asserted some in advocacy activities
readiness to involve. An inter%
esting outcome is the group of
2.4
the so-called “hesitant” reach- Yes
No
82.5
ing up to 10.5% of the respons10.5
es. This ambiguity in their an- Don’t know
4.6
swer can present a potential of NA
future engagement.
total
100.0
49
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
1.2. The most embedded and the least embedded
advocacy areas
As specified in the civil society overview, advocacy in Bulgaria does not hold
a well-defined position in society as a source of influence. Most of the organisations’ advocacy activities are only a secondary tool on the agenda. It can be proved
through the main areas of activity of the organisations as specified in the NGO data
portal capturing the current state of civil society in Bulgaria. Advocacy is seen as
complimentary activity in the organisations background.
The data from the survey displays the overall picture of the most embedded areas of advocacy as seen by the citizens: issues of social concern, protection of vulnerable groups of people and citizens’ rights. As shown in the charter below, the most
important areas where CSOs action is viewed necessary are the rights of children,
rights of the disabled, citizens’ security, consumer protection, anti-corruption, followed by environment and education, health and social policy.
Table 2. What do you think, how important advocacy activity of NGOs
would be in these areas in:
Mean
Rank
Valid
Rights of children
4.54
1
744
Disabled peoples’ rights
4.49
2
742
Citizens’ security
4.47
3
722
Consumer protection
4.41
4
728
Anticorruption
4.40
5
728
Environment
4.29
6
731
Education, health, social policy
4.28
7
708
Women rights
4.21
8
727
Human and citizens’ rights and freedoms
4.03
9
698
Economic policy
3.98
10
679
International and global issues
3.77
11
660
Animal rights
3.30
12
726
National minority rights
3.22
13
710
Work of democratic institutions
3.12
14
518
LGBT rights
2.27
15
658
These areas of concern represent the main issues on the societal agenda in Bulgaria. According to OSI – Sofia survey in 201028 – main issues of concern according to
the citizens are employment, social care, health care and corruption. Series of surveys
place the main social problems on the top of the citizens’ concern that corresponds
to need of more targeted actions on behalf of the civil society actors. Anti-corruption
28
50
http://www.opendata.bg/opendata.php?q=1
PA R T I I I . S U RVE Y A N A LYS I S
is a cross-cutting concern, presenting a predominant problem29 in all major sectors
of public life. Environment has been the focus of targeted NGO and citizens’ activities and has gained importance in the societal focus. In addition, as shown in an OSI
– Sofia EuPI report, EU leverage was limited in terms of reforming the human development domain (healthcare, educational and social systems policy reforms), which
resulted in incomplete reforms in these sectors, which is directly influenced quality
of life of the population30.The citizens are reaffirming the main social concerns on
the agenda of public life, the unfinished business of transition and democratisation
that remained unsolved even after joining the EU. The pressing nature of these areas
requires wider involvement of all non-state actors.
The CSOs advocacy efforts are seen essential in these areas where campaigning
is a main tool of intervention and where the state deficiencies are most problematic.
This creates a niche for civil society actors to intervene on a larger scale and to contribute to improving the situation. However, more than half of the respondents do
not believe that civic organizations could solve these problems (Table 7).
The least embedded areas are considered the LGBT rights, work of democratic
institutions, national minority rights, international and global issues and economic
policy. These areas are seen as marginal to societal concerns, but also are seen as the
areas where the civic organisations have the least potential to act. This score can be
related to the general low trust in the national democratic institutions, the marginalised role of civil society organisation in international issues and the significant social
distances and intolerance in society regarding the LGBT rights.
The respondents see as important advocacy activity for the CSOs the involvement primarily in the realm of the welfare policies and citizens’ rights. An interesting
case is the issues of citizen security which holds a significant position in the mind of
people. Consumer protection and anti-corruption come next. The least important
are issues pertaining to the rights of national minorities (primarily the Roma and the
Turkish minority), work of democratic institutions and the LGBT rights. This reaffirms
the social distances of the European values survey and the attitudes to the others
where the societal intolerance to the Roma and the LGBT is relatively high. The disillusionment and frustration with the work of democratic institutions positions them
in the least-embedded areas.
1.3. General embeddedness of advocacy CSOs
When compared with the perception on how active are CSOs in these areas, it
is visible that the needs of the citizens for advocacy activities are not fully met by
29
Transperancy International Corruption Index http://www.transparency-bg.org/?magic=
0.3.5.2.81
“The Unfinished Business of the Fifth Enlargement Countries,” Comparative Report by AssyaKavrakova, available at www.eupi.eu, 2008. The study examines the experience of the former
communist countries from CEE, which revealed some limitations of the EU impact on the candidate
countries policy reforms in the human development domain.
30
51
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
the work of the CSOs. Here minority rights and LGBT rights and animal rights are
positioned much higher, while anti-corruption, citizens’ rights and education, social
policy and healthcare, are in lower positions.
Table 3. How active are civil organizations in these advocacy areas?
Mean
Valid
Rights of children
3.40
692
Animal rights
3.30
673
Disabled peoples rights
3.17
683
Women rights
3.13
659
National minority rights
3.06
630
Environment
3.00
673
Consumer protection
2.94
685
Human and citizens’ rights and freedoms
2.92
603
Anti-corruption
2.72
657
International and global issues
2.65
545
LGBT rights
2.64
569
Citizens’ security
2.54
609
Education, health, social policy
2.51
602
Economic policy
2.44
552
Work of democratic institutions
2.30
448
Though only a limited number of people have declared they participate, the
areas they claimed they are active are the children’s and disabled people’s rights and
environment. They are least active in the LGBT rights, economic policy and national
minority rights and consumer protection. The last being perceived as an important
area where CSOs should be active and also considered as an area they are likely to
get involved in.
Table 4. In which advocacy area are you active in?
Mean
Rank
Rights of children
1.39
1
46
Disabled peoples’ rights
1.51
2
37
Environment
1.58
3
38
Education, health, social policy
1.73
4
37
Work of democratic institutions
1.74
5
35
Women rights
1.75
6
36
Anticorruption
1.76
7
37
Animal rights
1.81
8
37
Citizens’ security
1.82
9
38
52
Valid
PA R T I I I . S U RVE Y A N A LYS I S
Human and citizens’ rights and freedoms
1.83
10
35
International and global issues
1.89
11
36
Consumer protection
1.91
12
35
National minority rights
1.91
13
35
Economic policy
1.94
14
36
LGBT rights
2.00
15
35
Closer to the mean 1 means that in this area the respondents claim they are active
In regard to their willingness to get involved, in addition to the rights of children
and disabled people, the areas of women’s rights, education, healthcare and social
policy and consumer protection occur, which are considered important on the societal agenda, however citizens have not stated to take part in. Though the level of
participation is low, this willingness to get involved in specific areas displays some
critical accumulation of public interest in these societal problems that are most embedded in the society. These problematic fields on the societal agenda are the ones
that demand urgent reforms.
Table 5. In which area are you planning to become involved in?
Mean
Rank
Valid
Rights of children
1.33
1
15
Women rights
1.38
2
13
Education, health, social policy
1.46
3
13
Consumer protection
1.50
4
10
Disabled peoples’ rights
1.50
5
12
Environment
1.55
6
11
Citizens’ security
1.55
7
11
Animal rights
1.56
8
9
Human and citizens’ rights and freedoms
1.63
9
8
Economic policy
1.64
10
11
Anti-corruption
1.73
11
11
National minority rights
1.78
12
9
International and global issues
1.80
13
10
Work of democratic institutions
2.00
14
9
LGBT rights
2.00
15
9
Closer to the mean 1 the respondents are considering getting involved
The aggregated data on the level of embeddedness show that the three main
areas where civil society organisations have somewhat visible impact and respondents take some action are again the rights of children, rights of the disabled, the main
societal concern of education, health and social policy, followed by environment and
women’s rights.
53
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
Table 6. Level of embeddedness
Rights of children
Disabled peoples’ rights
Education, health, social policy
Environment
Women rights
Citizens’ security
Consumer protection
Anticorruption
Animal rights
Human and citizens’ rights and freedoms
Work of democratic institutions
Economic policy
International and global issues
National minority rights
LGBT rights
Overall
integrated
mean
1.0
3.0
4.7
5.0
5.3
6.3
6.7
7.7
9.3
9.3
11.0
11.3
11.7
12.7
15.0
Q1
Q7
Q13
1
2
7
6
8
3
4
5
12
9
14
10
11
13
15
1
2
4
3
6
9
12
7
8
10
5
14
11
13
15
1
5
3
6
2
7
4
11
8
9
14
10
13
12
15
The most embedded areas are the ones closer to 1, the least embedded are the ones closer to 15.
As specified in the overview, advocacy as a concept and practice is not a separate characteristic of the CSOs, but comes as a complementary activity on the
agenda. Most organisation do not have a short-to mid-term strategy on advocacy
issues, most of the initiatives come as a reaction to a government act or policy as
a protest or objection rather than a expertise-based carefully thought strategy.
This will be further analysed in the qualitative part of the text as it gives more details on the decision-making of the organisations and the strategic planning and
campaigning.
