The Commission published this year’s report on October 30, 2024 and concluded that most of the recommendations from last year still stand and have yet to be implemented. Serbia has achieved only minimal progress in the areas of rule of law and fundamental rights, freedom of expression, protection of minorities and cooperation with civil society.
Even though legal frameworks and strategy documents are in place, compliance mechanisms remain lacking. The independence, accountability and impartiality of the judiciary must be improved. Minority groups such as the Roma population and the LGBT community remain vulnerable to hate speech, threats, violence and discrimination even though the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination has been ratified. Members of the media and certain civil society organisations (CSOs) that openly criticise the government, have been targets of hate speech, intimidation, violence, smear campaigns, strategic lawsuits and arrests.
In order for CSOs to be able to operate efficiently and independently, favourable institutional, legal, political and conditions must be in place. With the aim of providing a legal framework and encouraging cooperation between state institutions and civil society, the government adopted a Strategy for Creating a Stimulating Environment for the Development of Civil Society in the Republic of Serbia for the period between 2022-2030. However, the EC estimates that the Strategy’s implementation still needs improvement and that CSOs are working in difficult conditions.
Although it is widely accepted that non-government organisations (NGOs) play a pivotal role in the creation of public policies and the encouragement of citizens’ active participation in public affairs, states are often not receptive to working with them. NGO representatives are subjected to intimidation, coercion and accusations of being foreign agents bent on destroying the government. Unfortunately, the negative perception of CSOs and civil activists has been ingrained in Serbian society since the early nineties and exacerbated lately from many sides, including high-ranking officials.
What can we expect? We spoke with several influential CSO members and asked each of them to provide answers to the same five questions about the role of NGOs in today’s society.
As a reminder: NGOs are local, national and international non-profit entities that function independently from government and fall under the broad definition of civil society. The term “nongovernment organisation” was first introduced at the time of the founding of the United Nations in 1945. NGOs typically work to promote and facilitate change tied to civil society reform, advancement of human, minority, and children’s rights, protection of the rights of disadvantaged groups, poverty alleviation, environmental preservation, support of freedom of the press, the fight against corruption, health care for all citizens, and other activities that contribute to a democratic civil society.
The post Cold War era, characterised by the end of Communism, democratisation and technological progress in post-conflict societies, has been marked by the growth of activism and an expansion of NGOs. Today NGOs play an important role in the process of democratisation and civil society and are often the primary source of information about the actual state of human rights and the rule of law in a given country.
According to data from the Commercial Registry Agency, there are 38,181 NGOs registered in Serbia, most of which rely on grant funding through project proposals. Other funding sources are domestic and foreign subsidies, donations and membership dues.
Since the year 2000, the EU has been the largest donor to the Republic of Serbia, with 85.7% of funding earmarked for government institutions, and 12.3% for the civil sector, including academic and research institutions, culture, and media.
PARADOX
Our contributors- Sonja Licht, president of the Foundation BFPE for a Responsible Society; Milena Mihajlovic, Programme Director at the European Policy Centre (CEP); Dragisa Mijacic, Coordinator of the National Convention on the EU for Chapter 35; Bojana Selakovic, Coordinator of the National Convention on the EU, and Isak Vorgucic, Director of radio television KIM Gracanica- spoke about the challenges faced by NGOs in Serbia. Dialogues took place as parallel interviews and all the contributors provided answers to the same questions.
Non-government organisations have played a vital role in the nineties. Antiwar and human rights organisations, the first independent election observers, the first actors dedicated to the necessity of post-conflict reconciliation. Where do you see their role today?
Licht: Back in the 1980s, NGOs, together with trade unions and political parties, began realising one of the most basic human rights: the right to citizens’ self-organisation. This right is the basis of every democratic society; therefore, NGOs are essential corrective entities that provide challenges to institutions, irrespective of whether the NGO’s mandate is defending the rights of disadvantaged groups or strengthening the rule of law, providing impartial information or environmental preservation, combatting discrimination or regional cooperation. When citizens’ initiatives and civil society organisations become easy targets of those with a vested interest in silencing dissenting voices, the very survival of democratic institutions is at stake.
