The failure of civil society in Albania as an intermediate actor between the state and the public

According to the post-Communist civil society scholars, the main function of the civil society is being the intermediator actor between the state institutions and the public in strengthening the transition state. The main role of civil society is to represent the citizens’ problems and force the state institutions to take more responsive approaches towards the citizens’ needs. Said this, the current section investigates whether the Albanian civil society fulfills/ed the function of the intermediate actor. As it was already discussed, the government and the state institutions showed little interest in the civil society in Albania. Thus, the legal framework is poor in this context.

Furthermore, the regulations concerning the activity of the civil society were drafted and approved without prior consultation with civil society. An empirical fact is the law of 1994 on ‘The Trade Unions’. The law did not predict any form of involvement of the trade unions in the policy processes concerning the labor market regulation [140].

The need to quickly introduce the economic reforms did not allow the Albanian government to involve the trade unions, as this would have prolonged the decision-making process, slowed down the reforms and ultimately it would have caused greater hardship for citizens [155]. The action of the non-involvement of the trade unions was considered to settle the indifference of the government and the state institutions towards the civil society [153]. At that time, the citizens protested in the street against the law. Also, the intellectuals initiated a public debate regarding the exclusion of civil society in the process. According to them, the exclusion of civil society implemented reforms more difficult and contributed to an increase in social discontent. The absence of a legal framework promoting the transparency of the state institutions restricted access to information, limited relationships between the civil society and the state to confront and individual contacts, as well as a delayed the process of institutionalizing the dialogue between them.

From 1991 to 1998 no regulation ensured transparency and public accountability of the state institutions [133]. Moreover, the state institutions at central and local levels had no public offices or spokespersons to communicate with the media and the public [38]. Despite the existence of an

agreement that would have provided full access to unclassified documentation for the CSOs, the annual reports edited for the public were the only information available [131]. The Restricted access to the information on the progress and the impact of the liberal reforms were a major barrier to the civil society in engaging with the state institutions, which continued to operate, a common practice during the Communist rule, surrounded by a shield of secrecy. This was particularly relevant for the media, as we will see later in this chapter when attempting to fulfill its role as a watchdog over the government's activity.

Because of these difficulties in establishing an institutional dialogue with the state institutions and with their low level of professionalism, the CSOs never acted as a social cushion, neither through informing the public about the necessity of reforms nor through the delivery of services to ease the social pressures. From 1993 to 1996, only 25 CSOs published information concerning the difficulties encountered and likely future challenges during the transition process [131]. In a 1996 survey, 68 percent of the citizens answered that they did not expect such a long and difficult transition process [126]. A widely uninformed public interpreted the outcomes of the transition reforms as government mistakes [132]. This left the entire social burden of the social discontent on the shoulders of the already weak state [132].

Civil society is meant to be a messenger between the state and its citizens. From 1990 to 1995, the limited interaction between civil society and the public made them distant actors. According to a survey conducted by INSTAT in 1996, only 32 percent of the interviewed citizens claimed to be aware of what the civil society was and what it did in Albania [86]. The survey showed that the indifference of the state institutions to the civil society reduced the public support for the CSOs [86]. This view was confirmed by a 1996 survey, in which 90 percent of the CSOs argued that they would enjoy more support from the public if the state institutions were to involve them as partners in the reform process [126].

5.3. Concluding Remarks

The Civil society in Albania did not exist before the transition, thus, it had to start from scratch after the fall of the communist regime. With a low level of professional preparedness and difficulties in understanding its role during the transition process, neither the public nor the state helped the civil society to increase its capacity. Lack of interest and participation from the public, complemented by a politicization process, impeded the civil society in taking up its role as an intermediary actor that is to promote a dialogue between the state and the public.

A civil society that was excluded from the policy processes, concentrated on pursuing economic interests, and failed to demand the institutionalization of its relationship with the state, lost the support from the public. The absence of support by the public made the civil society unable to demonstrate to the policymakers its potential role. It is also marginalized its position to the point where the civil society remained a distant actor unprepared to find its role in a participatory democracy. Limited interest in making human resource development a strategic objective, insufficient financial resources, and the absence of appropriate fundraising strategies can be considered major impeding factors that left the civil society unable to strengthen the state, as well as to provide assistance and feedback to the state institutions of assistance and feedback to state institutions. However, it has been under-evaluated that a weak civil society, unable to strength the state involves the security sector. For this reason, this implication will be discussed in the next section.