These national specifics result in a somewhat limited impact of the CSOs on the
decision and policy-making,31 low citizen trust in such CSOs activities and low levels
of civic engagement. A slightly more than 6% of the respondents state they are active
in one or more of the activity areas. Low civic engagement is a persistent trait of civic
activism.32 Significant share of the respondents tend to relate the issue of participation to the problem of personal finances, lack of time. However, a significant share
state that they do not consider civic activism as a means to solve these problems. A
similar percentage view that the responsibility for these problems should be borne
by other actors. More than half not interested in principle in taking part. Citizens
tend to be skeptical about the role of civic activism and civil society actors in regard
31
Bulgarian Center for Non-profit Law: http://www.bcnl.org/en/articles/827-participation-ofngos-in-the-process-of-policy-and-law-making-2009.html
CIVICUS CSI Study data conducted by OSI-Sofia 2008-2010.
32
54
CIVICUS CSI Study data conducted by OSI-Sofia 2008-2010, European Values Survey 2008.
PA R T I I I . S U RVE Y A N A LYS I S
Table 7. Examples of two directions of “compensation mechanisms”
priority
Importance of NGO
advocacy activities
in the area
Perceived activity
of civil organizations
in the area
Personal involvement
in the civil activities
in the area
1
Rights of children
Rights of children
Rights of children
2
Disabled peoples rights
Animal rights
Disabled peoples’ rights
3
Citizens’ security
Disabled peoples rights
4
Consumer protection
Women rights
5
Anticorruption
National minority rights
6
Environment
Education, health,
social policy
Environment
Environment
Education, health,
social policy
Work of democratic
institutions
Women rights
Consumer protection
Anticorruption
7
8
Women rights
Human and citizens’
rights and freedoms
Animal rights
9
Human and citizens’
rights and freedoms
Anti-corruption
Citizens’security
10
Economic policy
International and
global issues
11
International and
global issues
LGBT rights
Human and citizens’
rights and reedoms
Iinternational and
global issues
12
Animal rights
13
National minority rights
14
Work of democratic
institutions
15
LGBT rights
Citizens’ security
Education, health,
social policy
Consumer protection
Economic policy
Economic policy
Work of democratic
institutions
LGBT rights
National minority rights
Source: Bulgarian Survey 2010.
Table 8. Q 10. Now I will tell you some reasons, people say, why they
are not active in organizations. Please tell me, which of them apply to you?
Mean
Only answers YES
(%)
Have no money to support them
1.18
81.5
No time
1.34
65.6
I do not believe that civic activism could change anything
1.37
62.6
Solving those problems should be done by other actors,
not by civic ones
1.38
61.8
Not interested in principle
1.42
57.8
Health conditions do not allow me to be active
1.83
17.2
I had been active but I got disappointed
1.92
7.8
55
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
to solving such issues, stating that civic activism and CSOs are not the proper tool to
address such problematic issues. In addition, a large part of the respondents do not
seem to understand the nature of such activities – more than one third claim they do
not know anything about the NGOs activities.
The main areas of involvement of citizens that do participate (a very low percentage of 6.2%) represent the most embedded as stated in the survey. More than
half of the respondents claim they are active in the area of rights of children 58.5%,
protection of vulnerable people 35.8%, environment 32.1%, women’s rights 20.8%,
social issues, education and healthcare – 18.9%, animal rights and anti-corruption
with 17%. Embeddedness of CSOs according to the working definition captures the
relationship between the organisations and their initiatives and citizens and to what
degree the citizens are integrated in various advocacy actions and the advocacy
CSOs structures. It represents the status of the linkage between the CSOs and the
citizens.
In addition to the low civic engagement, CSOs still struggle with issues of legitimacy and problematic public image and public trust, which is conducive to weak links
to their constituencies and limited societal impact. The citizens reiterate these challenges by perceiving the CSOs as ineffective in solving specific social problems. The
activities of the CSOs are seen either as driven by financial interest, political or economic benefit or the respondents are not aware or view their actions as ineffective.
The citizens primarily see organisations as working for their financial benefits.
A significant share views them as representing business interests or political parties’
vehicles. This comes in addition to the problematic image of the civil society in Bulgaria in general. Issues of NGO loops, lack of financial transparency and accountabilTable 9. Q 11. Do you believe that civic organizations could solve some of
those previously listed problems? What do you think, the reason for this is?
Mean
Only answers YES
(%)
I think these organizations concentrate on their own
financial benefits
1.19
81.0
I think that they represent business interests, not civic
ones
1.19
80.6
I don’t think these organizations are effective
1.20
79.9
I think these organizations are vehicles of political parties
1.26
73.5
I do not know anything about the activities of the NGOs
1.48
51.1
They represent foreign interest
1.49
51.5
I don’t think they deal with problems that are really
important
1.50
49.8
56
PA R T I I I . S U RVE Y A N A LYS I S
ity, conflict of interest and rent
seeking raise doubts about
their effectiveness and public
role.33 This leads to the low level of trust in the CSOs as 63.3%
of the citizens state they do
not believe the CSOs can solve
any of the main problems the
public consider important.
Do you believe that civic organizations could
solve some of those previously listed problems?
63.3%
36.7%
According to the survey
data, the advocacy CSOs are not
considered embedded. They do
not represent the reliable partYes, they can
No, they can not
ner and actor to solve these
problems. The data states raised Fig. 2. Civic organizations responsiveness
doubts about the nature of the CSOs’ work and about the way they handle their duties.
This is combined with suspicion on the interests they represent. Respondents view family and friends as more reliable sources to refer to when facing a problem, whereas civil
society organisations come in ninth, after the media and local government. However,
given the background of low trust to institutions in general and the fact that government, MP and MEPs come next, it can be seen as an encouraging signal of the role the
CSOs can fill in. An interesting phenomenon that illustrates the deficiencies of public
institutions and the effectiveness of public policies is the role media play in raising and
solving social problems. They come to fill in the niche to counter social issues such as
deinstitutionalisation, charity campaigns, defending human rights (Figure 3).
Fig. 3. Who are going to turn to if you have a problem?
How likely/probably is it, that you turn to the following, if you have a problem?
Family
Friends
The Police
Local authorities
Media
Colleagues at work
Local government representative
Civil society organization
Government agency (ministry)
Church community
MEP and EU institutions
MP
None, I try to solve it myself
4.40
4.26
3.64
2.96
2.61
2.52
2.08
1.72
1.68
1.64
1.62
1.58
2.71
33
Center for the Study of Democracy, Civil society in Bulgaria: Trends and Risks http://www.csd.
bg/fileSrc.php?id=20287
CIVICUS CSI Study data conducted by OSI-Sofia 2008-2010.
57
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
The embeddedness of the Bulgarian CSOs in general is problematic,34 however,
the advocacy CSOs are even less recognisable to the citizens. The data from the survey states that the link between the CSOs advocacy activities and initiatives and the
citizens is weak. Though CSI CIVICUS survey points to various cases of relatively successful advocacy actions, advocacy as a routine sustained agenda of the CSOs in Bulgaria demands further efforts. More than 63% of respondents think that CSOs do not
reflect on the problems the citizens face, which reaffirms the data from the EVS and
the CSI that CSOs do not enjoy
How much do you think civil organizations and
high trust in their activities,
their advocacy activities reflect on the problems,
that most of the citizens do
needs which YOU face?
not understand what their role
5.6%
is and how they can embody
9.2%
45.7%
the function of transmitter between the citizens and the gov20.8%
erning institutions. This leads
to problematic image of the
CSOs, low civic engagement in
their activities and to the overall impression that they work
primarily for their financial
18.6%
benefit and are not effective.
1= not at all
2
3
4
5= very much
The data has shown weak
embeddedness of the advocacy
Fig. 4. Embeddedness of advocacy activities
CSOs. The CSOs are not trusted
as institutions to reflect on citizens’ needs, the forms of activity are not direct and the
source of information for their activity is mainly indirect and through the media. This
is conducive to the alienation and delegitimation of the CSOs and their transformation
into artificial representatives of citizens and further lowers their embeddedness.
1.4. Channels of communication and means
of involvement of citizens in civil advocacy actions
and CSOs
These variables present an attempt to explain the incongruence between “demand” and “supply” side of advocacy activities (CSOs vs. citizens) and communication between them. Here the data is gathered from the following questions:
●
●
●
●
34
58
Q3 – How people become acquainted with CSOs and their activities
Q5 – Means of real involvement in civil activity
Q9 – Means of real involvement in CSOs
Q15 – Potential means of involvement in CSO and its activities
CIVICUS CSI Study data conducted by OSI-Sofia 2008-2010.
PA R T I I I . S U RVE Y A N A LYS I S
It is essential to outline that the standard error in the data gathered under this
section (Q 5, 9, 15) is significant as the invalid answers and refusals are predominant.
The main tools of involvement are seen through the more distant and direct
involvement of donations and petitions. Furthermore, the issue of donations entails
a broad discussion on the mandate of the charity organizations, the involvement of
media and state institutions as charity campaigners, standards and ethics of fundraising (figure 5). Petitions, especially the ones, carried out online, represent a specific
phenomenon of activism. The various tools of Internet – forums, blogging, facebook,
viral mailing are gaining significant impact on opinion making. Media is the main
source of information, leading the societal agenda.
Fig. 5. Ways of getting involved in civil activity
In what way did you get involved in a civil activity?
