LOCAL CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS

R E P O R T O N T H E S T A T E O F L O C A L D E M O C R A C Y I N B U L G A R I A

10.4 Conclusion

The current media profile of Bulgaria is extremely pluralistic and rich in information sources. The media market is rapidly developing and changing, along with the format of communication that now includes the entirely new electronic media. The results of the survey indicate that the role of the media as a forum for communication between local governments and citizens on specific local issues is still insufficient. Although increasing in range, coverage, and professionalism, the local media have yet to create a space where informed public debate can have a meaningful influence on decision-making by local leaders.

Despite the variation across regions and localities, as well as some other factors that negatively influence the media market, this “fourth power” is an increasingly strong influence within Bulgarian society. As expressed so aptly by the political analyst, Evgenii Dainov, “No government that has failed in its job—or turned against the media—has survived in post-communist Bulgaria” (Dainov 2002).

T H E S T A T E O F L O C A L D E M O C R A C Y I N C E N T R A L E U R O P E

uncomplicated, not too costly, and may only be denied if the legal requirements are not satisfied or if the purposes of the organization are illegal. The state has limited powers over the dissolution of not-for-profit organizations.

According to the Bulgarian constitution, “No organization shall act to the detriment of the country’s sovereignty and national integrity, or the unity of the nation, nor shall it incite racial, national, ethnic, or religious enmity or an encroachment on the rights and freedoms of citizens; no organization shall establish clandestine or paramilitary structures or shall seek to attain its aims through violence.” So far, there has been compliance with the ban on the establishment of anti-liberal organizations.

Three main types of organizations compose the bulwark of civil society in Bulgaria:

public benefit organizations, mutual benefit organizations, and foundations. All have to be registered in court at their seat of establishment. In addition, public benefit organizations must register with the Public Registry at the Ministry of Justice. The purpose of their establishment should fall into one of the categories of public benefit specified in law.

Civil society organizations are profit-making, but not profit-distributing entities.

They may perform economic activities related to the main purpose of the organization and use the generated return from their activities, but they may not distribute the return among their members. CSOs may also set up subsidiaries, which are also permitted to engage in economic activities. The government does not tax civil society organizations.

However, they must pay all due taxes on for-profit activities and invest their returns back into their main activities. Allowing civil society organizations to get involved in economic activities enhances their sustainability, as they are acquiring the ability to provide various services.

The new regulatory regime established in 2001 is generally considered to be progressive (NGO Sustainability Index 2002). However, legislators have not yet succeeded in providing favorable conditions that would encourage businesses to support civil organizations through tax benefits. While there have been some incentives in the Corporate Taxation Act of 1997, they are limited in scope and do not suffice to stimulate civil society organizations. A field study of the Center for Social Practices of 2001 has asserted that both NGOs and donors consider the current tax regime absurd, where in order to avoid tax on a donation, the donor company has to disguise the donation as an “expenditure.” The tax policy on donors and donations has also led to a situation where most companies choose to donate “in kind,” rather than provide the NGOs with the financial resources they need to achieve their policy ends. Amendments to the applicable tax and public procurement legislation have been continually discussed, but no progress has been made so far in this respect.

R E P O R T O N T H E S T A T E O F L O C A L D E M O C R A C Y I N B U L G A R I A

11.2 Density of Local Civil Society Organizations

As reported by the National Statistical Institute (NSI), in 2002 there were 14,779 registered not-for-profit organizations in the country. Of these, 2,881 are foundations, 11,888 are associations, and ten are foreign not-for-profit organizations. About half of the registered organizations are the so-called “chitalishta,” traditional Bulgarian educational and organizational institutions, which provide a rather limited range of services nowadays (NGO Sustainability Index 2002). A study completed by the MBMD polling agency refers to a large number of additional organizations registered as NGOs, which are indeed direct heirs of former “mass organizations.” These include “creative unions,” sports clubs, etc., which have a limited, if any, effect on the civil agenda.

Recent developments include the appearance of professional associations and guilds in the NGO arena. Most of them have managed to enter into a direct dialogue with the public authorities on specific professional issues and to find their niche as stakeholders in the decision-making process.

A steady trend, confirmed by analysts, is that the “NGO sector continues to increase its sustainability and expand its influence in Bulgarian society” (NGO Sustainability Index 2003). There are several major indications of this. An important one is the increase in the number of CSOs that actually function. According to data published by the Information Center of the Open Society Fund in Sofia, in 1998 over 1,000 not-for-profit organizations were functioning in more than 50 towns. The NGO Sustainability Index of 2000 confirms a growth in the number of “active” NGOs in the civil society sector to about 1,500 in 2,000, and to approximately 1,900 in 2003.