Mijacic: Civil society organisations play an important role in every country, but especially in countries in transition like Serbia. In the last few years the work of NGOs has been primarily focused on EU-oriented reforms, above all in strengthening democracy and the rule of law, but also on other social issues like environmental preservation, negotiations with Pristina and more.
Mihajlovic: Today CSOs in Serbia are, above all, defenders of democracy and the rule of law, but also advocates for Serbia’s EU accession process, and especially for the transformation of Serbia into a future EU member state. We find ourselves in a paradoxical situation where Serbia, led by a hybrid, authoritarian regime, is negotiating membership in the EU while simultaneously continuing its anti-European political discourse. In this context, the civil sector has an invaluable role in advocating and communicating pro-European values to the public.
Selakovic: Thirty years later, the civil sector has the same, corrective role in relation to decision-makers and other actors. On the other hand, its role in decision-making processes has been institutionalised because public authorities are obligated, at least on paper, to carry out consultations and public hearings. This especially applies to Serbia’s accession process to the EU where the civil sector is practically recognised as a third party without whose voice and participation there can be no formal progress in negotiations. Despite this fact, the ultimate scope of influence in decision-making processes remains limited because the same rhetoric is still being used to continuously discredit the civil sector and portray the position of NGO representatives as incredible and irrelevant especially when it is critical of state policies and practices.
Isak Vorgucic/PrtScr/N1
Vorgucic: Unfortunately, the role of NGOs has not changed since the nineties. It was expected that after the democratic change, NGOs would have more space to work on building, correcting and strengthening democratic processes. Instead, their activism in the past decade continues to remain focused on protecting the ever-increasing degradation of human and civil rights, as well as monitoring the implementation of the democratic election process that collapsed in the last elections. Except on a few occasions, the constant emergence of new problems and challenges within the country has deterred NGOs from focusing on necessary regional reconciliation. The exception has been facing the legacy of the past. However, the lack of state support, the rise of the far right and the absence of an independent media have kept these initiatives from reaching the wider public. The chasm in the region has become so deep that all the signs point to the inevitability of new anti-war engagements for the civil society sector. As someone who is living and working in Kosovo, I don’t see any civil society initiative willing to address the violation of civil and minority rights. Such initiatives are simply nonexistent.
Suppression of the Civil Sector
More and more frequently we hear that the civil sector’s space is shrinking. Do you feel this in your work? If so, how does this shrinking manifest?
Licht: The real problem is that, given the deepening divide in our society, the failure to recognise the role of the civil sector not only endangers democracy, but also ignores the expert and activist capacities of NGOs. Unfortunately, this antagonism towards the civil sector results in growing distrust and the reluctance of a number of partners to cooperate, all of which further encourages citizens’ apathy and weakens social cohesion.
Mijacic: The organisation that I represent develops long-term relationships with certain members of local self-government, not only in Serbia but throughout the Western Balkans. Our goal is to foster lasting change in selected municipalities, which can only be achieved through continuous work. There are always problems that accompany changes in municipal leadership, but so far we have been able to overcome them. Our method is rather unusual so it cannot be used as a typical example of cooperation between NGOs and local authorities.
Mihajlovic: The shrinking of space is obvious by the state institutions’ disinterest in including our recommendations in the process of drafting public policies. Although this sector has never been sufficiently developed in Serbia, the past several years have shown a visible decrease in the number of state officials and civil servants who attend events where we present the findings and recommendations from our research.
Selakovic: In recent years we have witnessed not only the shrinking of that space, but also some very problematic practices that remind us of those that we have seen in the nineties. The goal is, on the one hand, to further weaken the influence of the civil sector on the general public, and, on the other, to completely discourage citizen participation. This relationship is a reflection of Serbia’s lack of progress in the process of EU accession, since the state of civil society is one of several areas that fall under the fundamental principles of the EU, along with the rule of law, democracy, the conduct of elections and freedom of the press.
Vorgucic: In Central Serbia, it seems as though the space for NGO activism has shrunk because there is a lack of both serious initiatives and of donor support. Political interest and the attitudes of Western countries, who are providing financing to NGOs, are showing weakness towards the cunning game of the Serbian government which is, for now, successfully balancing between Russia and China on one side, and the EU and USA on the other. As a media organisation which functions along the principles of an NGO on the territory of Kosovo, I have also noticed that initiatives have shrunk. In the past several years, donors have been focused on combatting fake news and disinformation, which has been functioning very well, but the focus has not been wide enough to also include the decline of human and minority rights, abuse of the judicial system, violence against sexual minorities, police brutality etc. Taking into account that as a media organisation it is essential for us to closely monitor these developments, we obtain funding for reporting mainly by providing media services to other civil society organisations.
LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES & NGOs
Civil Society Organisations are increasingly involved in development projects. Their cooperation with local self-governments is crucial to the democratic decentralisation of Serbia. How does this cooperation develop? Is there enough readiness on the part of the state to support this cooperation?
Licht: CSOs have played a role in education and implementation monitoring since the onset of the Strategy for the Reduction of Poverty in Serbia in 2002. Engagement on this, and numerous other development projects, has shown that the democratic decentralisation of Serbia is a prerequisite for the development of society. Empowering local actors encourages young people to stay and help develop the local community. Despite the fact that local councils on gender equality, on youth or the inclusion of Roma, exist on paper, in reality these councils rarely function, despite the fact that their presence would contribute to greater social cohesion and, at least partially, address the lack of resources that plagues the majority of municipalities. Unfortunately, the state does not sufficiently recognise the importance of the role of NGOs at the local level, nor the necessity of all actors cooperating to achieve a common goal.
Dragisa Mijacic, foto: Djuradj Simic
Mijacic: Cooperation between NGOs and local municipalities resembles a rollercoaster with its ups and downs and is dependent on the individual approach and capacities of local self-government officials. There is no systemic or institutional approach in place because the partnership that is achieved with one establishment does not guarantee sustainability in the event of a change of administration. The central government is not interested in strengthening this partnership at the local level.
Selakovic: Past practice has shown that such cooperation, especially at the local level, yields good results if it is focused on those areas where civil society capacities are more developed than institutional ones, such as in areas of social and child protection, youth politics and support for refugees and internally displaced persons. In such instances, state institutions readily accept the help of CSOs, especially if the projects are kept away from socially polarising issues that institutions recognise as sensitive. We have seen numerous examples at the municipal level where representatives of local NGOs not only submit joint projects to donors, but also provide expertise for drafting local policy documents.
DONORS & NGOs
To what extent do donors encourage civil society development, and to what extent do they limit it?
Licht: Multinational and bilateral donors, including private foundations, played an important role in the development both of civil society and media, cultural, research and academic institutions before and immediately after the beginning of democratic change on October 5th, 2000. I have the impression that, in the shadow of the war in Ukraine and in the Middle East, they are increasingly neglecting the use of soft power even though in this time of geopolitical and geo-economic turmoil, it is necessary for Serbia, the region and all of Europe to intensify communication and joint efforts towards sustainability, stability and peace in the Western Balkans.
Mijacic: The needs of civil society development outweigh both its possibilities and available funds of the donor community in Serbia. Only large organisations have access to EU grants. In recent years, the situation has changed with small grants that can be accessed by smaller organisations, but this mechanism does not yield sufficient results. Bilateral aid has decreased significantly, as did the aid provided by independent foundations. Ultimately, donors distribute funding based on their own missions and goals, which do not necessarily reflect the reform needs of Serbia or the demands of the civil sector. Because of this discrepancy, CSOs are in a constant dilemma of whether to act in accordance with their founding principles, or to adapt their mission in accordance with donor requirements. It should be noted that the Republic of Serbia allocates significant funds to support CSOs, but the distribution of these funds is not transparent and often questionable in terms of project selection criteria and monitoring of project results.
Mihajlovic: Civil society in Serbia survives thanks to the assistance that it receives from EU international development aid and bilateral donors (such as individual EU member states, the US, etc). However, civil sector support represents only a fraction of the amount of total international aid received by state institutions. Bearing in mind the current political climate in Serbia and the role of the civil sector in upholding Serbian democracy and rule of law, there is definitely justification to increase financial support, especially for the basic operational functioning of the NGOs and the sustainability of their programs.