1.61
1.27
donation
1.77
1.87
2.00
1.40
supporter
(e.g signing petitions, participation
in campaign
voluntary
work
being a member chatting, blogging,
of an NGO
internet
communities,
chat group
other
The mean is the average for each variable. The variables are based on 50 answers only and the
possibility of a standard error is significant
The data reflects the overall popularity of the media as the main source of information (figure 6). First comes the TV with the asset of the visual effects, then the
newspapers and magazines, radio and then the information about the CSOs comes
through channels of personal contact – friends and family. Internet is also gaining
a foothold as a means of mediating and translating the activities of the CSOs to the
citizens. A recently observed phenomenon is of the media to act not only as an opinion maker, but an initiator and defender of specific initiatives, protection of vulnerable groups and taking over the responsibility for specific public policies. It has also
a very significant role in advocacy by provoking debate and by “taking over” on main
advocacy areas. Citizens tend to refer to the media when a problem occur and the
various broadcasters act as an instance in resolving cases of injustice, raising awareness on social issues, etc.
59
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
Fig. 6. Channels of information about civil society organizations
Where or how did you hear about civil society organizations or their activities?
Television
1.08
Newspapers, magazines
Radio
Via friends, family
1.52
1.55
1.69
On the Internet
1.78
Street posters, leaflets
1.80
Via activists
1.84
At an event
1.84
Received information in post
Telephone contact
Other
1.94
1.97
2.00
The mean is the average for each variable. The variables are based on 50 answers only and the
possibility standard error is significant
This is also related to the relatively high trust the citizens have towards media
and TV. Against the background of low trust in institutions and hesitation about the
role of the CSOs, recent OSI – Sofia survey,35 shows that 11.3% citizens state they have
significant trust in TV, compared to the 3.1% of trust to the Parliament or even the
7.4% to the current populist government or 3.9% in the NGOs. Close to that level of
trust is the attitude to the armed forces with 11%.
This position of the media in society makes it the main channel of opinionmaking and shaping political and societal agenda, which gives it a significant power
compared to both civil society and the institutions. Internet popularity as a source of
information is also growing.
1.5. Advocacy CSOs which the citizens
know and they trust in
The data show an insignificant share of participation. Between 94% and 97%
of the respondents were not able to identify any organisation that they participate,
willing to or having gained their trust. The organisations list is based on several cases
of positive answers and that is why it cannot be considered as representative for
the advocacy CSOs in Bulgaria. This can testify for the weak level of embeddedness
and the lack of understanding and visibility of advocacy activities in general. What is
interesting to outline, however, is that the profile of the organisations in this list do
represent the main areas of the most embedded advocacy activities as identified in
the first section, i.e. the children and disabled people rights, social policy, education
and healthcare, environment and human rights.
35
60
Open Society Institute – Sofia, Open Bus, March 2010.
PA R T I I I . S U RVE Y A N A LYS I S
1.6. Conclusion: what survey results show?
The quantitative data on the state of advocacy in Bulgaria reaffirms certain aspects on the civil society development and gives an overview on the potential for
furthering advocacy as a function of the CSOs.
1. The data outlines the contextual background of low level of trust in public
institutions, which reflects the faltering trust in the activities of CSOs. The
organisations are perceived as non-effective, dependent on financial and
political interests and serving their own objectives rather than implementing the role of a watch-dog.
2. The predominant low civic engagement registered by the European Values
Survey and the CIVICUS CSI is reiterated about the advocacy activities. There
is a low willingness and readiness to involve in CSOs activities and citizens
tend to solve their problems through friends and families. When involved,
they prefer more distant means of involvement such as donations and signing petitions. In addition, they receive information about the advocacy CSOs
through media channels, the family and friends circles or internet first.
3. Nevertheless, the survey reveals some areas of societal concern, where citizens not only express interest, but are also willing to get involved. Though
this trend is not significant, it is a qualitative characteristic of the state of
civic engagement. The problem areas for civic participation are clearly defined, such as rights of children, rights of disabled, citizens’ security, social
policy, healthcare and education, environment.
4. This means that there is a demand for channelling CSO-citizens communication into positive direction. This also requires a needs-based approach in
the activities of the CSOs with clear vision how to involve citizens and make
this engagement sustainable. On the other hand, this calls for a clear-cut
public mandate of CSOs as representing citizens’ interests and act for their
concerns.
The background of limited trust provides for lower involvement and understanding of the CSOs. However, the citizens express a prevalent interest in some areas
where they tend to involve and to contribute to, which calls for a more systemic and
sustainable communication approach on behalf of the CSOs to entrust and attract
citizens for their activities.
Do the CSOs succeed in its transmission role? How do they tend to organise
their campaigns and what is the role of citizens in their activities? How open and
transparent are the CSOs in their inner organisation and management and do they
provide opportunities for citizens’ involvement? This has been the rationale for testing the validity of the quantitative data through qualitative research. The profile of
the organisations in the semi-structured interviews and the participants in the focus
groups are presented in section 2.2.
61
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
2. Qualitative analysis
2.1. Analysis of interviews
Desislava Hristova
T
he objective of the qualitative research through interviews with different advocacy organisations, activists and groups is to test the degree to which civil
society in Bulgaria has the abilities and capacity to reflect on societal problems, to
streamline successful advocacy campaigns and initiatives and to push for change.
The analysis explores the following aspects of the advocacy activities – how organisations involve citizens in their activities; what techniques and approaches are utilized in advocacy; what preconditions the success of the initiatives, what factors and
components are necessary; how favourable is the environment and how responsive
the institutions to the advocacy push and whether the organisations possess the
know-how and understanding.
The structure of the employees of the organisations re-affirms the Civil Society
Index and Bulgarian Center for non-profit Law data that NGOs in Bulgaria are comparatively small, some are lacking permanent employees or the number varies accordingly to the project and activities. 8 of the organisations have personnel under
5 people; some are just 1-2 person organisations. 13 of the organizations are with
personnel between 5 and 9 employees and 3 NGOs hire between 10 and 20. 1 organisation has stated that employees are more than 20, and 2 – more than 50 (which are
representatives of international organisations that have structures throughout the
country). One is an informal coalition; one is an online activist and one as a network
didn’t specify the number of operating staff.
Most of the organisations state that they work with volunteers and enrol volunteers in their activities. Some also have various forms of maintaining volunteer clubs
and forums. Some organisations that work primarily in the policy field and policy
advocacy enrol mostly interns on temporary basis.
According to the law, the foundations do not have members, while the interviewed associations state they do have members - some being physical persons, others NGOs or business. Structure-wise, the foundations seem more closed to citizens’
involvement than the associations. The foundations are not open to new members
and though most of them claim to work with volunteers, the number is significantly
smaller than the associations.
Concerning the policies for membership applications, most of the associations do have a written procedure in their mission statement. In several cases,
however, the CSOs stated that there is no such policy or that primarily informal
rules apply.
62
PA R T I I I . S U RVE Y A N A LYS I S
► Decision-making and strategic planning of advocacy
The organisations are seemingly well-structured and have a certain practice and
standard of decision-making and strategic planning. Accordingly to their structure,
the main actors and structures involved in the process of shaping priorities and outlining objectives are the Board and the team and the Executive Director or the General Assembly following proposals of the team and administrative staff. In some cases,
the opinion of the target audiences, partner organisations, and the club of supporters or the constituencies is also mentioned. Some of the organisations confess that
the opinion of the donors is also taken into account. Only a limited number of the
respondent organisations state that citizens’ opinion is also taken into account when
shaping the main objectives or annual priorities.
As to the issue, who attends the annual meetings of the organisations, a couple
of CSOs admitted to not hold such forums, while predominant part of the rest do
organise such meetings. The local organisations do seem to attract to these meetings the communities and wider audiences and as such to provide a greater openness of the CSOs operating locally. The majority of the CSOs, however, tend to invite
and involve only the members of the Board or the organisations, personnel, partner
organisations, experts associated with their work or only limited audiences. In just a
few cases, CSOs have provided more information on other groups to attend their annual meetings different than the immediate members or managing bodies – such as
volunteers, open to the public meetings, wide circle of people, target groups and the
community. In just two cases media and donors were mentioned.
In terms of embeddedness, there is no strict distinction or difference in the
structure or the way they work with citizens. However, the organisations that work
in the most embedded areas such as children’s rights and disabled people’s rights
seem to be better organised in terms of internal procedures, rules, networking, and
involvement of citizens in different campaigns.
For 17 (seventeen) of the organisations, the citizens are a target audience, 9 of
the respondents claimed that it depends on the situation and citizens can be both
a target and an initiator and for only two CSOs (working in the field of protection of
rights of people with reproductive problems and in the area of charity and donations), the citizens are initiators, not a target group.
The organisations have claimed that they are continuously making attempts to
include the citizens through various forms of supporters and club of friends, fundraising, blogs, forums, internet tools, but were not fully successful.
In the general case, the advocacy strategy is part of the general strategy of the
organisations – either annual, or between three to five years. The advocacy initiatives
frequently arise as a reaction to a certain issue, legislation or breach of rules or in defending certain rights. Most of the organisations also state that there is no advocacy
strategy on paper, but they do monitor certain policies, institutions or cases and are
ready to take a stance or initiate a debate or change.
63
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
In several cases, the organisations (primarily ones that are offices of international
NGOs) have elaborate internal rules of procedure and advocacy strategies. However,
one further specification is made, that local context and environment influence this
process.
