When Does Civil Society Sustain Democracy? Case Studies from Central Europe

• In Event: Authoritarian Government & Democratic Backsliding

Abstract

Civil society is theorized as an essential part of democratization (Linz and Stepan 1996; Diamond 1999). International donor support for civil society poured into Central Europe as a means to sustain democracy in the years after 1989. Yet, 30 years on, governments and politicians in the region undermine democratic norms and institutions and demonize civil society organizations (CSOs) and their donors. What went wrong? Scholars surmise that international funding for civil society created CSOs more beholden to international agendas than to a base within society (Henderson 2002; Mendelson and Glenn 2000). Funding supported short-term projects with measurable outcomes, and competition for grants rewarded CSOs with those capacities (Cooley and Ron 2002). A cadre of experts and advocates were created that lack links to the grassroots (Císař 2013, Tarrow and Petrova 2007; Fagan 2005). As a result, civil society’s role in increasing pluralism and developing civic participation was not fully delivered. In the 1990s, civil society’s strength was measured through the number of registered organizations, on the assumption that more CSOs means more citizens represented for a range of interests (Diamond 1999, 233). Its role was also measured through its outcomes: an increase in civic attitudes and pro-democracy sentiment (Linz and Stepan 1997; Diamond 1999). In Central Europe, studies showed increases in CSOs and support for democracy but a decrease in non-electoral participation (Howard 2003; Mishler and Rose 1997). There is a dearth of qualitative studies of CSOs to examine when and how their activities change political attitudes (Kopecký and Mudde 2003, 7; Skocpol 2003, 16). I use qualitative research to explore how CSOs develop pluralism and democracy. My research examines 225 CSOs in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, that received funding from the Trust for Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe, which closed in 2013. Studying when international funding was withdrawn belies whether these CSOs were only functioning with donor support. If CSOs reduced their activities or closed, then there weren’t alternate funding sources. If CSOs replaced funding for the same activities from local sources, then they retain wider relationships in society that deem its work important. Finally, if CSOs fundraise among the public, it signifies a salience and base of support within society at large. I profile nine CSOs that reduced activities or replaced international funding through local philanthropy, government, or small donations from citizens. I synthesize literature from various subfields for this research. Political theory on representation and US public policy literature on nonprofit advocacy is used to develop indicators as to whether CSOs actively develop civic participation and increase pluralism, or if they rely on elitist approaches that distance CSOs from citizens. These indicators further refine the relationship between civil society and democratization as a means to increasing pluralism.

Císař, Ondřej. 2013. "A typology of extra-parliamentary political activism in post-communist settings." In Beyond NGO-ization: The Development of Social Movements in Central and Eastern Europe, edited by Kerstin Jacobsson and Steven Saxonberg, 139-169. Burlington: Ashgate.
Cooley, Alexander and James Ron. 2002. “The NGO Scramble: Organizational Insecurity and the Political Economy of Transnational Action”. International Security 27, no. 1 (Summer): 5-39.
Diamond, Larry. 1999. Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Fagan, Adam. 2005. “Taking stock of civil-society development in post-communist Europe: Evidence from the Czech Republic” Democratization 12, no. 4 (August): 528-547.
Henderson, Sarah. 2002. “Selling Civil Society.” Comparative Political Studies 35, no. 2 (March): 139-167.
Howard, Marc Morje. 2003. The weakness of civil society in post-communist Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kopecký, Petr and Cas Mudde. 2003. Uncivil society?: contentious politics in post-communist Europe. New York: Routledge.
Linz, Juan and Alfred Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Mendelson, Sarah and John Glenn. 2000. “Democracy Assistance and NGO Strategies in Post-Communist Societies.” Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Mishler, William and Rose, Richard. 1997. ‘Trust, Distrust and Skepticism: Popular Evaluations of Civil and Political Institutions in Post-Communist Studies’, The Journal of Politics 59 (2): 418-51.
Petrova, Tsveta and Sidney Tarrow. 2007. “Transactional and Participatory Activism in the Emerging European Polity: Puzzle of East-Central Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 40, no. 1 (January): 74-94.
Skocpol, Theda. 2003. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Author

• Merrill Sovner, the Graduate Center, City University of New York