Bojana Selakovic/PrtScr/N1
Selakovic: Donor influence is most visible in the level of an NGO’s professionalism. Those organisations which are able to receive donor funds have better capacities to act and to be heard because their sustainability is not dependent on budget funds or citizens’ donations. However, this is also a dilemma because maintaining a high level of capacity requires constant financial support and donor policies are often inconsistent. Priorities and levels of funding shift, which creates additional pressure on working conditions that are difficult to cope with. Another challenge is that the donor assistance that CSOs receive is being utilised as a means of discrediting them, even though today – unlike in the nineties – those same donor organisations provide assistance to both local and national state institutions, and in much larger amounts than CSOs receive. For example, out of the total funds that Serbia receives from the EU in the form of donations, only 5% is allocated to CSOs. The other 95% of that amount is earmarked for the government.
Vorgucic: The non-government sector is reliant on donor programs and forced to change its focus from priority areas to the agenda imposed by the donor providing financial assistance. These agendas are certainly not in opposition to the needs of Serbian society, but they may also not be matters of highest priority essential to the resolution of key issues. Ultimately, after witnessing limited economic progress in the country, donors strive to direct grant recipients to local sources, which, under normal conditions could be considered a logical development process. However, in a society such as ours, where it is understood that anyone who is in a position to provide financial support is connected to the government, this type of financing will not be realised in the near future.
In Place of a Conclusion
In view of the EC’s assessment of Serbia’s stagnation and the almost total disregard for the recommendations of NGO representatives, one may conclude that Serbia is still far from complying with international standards of democracy and rule of law as advocated by the EU. The government must take urgent measures to eliminate these shortcomings if it wants to be considered a serious candidate for membership to the EU – which, after all, is still the most successful political union in the world. According to well-informed observers of the increasingly turbulent global and European political scene, this is Serbia’s last chance to board the train that will take it into the community of European states.
NGOs AND THE STATE
Civil society organisations deal with social, ecological, economic and other development issues that are crucial for accelerating the European integration of Serbia and the well-being of its citizens. Do state institutions recognise their capacities?
Licht: A large number of state institutions recognise the capacities of NGOs in the EU acceleration process, but, unfortunately, their readiness to utilise these capacities remains limited. This is why people place more faith in foreign consultants than in local experts and why working groups which include members of CSOs meet rarely, if ever. Both individual institutions and the country as a whole suffer losses by ignoring local experts and contributing to the mass emigration of young, creative people out of Serbia, which undermines our capacity to meet the challenges of the future.
Sonja Liht, foto: Djuradj Simic
Mijacic: It is not easy to build a relationship between the state and civil society organisations in which both sides respect and listen to each other. Neither is it easy to build organisations’ capacities so that they could substantially contribute to various areas of the country’s reform process. The capacities of CSOs are mainly concentrated in Belgrade, while, in the rest of the country, very few organisations have the resources to contribute to reforms and socio-economic development. On the other hand, there are numerous formal and informal citizens’ initiatives which contribute, each in their own way, to the development of their local communities and are recognised by their local self-governments. The biggest problem is the lack of political will which could result in a systemic, institutionalised approach to creating a conducive environment of cooperation between local authorities and CSOs.
Mihajlovic: The capacity of the civil sector to contribute to the reform process is often recognised by the inclusion of CSOs in working groups that draft strategies and proposals. In the EU accession process, the civil sector was given a formal role through the National Convent on the EU, which brings together more than 800 organisations in Serbia. On the other hand, the consulting process (either through consultations in the earlier stages of drafting documents or through public hearings) is still carried out pro forma and with limited room for input. Moreover, there are many instances in which CSOs have to act as a barrier against negative and backward solutions that state institutions attempt to impose through regulation changes.
Milena Mihajlovic/PrtScr/N1
Selakovic: Institutions recognise civil sector capacities only insomuch as their activism and attitudes are not perceived as criticis of the institutions’ work. The civil sector in Serbia is the most organised EU-oriented social actor, which is why its strategic goal is Serbia’s rapid alignment with EU standards and progress towards full membership. The country does not demonstrate decisive will, still opting to maintain a balancing course between various foreign political actors, which it uses as an excuse for not expediting the implementation of reforms. When the civil sector criticises this approach, it is perceived as an opposing political voice instead of as an equal actor in a society whose goal is to join what is currently the most democratic union in the world, despite its shortcomings and challenges. It is also the union to whose member states Serbian citizens are emigrating daily with the intention of staying indefinitely.