Most of the respondents are able to identify main stages of advocacy campaign
and to explain in detail the various instruments and techniques used. Overall the
advocacy campaigns consist of analysis, identification of a problem, gathering data
and statistics, creating a team, exchanging ideas, possibilities to involve the media
or recognizable faces of the campaign and volunteers, identification of tools, realization, and evaluation. Most of the organisations do not have specific procedure of
evaluation. The ones that do make evaluation mention annual reports, publications,
feedback from the institutions, media publications, statistics on the internet site visits, the Board or General Assembly feedback, monitoring or a follow-up report; concluding public event. However, the predominant part of the organisations also added
that the approach depends on the situation and there are no universal techniques
that work and additional issues need to be taken into account and the advocacy
tools from the theory needs specific adjustment to the local context. An underlying
opinion is that the individual approach and direct contacts work best in Bulgaria. It is
considered important to know someone in an institution or local authority in order
to exert some influence.
► Approaches and techniques of advocacy
The organisations were able to identify various tools and approaches to advocacy:
On the stage of analysis
This stage of advocacy proved most problematic as most of the organisations
shared that their campaigns were mostly ad hoc or as a reaction to a specific measure
or policy. The organisations utilised forms of monitoring on public policies or parts
of the policy-making process or the media, SWOT analysis, participation in working
committees and groups in the National assembly or respective ministries, meeting
with experts, needs assessment and situation analysis; participation in public hearings.
On the stage of preparation
On this stage they were able to identify various types of meetings with institutions or partners, contacts with media, attracting a face of the campaign, online
mobilisation tools as forums or Facebook; mapping and developing of statements
and opinions; negotiations or building coalitions with partner organisations or the
media; contact and direct meetings with people they know in the institutions.
64
PA R T I I I . S U RVE Y A N A LYS I S
On the stage of realisation
On this stage of the campaign the CSOs managed to provide most versatile answers – starting from open letters, presentations, press conferences and public discussions, opinions and proposals for legislative amendments through articles in main
newspapers and TV participation to civic pressures, agreements, online petitions,
tweeter, emails, provocative installations, referring to EU institutions as an opportunity to influence the national ones, to the rarely utilised protests and demonstrations
or access to information (mentioned once) and litigations (mentioned once).
On the stage of evaluation
Most of the organisations admitted that they do not have clear-cut criteria or
procedure of evaluations. Predominant part used the annual reports they present to
the Managing body to receive feedback on the result; others – the feedback in the
media or the reaction in the relevant institutions, internal analysis, report from the
team, internet visits, questionnaires and surveys; measuring indicators or the evaluation of the Board, mid-term or monitoring evaluation.
► Opportunities and challenges
In order to be successful, advocacy depends on the resources of the organisations, the involvement of citizens and the responsiveness of the institutions. These
aspects are dependent on the motivation of citizens and the responsiveness of the
institutions coupled with the financial and expert capacity the organizations.
The organisations display a comparatively good knowledge and understanding
of advocacy, however issues of funding and inability to attract citizens and institutional lack of coherence and homogeneity hinder the successful advocacy in Bulgaria. Most organisations demonstrate skills, knowledge and understanding of the
process of advocacy and are able to define separate steps and stages, the necessary
components, but still not fully able to follow them in practice due to low funding or
project-based operation, low interest in citizens or incoherence of the institutions.
This results in limited impact of the NGOs.
The respondent organisations were able to identify campaigns that have proven
successful. Most of the examples were in the areas of social policy, human rights,
protection of marginalized people and child protection, which again reaffirms the
findings of the quantitative survey.
They have initiated amendments in the child protection law, white paper on social services, improving the work of the Fund for treating children abroad, the “Warm
lunch” campaign – targeting poor families, campaigns on deinstitutionalization of
children in institutions and raising awareness on the state of the home for elderly;
“No to the children in the reality show Big Brother” which also managed to introduce
changes in the Broadcasting law banning the participation of children in reality at all;
65
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
hotline against corruption; against buying votes in the Parliamentary and European
Parliament Elections; “No to the unbearable conditions in the birth-giving wards“
with 25 000 members in Facebook.
Good example of a campaign that involves both the citizen mobilization, expert
support from an NGO, capacity and visibility is the “Bulgaria in not a Big Brother”
targeting the uncontrolled surveillance of personal and traffic data. Successful synergy between high professional NGO, online trainings, negotiations, information and
data, bloggers and citizens mobilization - “The enthusiasm should be enhanced with
expertise and capacity”
The interviews also have confirmed that there are still challenges in mobilizing
citizens for the NGOs activities and the advocacy. Most of the organisations state
that they are working with volunteers and hire interns and volunteers, but still the
citizens are primarily a target audience, rather than participants. The main challenges
in involving citizens are the widely-spread apathy and indifference, general passivity
and lack of understanding of main social problems.
On the other hand, it has been displayed that approach and techniques of the
initiative depend also on the institution it is targeting as each institution is said to
have its individual manner and rules of procedure: “In the work with institutions, the
approach depends on the way the institution itself works and its internal culture and
rules of procedure”
The organisations have also identified persistent problems of involving citizens
in their activity:
Apathy, indifference and low trust
● Lack of understanding of the need to support the NGOs in this direction
and function
●
●
●
●
●
Disillusionment and poverty
Skepticism and marginalisation
Problematic image of the NGOs
Inadequate motivation for participation
Low level of trust in institutions and that if they participate, their opinion will be taken into account
● Lack of acceptance and understanding of the problems of various communities in Bulgaria
In their work with the institutions, the respondents
have outlined the following challenges:
● There is no framework or strategy (like in other countries) outlining priorities for development and support to the civil society
66
PA R T I I I . S U RVE Y A N A LYS I S
● Difficult to predict institutions – it is not clear what happens in the institutions – closed structures
● Problematic access to information
● Depending on personal contacts rather than on equal and uniform access
● Each institution – different approach and procedures
● The institutions are susceptible but it is not obvious whether they take
the various proposals into account and do not provide feedback
● The institutions and public authorities are passive themselves
Challenges in the work of the NGOs
● Transparency of the NGOs – they do not keep the same standards they
subscribe to
● Necessary to provide feedback and keeping the interest of the citizens
in the activities
● Funding
● Malpractices with the NGOs – replacement of working organisations
● Consolidation of the sector: “When you channel your efforts is more effective and the institutions prefer to work with one that speak or represent more”
2.2. Focus group analysis – professional NGOs
versus informal civic initiatives?
Petya Kabakchieva
The four focus group discussions had in some aspects similar conclusions, but
differed highly in their evaluation of civil society and NGOs perspectives and opportunities for influence. The main line of difference is between representatives of
formal NGOs and “informal” civic activists, supporting specific causes. If we should
put it one sentence – the formal NGOs, especially those which are project oriented, are more skeptical towards the future of CSO and their influence, while
the “informal” activists had been far more optimistic and listed mostly successful campaigns. But all the participants in all groups agreed that there is a trend
of professionalization of NGOs, which deprives them of their civic energy. Most
frustrated had been the representatives of local, based in the countryside NGOs,
due to the lack of money, specific financial restrictions in the EU funds financing, lack
of citizens’ support, difficulties in lobbying. But they confessed that local authorities are more open now to their proposals than before. The other factor influencing
optimistic/pessimistic views is age – the younger participants had been, the more
67
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
optimistic they are, even the younger representatives of local NGOs had been more
optimistic compared to their older “colleagues”.
Here are in brief the main conclusions, referring to the main topics of discussions.
► Evaluation of the development of civil society in Bulgaria.
Main functions of civil society. Embeddedness of NGOs
The evaluation of civil society development depends on two factors – age and
engagement in formal NGOs or non formal CSOs: the young and the informal activists are optimistic about the future of civil society, the older representatives of NGOs
– not. NGO activists, who are engaged in civic activities from 20 years are nostalgic
and skeptical about future development of civic sector, for them the peak of civic
activism was in the past. They state that at the beginning of political changes there
was enormous civic energy, people had been enthusiastic and supported their actions, but now NGOs became professional, lost the support of the people and civil
society became commercial. “We moved from the stage of enthusiasm and civic zeal
in the early 90s to commercialization and adjustment now – we are interested where
the money is.” “State recognized us, but we lost the people. We had no energy now
to be with the people.” On the contrary, most of the informal activists, being critical
towards NGOs, and relatively young to give evaluation of civil society development,
are optimistic. They remember the beginning of the political change in Bulgaria, with
all the protests and meetings, with enthusiasm, do not highly evaluate NGOs and
are convinced that now people, if they have a problem, will defend it. Internet is
perceived by all of them as a tool, very important for civic activity, because nothing
could be hidden, everything is public and it could mobilize a lot of people. “Civil society is an alternative. There is always an alternative.” “If one wants to change something, if he has a cause, he will succeed.”
