Ambivalence: The relationship is naturally ambivalent and changing

The role of NGOs is to fill in “holes” in the market where the state is inef-fective. The natural role of NGOs is also to criticize, to hold up a mirror to authority, and to stir public opinion.

The relationship between the state and NGOs since 1989 has been determined by several factors, including domestic policy (here, we should ask whether this is just a Slovak phenomenon, or whether it is true of other countries in the region). We should also ask if the polarization in Slovak policy since the 1990s has prevented the modernization of Slovakia and influenced the nature of the state-NGO rela-tionship.

“In comparison with other Visegrad countries, NGOs in Slovakia have a far more oped tradition of entering the political process with respect to domestic political devel-opments and transformation, a tradition that was founded during the period of Meci-arism in the 1990s, which the other countries did not experience. Our NGOs have more experience of it and at the same time the ambition not to leave things as they are.

When you look at the period of the Kacziński brothers in Poland, the civic voice was barely audible there. In Hungary, after scandals touched off by the prime minister’s

lies, civic organizations did not play a central role, but left that to other segments of society. In the Czech Republic, developments were less dramatic. Former President Vá-clav Havel shares the values of civil society, which is why he formed a different kind of dialogue with NGOs that did his successor, Václav Klaus.”

The relationship between NGOs and the state as a political force is a very sen-sitive issue in Slovakia due to the nature of domestic political developments. The perception that NGOs are involved in influencing public opinion and public policy is controversial and even unacceptable for a part of the public. On the other hand, there is a strong belief that NGOs are legitimate participants in the political proc-ess, and that this role is in line with the constitution (which grants the right to di-rectly and indidi-rectly participate in public policy). Due to political developments from 1994-1998, when the Meciar government was in confrontation with civil so-ciety, some NGOs became allies of the democratic opposition. As Dostál (2003)²¹ stated, “the problem with this alliance was that politics was not the main agenda of civil society institutions, and as a consequence, this alliance could lead to civil society becoming dependent on the next government.”

One respondent added:

“After 1998 I had the feeling that when the ruling elite changed, some NGOs expected favors from the new government as a reward for contributing to the victory of the united coalition against Meciar. This was inappropriate.”

Another observer said a new quality emerged during this period:

“The situation changed after 1998, and things were divided into platforms and topics, and for the first time in a long time, NGOs cooperated with the ruling structures. At the same time, the NGO sector maintained its creative ability to influence the state, as well as its ability to be a critic and a monitor. It was a new challenge, a new moment, and I think at that point, all these three features found expression.”

NGOs see a lack of acceptance from the state, which manifests itself the failure of NGOs to grow closer to the state or municipal institutions.

“A few people do something to try to change society, but they are outside society.”

21 See Ondrej Dostál, “Občianska spoločnosť” (Civil Society) in: Slovensko na ceste do neznáma (Slovakia on the Road to the Unknown), eds. Gál F.-Gonda P.-Kollár M.-Mesežnikov G.-Timoracký M.-Zajac P., IVO 2003.

A lack of consensus at the elite level is an important factor as well.

“In Slovakia, we failed to reach a broader social consensus – not just a political consen-sus on the rules of the game, but a real consenconsen-sus that applies no matter who holds power. It is a consensus that was also achieved in Romania, where despite the difficult economic and social situation and massive corruption, the elites were able to invest large resources into areas where they knew the state needed it. And then there is the lack of time – our elites just need to make money quickly. They don’t seek the right ap-proach, and could care less that if they invest something now, in 30 years it will bring a rich harvest. In Slovakia, it was never that way. Whoever was in power needed to make money now. This has brought a vulgar, shallow, and almost frightening material cul-ture to this ostensibly Christian country“.

For the state, its relationship with NGOs is also a problem because of the is-sue of representation. Views differ on whether NGOs should be represented to-wards the state. One view says that the civic sector has no need of representation as by its nature it is pluralistic. Another view emphasizes the need for representa-tion:

“It’s a pity, because at that time (1998) we had a historic chance to win something that is standard in normal countries, for example a status similar to that of trade unions.

Maybe today we would not be experiencing certain problems if there was one self-confident body representing the third sector that could not be fobbed off with the dis-arming question “who do you represent?”.”

The fact that there is no universal body representing NGOs has prevented them from forming a common concept of their relationship with the state. As a result, there is a huge variety of relationships between NGOs and the state that are not organized and exist on different levels.

Relationship between NGOs and municipalities

Relationships between NGOs and municipalities tend to be less stable. Between electoral cycles, the turnover in municipal staff tends to be huge. On the other hand, relationships with the state are more consistent, as the fluctuation in state bureaucrats is lower. There is also a wide spectrum of relationships between mu-nicipalities and NGOs from positive to negative.