Number 3, Spring 1996

CCCRTE

by Jonathan Cohen

In the past five years, whilst Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia have sought to establish independent statehood, the Transcaucasus has been racked by a profusion of conflicts. State-building has been matched by an internal dynamic of state and societal disintegration: ethno-political conflicts have been accompanied by social and economic disintegration, a proliferation of availability of small arms and the development of armed groupings that have exacerbated these processes.

Fundamental questions exist concerning the identity and feasibility of the states as political communities. Conflict issues, and the search for resolutions, continue to determine the overall political debate throughout the region. This is especially the case in the aftermath of elections in each country in the past six months. These elections have thrown up the question as to how many small-scale violations comprise a major violation of not only the electoral law but also political and electoral justice. As politicians throughout the Caucasus are asking (and the questions have enormous resonance for the parliamentary elections in Russia) “Are we back to the Stalinist days when it was not the person who voted that was important, but rather the person who counted the vote?” The underlying question the region faces is whether non- or even anti-democratic means can lead to a democratic end.

This question is a challenging one for Western NGOs concerned about preventing and resolving conflict. A sense of alienation is readily apparent in Caucasian societies. Great idealism existed at the start of the independence process, but this has been blunted by the fickle promise of salvation through nationalism, the brutality of war, the crudity of politics which have not escaped from the authoritarian landscape and the sheer drudgery of economic survival. People have lost any faith they might previously have had that the institutions of society are designed to help them rather that those who occupy positions of power and privilege within.

Against this tide of alienation a small but growing band of non-governmental organisations is struggling to invest meaning in the concept of civic activism. They advocate the need to support the development of civil society. This term has come to represent something of a panacea to many of the ills of the post-Soviet states, but this should not allow the importance of the evolution of independent and autonomous actors in society's landscape to be diminished. NGO activists throughout the region are showing tremendous resilience and initiative in confronting the social and political dilemmas presented by the fluctuating fortunes of democracy. The representative of a major US donor active in Armenia and Georgia commented that democracy must be built from the bottom up, graphically illustrating his point by saying that "a fish stinks from the head down."

There has been a proliferation of non-governmental organisations. At the same time -- and a factor that complicates involvement for donors and outside NGOs alike -- there has been a proliferation of MANGOs (mafia-affiliated NGOs), QUANGOs (quasi-NGOs established by the government to detract from the activities of and smother independent NGOs and to prevent funds reaching them) and BUNGOs ("bungee" NGOs -- organisations that bounce in and out of the society as if attached to a bungee cord and without a sustained commitment). Becoming engaged in this quagmire requires sensitivity and a good nose: there are too many people out to make a buck out of the gospel of civic activism.

Major issues at stake for the evolution of NGOs are those of tax, NGO law, and the registration and status of non-governmental organisations. NGOs have a problem with legitimacy as well as their legal foundation. In the past three years,in order to survive NGOs have been obliged to stray from the path of legality. But as the state becomes stronger and seeks to enforce order, NGOs need to develop a stronger foundation. There is no concept of a non-profit organisation and the taxation status for NGOs has been the same as that of businesses. Previously no one paid tax and this was not such an issue. Now, it is beginning to matter where, for instance, an NGO is given a computer and has to pay tax on it. There is no legal concept of a grant and the law is imprecise.

From the perspective of the CCCRTE it is important to recognise that training is only one aspect of the needs of civic activists in the region. Many are already skilled and insightful, having navigated the back-channels of societies in transition for several years. And whilst they are the first to admit that training in a whole gamut of skills and approaches would complement their efforts, what they really need is support. Material support is one thing, but also moral and political support. For people and organisations dealing directly with the consequences of conflicts and the possibility of resurgent conflict this means developing the necessary bulwarks against this threat. More than anything it requires strategic and sustained assistance.

newsletter  |  ccts