The main function of civil society is seen by nearly all the participants in
all the focus groups as political, which coincides with team’s understanding of
advocacy. Even those who are involved in social service activities do not defend the
thesis that this is a key function of civil society, three participants, working on local
level underlined the community-building role of CSO. Here are some definitions of
civil society: “Civil society means publicity, transparency, control”; “opposition to the
state, critical thinking”; “The question is what civil society could do? 10 000 people,
even 5 000 people in front of the Parliament could change a lot of things towards better life”. “Civil society is a catalyst of social change”. Many of the participants did not
use the term “advocacy”, but “social change”, “alternative policies”, “pushing people to
fight for defence of their interests” etc. From that point of view civil society requires
real civic activism which presupposes strong motivation and causes and usually it is
critical towards the state. Working with people, support of people, citizen's activity
and participation is evaluated as having key importance for CSO. Some of the young
people, one representative of NGOs and two informal activists claim that authentic
civil society in Bulgaria started a few years ago, with small civic actions, related to
68
PA R T I I I . S U RVE Y A N A LYS I S
important for the people actions – like protesting against construction of building in
the parks, saving some parks etc. This notion of civil society determines the attitude
of FG participants towards NGOs.
As a whole nearly all participants in all the FG discussions evaluate NGOs as
not embedded, closely related to the state, project oriented and donor driven.
“Most of the NGOs, especially the larger ones, had been established in the period
when Bulgarian state wanted to nurture its civil society. So they are not opposing the
state, they want to be on good terms with the state. And money from the EU funds is
coming through the state”. “The more authentic civic activism is that of the informal
groups...they act in most of the cases without any financing or leverages”. “One cannot define NGOs, whose financing depends on Ministry of Finance, as civil society”.
“NGOs survive through projects. You can have very high civic goals in a project, you
may want to achieve very useful objectives. But the market for projects in most cases
is structured in such a way that it continues to function without actually changing
anything. By writing in my blog and mobilizing people I can achieve more goals then
if a work on a project of Ministry of Labor and Social Policy”. One person, themselves,
representative of an NGO, argued that NGOs are not authentic civil society, they are
simulating that they are, but they are not. All participants, even those representatives of NGOs are worried by the trend of professionalization and bureaucratization of NGOs, of breaking the contact with people and working closely with
the state. “Some NGOs begin to act as state administration.“ A few people accept
that some of the NGOs could be helpful in advocacy campaigns. So, FG discussions
showed a clear delegitimation of NGOs as civil society actors, a serious crisis in
perception and self perception of NGOs actors.
► Advocacy campaigns
As it was stated above, as social change and correction of state policy are seen as
the main functions of civil society, it is evident that advocacy in our wide understanding is perceived as a key activity.
The participants in the FGD had a lot of successful campaigns. The less successful are the campaigns, organized by the local, based in the countryside, NGOs; the
most successful are those of informal activists, combined with efforts of some NGOs.
Here are examples:
Local NGOs, based in the countryside:
● Proposals for additional elaboration of local strategy for development –
relatively successful.
● Development of inter-organizational policies and rules for child protection in every organization, institution, working with children – not successful.
69
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
● Village community development strategy – not successful.
● Creating a place for skateboarding in a park – not successful.
● Creating and supporting a group for self support of lonely parents –
successful and sustainable.
NGOs, based in Sofia:
●
●
●
●
Launching a new Law for disabled people – successful.
Legalizing the institution of Ombudsman – successful.
Campaign for publicity of Sofia municipality budgets – successful.
Participation in the elaboration of the new Electoral code – semi-successful.
● A campaign for cycle lanes in Sofia – relatively successful.
● A lot of campaigns for access to information in different institutions –
successful.
● A campaign to pay with stamps for services – successful.
● A campaign for building regional garbage depots – relatively successful.
● “Bulgaria is not Big Brother” – amendments in the Law regulating digital
rights – successful.
● “No children in ‘Big Brother’” – amendments in the Law for Radio and
Television – successful.
● Campaign for elaboration of rules of ECTS – not successful.
● Campaign for changes in curriculum of an University department – successful.
Bloggers, who organized advocacy campaigns:
● “Bulgaria is not Big Brother” – amendments in the Law regulating digital
rights – successful.
● Amendments in the new Election code – semi successful.
● Protecting specific mountain and sea places, keeping them in the zones
of Nature 2000 – “Save Irakli” “Save Strandja” – successful.
● Revoking specific regulations giving the right to sell forests – successful.
● Resign of a corrupted rector – relatively successful (the rector resigned,
as well the blogger).
● A campaign for defence of refugees’ rights – relatively successful.
70
PA R T I I I . S U RVE Y A N A LYS I S
An interesting case is the campaign for defence of refugees’ rights. It started
with a meeting for improving living conditions in a refugees’ settlement. The meeting took place in front of the building. The meeting took place in front of the hostel.
It was attacked by a group of neo Nazi’s and two defenders of refugees’ rights had
been heavily beaten. This provoked high media attention, which is not the usual case
when the rights of refugees are concerned. So both the problems of refugees and
neo-Nazism started to be discussed and legislative steps for guaranteeing refugees’
rights as well as for sanctions for crimes of hatred had been undertaken. This could
be called “snowball effect” – one advocacy campaign provoked another one and
served as a stimulus for wider media debate.
Informal leaders of advocacy campaigns:
● Campaigns for donating money for sick children like “Save Darina” and
others – successful, “Save Darina” collected 300 000 Euro.
● A campaign for amendments in Family Benefits Act – successful.
● A campaign for changes in the healthcare system – changes in clinical
paths – successful.
● A campaign for changes in the Fund for children’s treatment – successful.
● A campaign for prevention of dropping out of Roma children on local
level – successful.
● A campaign for ensuring better treatment of Roma children suffering
by cerebral paralysis on local level – not successful.
● Support for drug addict on local level – semi successful.
● Defence of LGBT rights – semi successful, the most efficient institution
for defence of their rights is Anti-discrimination commission.
The listed advocacy campaigns show several things. First, in spite of the high
self criticism of NGOs representatives, they had carried out a lot of successful advocacy campaigns. Second, it is evident that the advocacy on local level faces more
problems, then in the capital. Third, FG discussions confirm the results from survey
that the most embedded areas for advocacy are children’s rights, rights of disabled
people, security problems – the amendments in the in the Law regulating digital
rights were in the line of guaranteeing security of personal data – in these areas are
the successful advocacy campaigns; as well as the less embedded areas – LGBT and
minority rights – there the campaigns face serious problems.
► What makes advocacy successful?
A successful advocacy campaign has to combine different means – it should have
a clear cause and demands, it should start on-line, because Internet should broad-
71
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
cast, transmit the “message” – what concrete changes people want; then it could go
with signing on-line petitions and making Facebook groups. The petitions should be
addressed to all institutions – the Government, the National assembly, the European
Commission, the European Court. Petitions and demands should be consulted with
experts in the field and lawyers. But this on-line and expert activities are not enough,
they should be combined with off line protests. In order one cause to be successful it
should be supported by at least 5000 people. Finally, lobbying also helps. The bloggers’ activity is evaluated as very important because they present alternative voices,
they make the social environment more transparent, they control the official media
as well as the institutions, because nothing could be hidden. “We work on two levels,
the one is the policy level and the other one is that of citizens’ support and pressure.
On one side you need an expert potential in order to formulate concrete demands,
on the other side you need civic enthusiasm.” So, the short formula: on-line and off
line activities, experts and activists, clear cause and demands.
Being located in the capital also helps, as well as working in a popular embedded area.
For local NGOs and activists, on-line activity is not so important, they confess
that lobbying is the best strategy.
Most of the participants in the FG claim that people are active, when they have
their own stake, when they defend personal interests, try to solve problems, which
affect them directly. “People became civically engaged only when they are personally
affected.” NGO representatives are worried by this trend, but for informal activists this
is normal and this is the basis of the civic activity. “There is no need of great causes,
step by step we are changing the things.” But informal activists are convinced that
there are people who will defend value causes, too.
► What are the reasons for failures of advocacy activities?
Problems, faced by CSO
NGOs problems:
● Lack of support from people, they lost people’s confidence, “we are invisible to them”.
● Professionalization of NGOs, they are transforming themselves to social
service providers, because 80% of public financing for NGOs goes to
service providers.
● Unclear rules of financing; financing depends on state institutions and
cultivates dependence of the state – for instance Ministry of Finance
allocates the sum for NGOs; being close to the state NGOs cannot act
anymore as ‘watch dogs’.
● There is no administrative control for the money given to NGOs, no
monitoring and evaluation of the effects of the projects; no procedures
for appealing against injustices in procedures for winning projects.
72
PA R T I I I . S U RVE Y A N A LYS I S
● “The state uses the NGOs as a form of legitimation of its policies, so
NGOs are legitimizing things in which they do not believe.”
● Unclear rules of institutions, they are not systematic, everything depends on the person, who is governing the institution; there are no
consistent institutional policies.
● No serious civic education in schools, which should cultivate in students democratic and participatory culture. This is related to the fact
that there is a lack of skills for argumentation and defending causes;
people cannot formulate clear messages. “Students go to squares, protest, shout and then what? They cannot formulate a clear message.”
● Media do not “sell” NGOs good practices, they are not interested which
organization exactly had promoted that concrete initiative, so NGOs
stay anonymous.
● Local NGOs share all these problems, but they underline the fact that
people do not want to participate in any activity, “everybody cares about
themselves and is not interested in anything related to others or community”, “people are afraid to participate, they are afraid to lose their jobs if
they participate in anything”. Also the most active and young people are
emigrating, so they are losing the most active group. Another problem
is that they are convinced in their isolation from policies developed on
national level, “we are not in the capital, we have no influence. NGOs in
the capital are aristocrats, they usually receive what they want.”
Informal activists and bloggers problems:
● The low support of people is expressed in that way: on-line campaigns
usually gather a lot of supporters, but a real engagement is not so
popu­lar, “when we gather in front of an institution we are usually 5 to
10 times less than the on-line supporters”.
● They are complaining too of bad work of institutions, their resistance to
change.
● A debate started among them whether the legislation is bad or the laws
are good but they are not enforced – most of the FG participants defended the latter position.
● The problem of civic education was also raised.
Interesting enough, finance and money had not been commented either as a
factor of success, or as a failure. Unlike representatives of NGOs, for whom financing
was one of the greatest problems, informal activists talked mostly for causes and
how they should be defended. They stressed on necessity of expert knowledge and
voluntary work – everything which they do as civic activists is voluntary. The other
73
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
problem which they ignored was the media coverage of their actions, because they
communicate on Internet – via blogs, forums, Facebook, send clips to YouTube etc.
► Comments on survey results
All participants in FG discussions were not surprised by the main findings of the
survey and agreed with them. Debates appeared on the question what type of causes people support, what motivate them to act. People support causes when “they
perceive themselves as underprivileged majority, but they do not support causes
of underprivileged minorities like religious ones, or rights of refugees. Most people
act when they have a personal interest, they could not be motivated just by values,
but need this to be a personal issue”. Others agreed that people act when they have
personal interest, but, especially young people defend values, too.
Conclusion and interpretation of qualitative and quantitative results
In order to facilitate advocacy and make it a successful tool to influence policies
and engage citizens, three main preconditions should be in place:
1. Ability to mobilise and motivate civic engagement
2. Capacity and resources in the NGOs
3. Clear-cut uniform predictable rules of procedure within the institutions.
The quantitative survey has displayed issues of low trust in the institutional clusters of the civil society in Bulgaria and its problematic image raise doubts about the
CSOs efficiency to reflect on the citizens’ needs. The CSOs are perceived as donor and
project-driven with limited influence on the societal agenda of the country which is
conducive to weak CSOs-citizens links and alienation between the civic activists and
the organisations.
The qualitative research had confirmed survey results. Representatives of NGOs
are not optimistic about the state of affairs of civil society development in Bulgaria
and in implementing their advocacy function, though in the focus group discussions
they listed a lot of successful advocacy campaigns. The financial instability, coupled
with low level of institutional responsiveness and lack of coherence and rules of procedure in the public consultations limit their abilities. In addition, their attempts to
attract citizens and involve them in their activities are with limited success. The citizens are primarily a target groups to the CSOs activities, being seen as apathetic, indifferent and passive or lacking understanding of the CSOs.
On the other hand, the citizens do not turn to the CSOs when they have a specific problem. When in need, they turn to family and friends. The means for solving of
problems are seen through the private space. This lack of trust in CSOs is a by-product
of the disillusionment of democracy and public institutions. The CSOs are considered
rather as part of the institutional setting than as channelling citizens’ interests. This
74
PA R T I I I . S U RVE Y A N A LYS I S
indicates a serious crisis in CSOs activities and the conventional forms of public
civic participation and in the transmission role CSOs can utilise. The CSOs have
admitted in failing to educate citizens in “citizenry”. They are becoming professional organizations and are loosing their civic zeal.
In the last few years, the internet’s role in mobilizing spontaneous responses
on certain issues, like consumer protection and environmental concerns has proven
successful. But in order to maintain this trend, the key lies not in the internet as an
instrument, but on the development of society as a whole. The ability to mobilise
interest and generate impact depends on the capacity of the CSOs and on their relations with the institutions and the authorities. The NGOs on one hand are still not
able to gather public support and accountability, while the institutions lack of a uniform mechanism of consultations and interactions also places NGOs in a position of
dependency on the “good will” of certain administrative structures. This coupled with
the problems with representation in the NGO sector makes the NGOs ineffective and
citizens indifferent and passive.
The recently more visible grass-root groups and movements, as well as online
forums and blogs, offer an alternative and a push to this status-quo. The focus groups
participants in two of the four in total meetings - informal and online activists are
optimistic about the role of civil society, and they have achieved small-scale social
changes due to persistent measures and steps, driven by self-sufficient smaller-scale
causes, able to generate trust in their activities and to mobilise civic support. The
short formula for the success of advocacy activities is the following: clear cause and
demands, on-line and off line activities, experts and activists. The most embedded
areas for advocacy refer to children’s rights, rights of disabled, citizens’ security, social
policy, healthcare and education, environment. In these areas the most successful
advocacy campaigns had been realized. This means that there is a demand for channelling CSO-citizens communication into positive direction.
3. General conclusions and policy
recommendations
3.1. Conclusions
T
he research on the state of affairs of Bulgarian civil society in one of its primary function of advocacy, has displayed the following challenges and opportunities:
1. The initial dream of Bulgarian dissidents had been quite abstract and oriented to political change towards “a free, democratic, and just society”. This
dream was embedded in Bulgarian society, but the huge political changes
in the late 1980s were not fully sustained through an embedded project of
civil society development. The initial dream had realized half way – there are
75
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
institutions of democracy, but not democratic culture, there is a civil society
without active civic participation.
2. Citizens are alienated and disillusioned with democracy and public institutions and tend to prefer the immediate private realm when solving a problem or starting off an activity – that of family and friends. Most of them do
not participate in civic activities.
3. NGOs, being the classical tool of civil society, are exhausting their role of a
transmitter, giving a way to new fresh forms of civic activism challenging the
institutional setting of the sector.
4. The most serious problems NGOs are facing refer to their dependency on
state financing, lack of embeddedness and inconsistent institutional frame
they are working in.
5. The most embedded areas of advocacy refer to children’s rights, rights of
disabled, citizens’ security, social policy, healthcare and education, environment. In these areas the most successful advocacy campaigns had been realized. This means that there is a demand for channelling CSO-citizens communication into positive direction.
6. Civic activity is moving out of the classical box of institutional clusters and
challenges the general persistent pattern of low citizens’ participation
7. There is a shift from massive political campaigns in the beginning of the
1990s to smaller-scale private causes, sparked by personal interest and
bonding small groups together, who act as civil actors.
8. Spontaneous grass-root movements recently inhabit the civil society arena
in Bulgaria able to mobilise civic participation and influence policy changes.
9. The civil society is not disappearing; rather NGOs are in their mid-life crisis in
fulfilling its role of representation of citizens. They are becoming more and
more professionalized, working close with local and state authorities, most
of them transforming themselves in service providers.
10. These two trends: of changing NGOs and maturing grass-root activism, delineate the changing nature of civil society in Bulgaria. The former will act
more and more as state allies, the latter – as critical opponents of the state
and advocacy activists.
3.2. Policy recommendations
On the country level:
● Improve interaction between policy makers, CSOs and citizens by creating a sustainable and predictable legislated environment for interactions.
76
PA R T I I I . S U RVE Y A N A LYS I S
● Measures to frame CSOs – government relations have to be introduced
in order to secure clear-cut uniform legally-binding rules in communication with the government and its consultative bodies.
● Decrease the bureaucratic burden and facilitate the access of civil society to funds including structural and cohesion funds, by developing an
advocacy platform for strengthening effective civic participation in the
next programming period of EU funds and ensuring better rules and
management schemes. Establishment of a National Fund for CSO with
clear rules and procedures for competition for projects and initiatives.
● An elaboration of more practically oriented civic education curriculum
in schools.
● Institutionalization of some on-line activities as signing petitions as
legal forms of civic activism.
To NGOs and media:
● To develop a strategy for creating sustainable relationships with the
media and drafting a pact for cooperation.
● To increase the visibility of CSOs by publicising the influence of their
activities on people’s lives, rather than focusing on projects.
● Drafting an agenda for emergency reforms in the human development
domain (such as healthcare, social policy, education, rule of law and
fighting corruption) among CSOs in order to improve the environment
and to strengthen the impact of civil society on decision-making processes at the national, regional and European levels.
77
References
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
78
Aksartova, Sada (2006). “Why NGOs? How American Donors Embrace Civil
Society after the Cold War,” The International Journal of Non-for-Profit Law 8, 3:
15-20.
● Carothers, Thomas (1999). Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve Carnegie
Endowment. Washington DC.
● Cisar, Ondrej (2008). Politický aktivismus v Českérepublice. Sociálníh nutíaobčanská
společnost v období transformace a evropeizace [Political Activism in the Czech
Republic: Social Movements and Civil Society in the Periods of Transformation and
Europeanization]. Brno: CDK.
Dainov, E. (2008). Civil Society and the European Agenda in Bulgaria: 1988-2007, in Adapting
the Enlarged Union to the Citizen. BECSA.
Donoghue, F. (2003). Nonprofit Organisations as Builders of Social Capital and Channels of
Expression: the Case of Ireland. Trinity College Dublin: 15.
Fioramonti, L. & Finn Heinrich. How Civil Society Influences Policy: A Comparative Analysis
of the CIVICUS Civil Society Index in Post-Communist Europe: http://www.civicus.org/new/
media/CIVICUS.ODI.Fioramonti.Heinrich.pdf
Flam, Helen, ed. (2001). Pink, Purple, Green: Women’s, Religious, Environmental, and Gay/
Lesbian Movements in Central Europe Today. Boulder: East European Monographs.
Granovetter, M. (1985). “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of
Embeddedness,” American Journal of Sociology 91 (3).
Howard, Mac Morje (2003). The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe.
Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Jenkins, J. C. (1987). Nonprofit Organizations and Policy Advocacy. The Nonprofit Sector: A
Research Handbook. W. W. Powell. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kendall, J. and M. Knapp (2000). “Measuring the Performance of Voluntary Organizations,”
Public Management 2 (1), 105-132.
Kendall, J. (2003). The Voluntary Sector. Comparative perspectives in the UK. London, New
York: Routledge.
Kopp, Mária, ed. (2008): Magyar lelkiállapot. Semmelweis Kiadó. Budapest.
Kramer, R. M. (1981). Voluntary Agencies in the Welfare State. Berkley, Los Angeles,
London.
McMahon, Patrice (2001). “Building Civil Societies in East Central Europe: The Effects of
American Non-governmental Organizations on Women’s Groups,” Democratization 8, 2,
45-68.
REFERENCES
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Merkel, W., and H. Lauth (1998). “Systemwechsel und Zivilgesellschaft. Welche
Zivilgesellschaft braucht die Demokratie?”, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 6 (7),
3-12.
Nizák, Péter (2010): A nagykorúmagyar civil társadalom. Manuscript.
Petrova, Tsveta, and Sidney Tarrow (2007). “Transactional and Participatory Activism
in the Emerging European Polity: The Puzzle of East Central Europe,” Comparative
Political Studies 40 (1), 74-94.
Puddephatt, A. Exploring the Role of Civil Society in the Formulation and Adoption
of Access to Information Laws: The Cases of Bulgaria, India, Mexico, South Africa, and
the United Kingdom, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTGOVACC/Resources/
atICivSocietyFinalWeb.pdf
Putnam, R. (1993). Making Democracy work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Putnam, Robert D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Quigley, Kevin F.F. (1997). For Democracy’s Shake. Washington: Woodrow Wilson
Center Press.
Salamon, L., L. Hems, et al. (2000). The Nonprofit Sector: For What and for Whom? Working
Papers of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, no 37. Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins University Centre for Civil Society Studies.
Vachudova, M. (2005). Europe Undivided. Democracy, Leverage and Integration after
Communism. Oxford: OUP.
Александриева, Л. и А. Каракачанов, съст. (2009). Независимо дружество
„Екогласност” 1989 г. София: Сиела [Aleksandrieva, L. and A. Karakachanov. Independent
Society “Ecoglasnost” 1989. Sofia: Siela, 2009].
Баева, И. (1998). „Из историята на българското дисидентство – Общественият комитет
за екологична защита на Русе и властта,” Известия на държавните архиви, 76, 33–52
[Baeva, I. “From the history of the Bulgarian dissident movement: the Public Committee
for the environmental protection of Rousse and the government,” Izvestiia na dyrzhavnite
arhivi, 76, 1998, 33-52].
Баева, И. (2004). „Създаване на Клуба за подкрепа на гласността и преустройството и
ролята му за началото на прехода – 1988–1989 г.,” Известия на държавните архиви,
87, 3–30 [Baeva, I. “Founding of the Club for support of the openness and restructuring
and its role in the beginning of the transition period 1988-1989,” Izvestiia na dyrzhavnite
arhivi, 87, 2004, 33-52].
Гаврилова, Р., И. Еленков (1998). Към историята на гражданския сектор. София
[Gavrilova, R. and I. Elenkov. Towards the history of the civil sector. Sofia, 1998].
Ганчева, В. (2008). „Неправителственият сектор и (не)устойчивото развитие,“
в: Мобилност, уязвимост, устойчивост. София: Аля [Gancheva, V. “The Non-
79
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
80
governmental sector and the (un)sustainable development,” in: Mobility, vulnerability,
sustainability. Sofia: Alia, 2008].
Димитров, Г. (1995). България в орбитите на модернизацията. София [Dimitrov, G.
Bulgarian in the orbits of modernization. Sofia, 1995].
Желев, Желю (2005). Въпреки всичко. Моята политическа биография. София:
Колибри [Zhelev, Zheliu. In spite of everything. My Political Biography. Sofia: Kolibri,
2005].
Желев, Желю, интервю, личен архив [Zhelev, Zheliu, interview].
Иванова, Е. (1997). Българското дисидентство. Историята се завръща. 1988–1989.
Ч. 1. София [Ivanova, E. The Bulgarian Dissident Movement. History returns. 1988-1989.
Sofia, 1997].
Иванова, Е. (2006). „Интервю,” в: Историята, населена с хора. София: Гутенберг
[Ivanova, E. “Interview,” in: History Inhabited by People. Sofia: Gutenberg, 2006].
Кабакчиева, П. (2001). Гражданското общество срещу държавата. Българската
ситуация. София: ЛИК [Kabakchieva, P. Civil society against the State. The Bulgarian setting.
Sofia: LIK, 2001].
Кабакчиева, П. (2009). „Комунистическа идеология, социална структура и социални
неравенства в България,” в: История на Народна република България. Съст. Ивайло
Знеполски. София: СИЕЛА [Kabakchieva, P. “Communist ideology, social structure and
social inequalities in Bulgaria,” in: History of People’s Republic of Bulgaria. Edited by Ivaylo
Znepolski. Sofia: SIELA, 2009].
Калинова, Е. (2004).„Насилието в политиката на българската държава към българските
турци 30-те – 80-те години на ХХ век,” История, 3, 2004, 52–64 [Kalinova, E. “Violence in
Politics of the Bulgarian state towards the Bulgarian Turks,” Istoria, 3, 52-64].
Луджев, Д. (2008). Революцията в България. 1989–1991. Кн. 1. София: Ив. Богоров
[Ludzhev, D. The Revolution in Bulgaria. 1989-1991. Sofia: Iv. Bogorov, 2008].
Мигев, Вл. (2001). Българските писатели и политическият живот в България,
1944–1970. София [Migev, Vl. The Bulgarian Writers and Political Life in Bulgaria, 19441970. Sofia, 2001].
Мигев, Вл. (2005). Пражката пролет 1968 и България. София [Migev, Vl. Prague Springs
1968 and Bulgaria. Sofia, 2005].
Неделчев, М. (2001). „Дисидентството в България в контекста на общата антикомунистическа съпротива и на многообразните форми на несъгласие с
комунистическата система (уводен текст към българската част от международния
Речник на дисидентите),“ Демократически преглед [Nedelchev, M. “The Dissident
Movement in Bulgaria in the Context of the Comon Anti-communist Resistance and
within the Various forms of Dissent with the Communist system (Introduction to the
Bulgarian edition of the International Dictionary of Dissidents),” Demokraticheski
pregled, 2001].
Симеонов, П. (1996). Голямата промяна 1989–1990. Опит за документ. София:
Отечество [Simeonov, P. The Big Change 1989-1990. An Attempt for a Document. Sofia:
Otechestvo, 1996].
REFERENCES
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Стоянова, П., Е. Илиев (1991). Политически опасни лица – въдворявания, трудова
мобилизация, изселвания след 1944 г. София [Stoianova, P., E. Iliev. Politically Dangerous
Persons – Labour Mobilisation, Displacement after 1944. Sofia, 1991].
Христова, Н. (2005). Специфика на българското „дисидентство“. София [Hristova, N.
Specifics of the Bulgarian “Dissident Movement”. Sofia, 2005].
http://212.39.92.39/e/prosveta/istoria_11/62.html
ACCESS Association (2002): Третият сектор в България – изводи от хрониката на
развитие (1990–2002) [The Third Sector in Bulgaria – conclusions on the chronicle of
development (1990-2002)].
Access to Information Program Foundation: Annual Report, retrieved from http://www.
aip-bg.org/annual_rep_bg.htm
Bulgarian Center for Non-Profit Law publications:
 http://www.bcnl.org/doc_en.php?DID=304http://www.bcnl.org/docs/NGO_
participation_eng_logos_03_486.pdf
 Review of legislation for NGOs. Main criteria (2008) Bulgarian Center for NonProfit Law, http://www.bcnl.org/docs/NGO_governance_survey_report_FINAL_
eng_417.pdf
 Survey of Nonprofit Governance Practices in Bulgaria, (2006) Bulgarian Center
for Non-Profit Law, http://www.bcnl.org/en/articles/173-survey-of-nonprofitgovernance-practices-in-bulgaria-sofia-2006.html
Civic Participation Forum, http://www.bgactivecitizen.eu/
Civil Society Without the Citizens, 2003-2005, Balkan Assist Report, CIVICUS, http://www.
civicus.org/new/CSI_Bulgaria.htm
Coalition for the Nature, http://en.forthenature.org/
Crime without Punishment: COUNTERING CORRUPTION AND ORGANIZED CRIME IN
BULGARIA (2008), Center for the Study of Democracy, Sofia, http://www.csd.bg/fileSrc.
php?id=2650
Data from surveys conducted by Open Society Institute – Sofia, February – April 2009,
http://www.opendata.bg/
European Values Survey 2008.
Hristova-Kurzydlowski, D.: Civil Society Index for Bulgaria 2008-2010: Citizen Actions
without Engagement.
http://www.nsi.bg/otrasal.php?otr=12
http://www.nsi.bg/ORPDOCS/FS_4.2.NGO-Opr.xls
Market Links (2005) Imidzh na nepravitelstvenite organizacii, Sofia (The image of the
non-governmental organisations).
NGO Sustainability Index.
NPO – Nadezhdni partnyori za razvitie (Report: NGO – Reliable Partners for Development),
Foundation for Local Government Reform, 2008, National Statistical Institute Bulgaria,
2009.
81
Appendices
Appendix 1: Surveys description
T
he quantitative survey in Bulgaria was conducted by Alpha research in July
2010 by 800 phone interviews. The respondents are chosen on a random
sample.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 organisations and activists
that are dealing with advocacy in the period November 2010 – February 2011. The team
selected them through brainstorming, mapping the available data base and the on-line
NGO portal (http://www.ngobg.info). It should be noted that advocacy is just a complementary activity to the organisations. Only two organisations have claimed that advocacy is their primary activity. The others see it as a cross-cutting theme or a horizontal
principle of all their activities. The interviewees based on their profile and legislative
status (according to the Law for Non-profit Legal Entities) can be classified as follows:
Out of the 30, 17 are associations in public benefit, 3 out of the 17 being networks and/or coalitions of NGOs and 2 are representatives of international NGOs. 8
of the total are foundations in public benefit, 1 is a foundation in private benefit; 1 is
an informal partner network/coalition of NGOs; 1 is an informal group; 1 is an online
blogger advocacy activist and 1 is the national organization of the Red Cross.
In regard to geographical distribution, as stated in the quantitative research,
due to the centralized nature of decision and policy-making, most of the advocacy
NGOs operate in Sofia. This is being confirmed by the NGO portal where out 184 registered as advocacy NGOs, 121 are situated in Sofia.
What is interesting to outline is that organisations also utilize internet through
forums and social networks to mobilise interest and disseminate information
throughout the country. 21 of the organisations stated that they work on national
level, 4 on regional, 11 on local level, 2 on EU level (this accounts to more than 30 as
some organisations work both on national and local, or on national and EU). 17 are
registered in Sofia, 9 in the country, two operate online, and two of the organisations
are registered in Sofia, but operate throughout the country and 2 are networks of
organisations in Sofia and the country.
Areas of activity
The table below represents the accumulated data for the areas of advocacy of
the interviewed organisations. The organisations are classified accordingly to the ar-
82
APPENDICES
eas as specified in the quantitative survey, following also the level of embeddedness.
Most of the organisations have noted that they work in more than one area of focus.
Table 1. Areas of advocacy
Areas of advocacy
Social policy and service provision
Number of organisations
and embeddedness
2 / most embedded
Gender equality and anti-discrimination
1 / most embedded
Civic participation
4 / least embedded
Protection of children and enhancement of policies for
children, protection of children in vulnerable position/in
risk of abandonment
5 / most embedded
Protection of the Roma minority
4 / least embedded
Protection of marginalized groups and facilitating service
provision of people with mental disabilities
4 / most embedded
Community development and working with vulnerable
groups
2 / most embedded
LGBT
1 / least embedded
In-Vivo and fertility rights
1 / most embedded
Environment and sustainability
2 / most embedded
EU integration and policies
1 / least embedded
Charity and donations
2 / most embedded
Healthcare
Human rights
1 / most embedded
2 / most embedded
Rights of the elderly and disabled
1 / most embedded
Economic freedom
1 / least embedded
Local and regional development
Legal framework of the NGOs
2 / most embedded
1 / least embedded
Anti-corruption
1 / most embedded
The focus groups were conducted in February 2011 – February 10th outside of
the capital in the city of Pleven in the north-west part of the country, on February
24th with the national NGOs working in the least and most embedded areas, 25th
– with the informal community groups and on the 28th with the activists, informal
leaders and opinion makers and bloggers.
Profile of focus groups participants:
1. Informal leaders of civic initiatives and local communities: 9 participants
●
LGBT (least embedded)
●
Roma integration – 3 participants (least embedded)
83
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
●
Two mothers of sick children – with cerebral palsy and with kidneys anomalies (most embedded)
●
Online platform for fundraising for children with medical conditions (most
embedded)
●
Working with drug addicts – 2 participants (least embedded)
2. NGOs in Sofia – 8 participants
●
Environmental (most embedded)
●
Public policies (least embedded)
●
Judicial reform and development, rule of law (least embedded)
●
Parental organisation – education, better schooling (most embedded)
●
People with disabilities (most embedded)
●
Direct democracy and civic participation (least embedded)
●
Access to public information (most embedded)
●
Young people and education (most embedded)
3. NGOs in the country – 8 participants
●
Young people and local development – 2 participants (most embedded)
●
Environmental (most embedded)
●
Education (embedded)
●
Community development, in the town and in a village – 3 participants (least
embedded)
●
Social services (most embedded)
4. Bloggers, who had organized advocacy campaigns – 5 participants
84
●
Digital rights/personal data protection (most embedded)
●
Political blogging – 2 participants (least embedded)
●
Refugees rights (least embedded)
●
Green causes (most embedded)
APPENDICES
Appendix 2: List of advocacy CSOs
which the citizens know and they trust in,
Bulgaria Quantitative Survey
8. Please name the advocacy organizations you are active in:
Frequency
Valid Percent
752
94.0
10 School Board
6
0.8
13 Betel Bulgaria
1
0.1
14 Bulgarian Red Cross
2
0.3
16 Step by Step Foundation
4
0.5
18 Bulprofor
1
0.1
20 Mother and Child Home
(abondoned children institution)
1
0.1
22 Association St. Mina
1
0.1
25 Civic association Green Varna
1
0.1
26 Four Paws Bulgaria
1
0.1
27 Foundation Conception
1
0.1
30 Dari jivot (Donate Life Foundation)
1
0.1
31 Youth Educational centre
1
0.1
8 Do not know
17
2.1
9 Refuse to answer
10
1.3
800
100.0
no answer
Valid
Total
14. Which organization or organizations do you plan to get involved with?
Frequency
Valid Percent
783
97.9
10 School Board
1
0.1
16 Step by Step Foundation
1
0.1
14
1.8
1
0.1
800
100.0
No answer
Valid
8 Do not know
9 Refuse
Total
85
CIVIL SOCIETY IN BULGARIA: NGOs VERSUS SPONTANEOUS CIVIC ACTIVISM?
17. Could you name a civic organization(s) – an NGO or a civic movement
which you trust?
Frequency
Valid
No answer
11 Green Balkans
14 Bulgarian Red Cross
16 Step by Step Foundation
18 Bulprofor
21 Federation for Consumer Protection
22 Association St. Mina
27 Foundation Conception
28 UNICEF
29 Union of Disabled People
31 Youth Educational Centre
32 Association Astia
Total
782
1
4
2
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
800
Valid Percent
97.8
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
100.0
Children rights and protection of vulnerable groups
”The Bulgarian Christmas” is a charity initiative, which raises funds for the
medical treatment of Bulgarian children, aimed at helping in the health and social
care, organized and supported by the President and national media.
Mother and Child Home is the abbreviation for institutions for abandoned children in Bulgaria that are supported by the state and are undergoing reform to provide better care for children.
St. Mina Foundation is a national organisation, founded by parents of children
with disabilities. The foundation works for improvement of the status of children with
various disabilities.
Association of Adoptive Parents is a platform of parents that are part of the
initiative for improving foster care in Bulgaria and part of the efforts to protect abandoned children.
National association of small and medium business works to promote the
entrepreneurship in Bulgaria and to represent the interests of the small and medium
sized enterprises.
UNICEF is United Nations Children’s Fund working for the benefits of all children, protection of their rights and developing their potential.
The Union of the Disabled is the national organisation of the citizens with disabilities which is primarily state funded and needs effectiveness reform, but is still
providing for the rights of the disabled.
Foundation Donate Life could not be found on the internet under this title, but
presumably it deals with fundraising for children that need serious medical treatment.
86
APPENDICES
Social policy, education, healthcare
School Board of Trustees is as an abstract notion of a body that helps the development of the particular school.
Betel is a social programme for rehabilitation and integration of drug and alcohol
addicts thus restoring marginalized people to productive and independent lifestyles.
Bulgarian Red Cross is part of the International Red Cross Movement and is a
humanitarian volunteer organization, committed to providing support to vulnerable
people, victims of crisis and disasters with the aim to improve life.
Conception Association is an organisation that works for patients with reproduction and fertility problems. It is an independent structure that attracts a lot of
individual members to support families with such a problem.
Step by Step Program Foundation is a Bulgarian NGO promoting democratic
education through means of new technologies and family involvement with a focus
on vulnerable children and minorities.
Youth Educational Centre works for strengthening the abilities of the young
people to improve their potential and foster civic education, intercultural exchange
and cooperation.
Environment
Green Balkans is a national organisation with the mission to preserve nature
and conserve biodiversity in Bulgaria and the Balkan Peninsula.
Green Peace is an international organisation that campaigns that acts to change
attitudes to protect and conserve the environment and promote peace through various means.
Green Varna is a citizen initiative in the third biggest city in Bulgaria on the
coast to object and work against overdevelopment and illegal building in a neighbourhood of the city.
Protection of rights and representation of interests
Federation of consumers combines 23 regional unions of consumers and works
for the protection of the interests of the consumers in Bulgaria and thus improving
quality of goods on the market.
BULPROFOR is a professional organisation of forestry workers in Bulgaria.
Four Paws is an international organisation that works for animal rights.
ASTIA Association – no information could be found for a Bulgarian organisation
with this name.
87