For a variety of reasons, including the dynamics of donor support, the financial viability of CSOs is by no means easy to reflect on a sustainability indicator. In the findings of a survey made by the Center for Social Practices in 2001, Bulgarian NGOs until then had managed to attract funds equal to about 1.5% of the country’s GDP, or the total of the national budget for the protection of the environment. In 1998, one-tenth of all foreign funding for Bulgaria, including investment and loans, was received by the civil sector. But the funding problem remains critical. The same study observes that in 2000 only 6% to 7% of Bulgaria’s NGOs received financial assistance of USD 50,000 or more. The concentration of funding in a small segment of the most influential NGOs significantly undercuts the viability of smaller NGOs. According to the 2000 NGO Sustainability Index, about 20% of the civil society organizations received some government funding and about 40% received funding from businesses.

Some organizations collect membership fees and charge for their services, though the income generated is extremely small. Apart from that, opportunities for domestic fund-raising are limited, and local sources of philanthropy are almost non-existent. As put by the 2003 NGO Sustainability Index, “local financial and in-kind support for NGOs remains relatively low, although it is continuously increasing.” According to different

T H E S T A T E O F L O C A L D E M O C R A C Y I N C E N T R A L E U R O P E

analyses, the reported rise in the NGO’s own proceeds was 10% of their total income in 2001, compared to practically 0% in 1997 (CSP 2001). The financial viability of the civil society sector in the coming years will be heavily influenced by the increased potential of NGOs to absorb EU funding. At the same time, other major donors, including USAID, the Swiss Government, etc., are preparing to phase out their support in 2007, which is the prospective year of Bulgaria’s entry into the EU .

Ethnic groups are also represented in civil society organizations in Bulgaria. Most ethnic, religious, and cultural minorities in Bulgaria, including Turks, Roma, Bulgarian Muslims, Armenians, and Jews, have become organized since 1989, setting up their own not-for-profit organizations and becoming involved in various civil society initiatives.

The Turks stick mostly with the Movement for Rights and Freedoms and in 2000 set up a national NGO named “Evet (Yes).” The ethnic Roma have more than 150 active organizations, while the number of registered Roma organizations amounts to more than three times this number (LGI 2002). Some of the NGOs function as political discussion clubs and proto-parties. The Jewish community has become organized around two different national associations. Armenians form cultural and religious clubs in many communities.

According to LGI data, the Muslim, Catholic, and Protestant communities are among the most dynamic religious organizations in Bulgaria in terms of charitable activities, distributing aid and establishing local networks that assist the elderly and the poor. The Orthodox church remains the most influential religious group in the country.

The distribution of civil society organizations across the country directly affects their influence on the local political agenda. As shown by the LGS results of 2003, in about half of the municipalities there are no active civil society organizations. The majority of small municipalities (with fewer than 10,000 residents) have no active CSOs. The number increases with the size of the municipality, so that in municipalities with over 50,000 residents, the majority of locally active CSOs are non-local ones. The reported average number of CSOs per municipality is three.

Table 2.79

Number of Civil Society Organizations in Municipalities by Type [%]

None 1 2 3 4 5 6 and

More

Number of CSOs in municipality 44.4 12.2 15.9 9.0 5.3 3.2 10.1 Number of non-local CSOs active locally 74.6 11.1 7.4 1.6 1.1 1.6 2.6 Number of ethnic minority organizations 56.6 26.5 10.6 3.2 0.0 2.1 1.0 Source: LGS 2003.

R E P O R T O N T H E S T A T E O F L O C A L D E M O C R A C Y I N B U L G A R I A

11.3 Civil Society Organizations in Local Public Life

The development of civil society organizations in Bulgaria after 1989, together with the massive explosion of independent media, are widely held to be the major elements in the formation of a modern civil society (CSP 2001). The same study restates the opinion of authoritative international analysts that the Bulgarian NGO sector “exerts a more effective influence over the development of the country than its counterpart sectors in neighboring countries, including Greece and Turkey.” The role of civil society organizations in the modern political agenda of the country has proceeded through several major stages. In the early 1990s, the two predominant types of NGOs to be formed were research institutes and centers known as “think-tanks,” and a group that covered a large spectrum of issues, from charities to professional guilds and environmental pressure groups (Dainov 2001). The economic crises of the mid-1990s caused a growing gap between democratic policy goals and the government’s and public’s massive abandonment of reforms. From 1993 on, it was the NGO sector that established itself as the “keeper of the democratic agenda” (Krastev 2002). Together with the independent media, the NGOs in that period became a public force that not only took part in the political debate, vigorously defending the democratic reform process, but also put a mark on the form in which public debate has developed.

The 2003 NGO Sustainability Index confirms the increasingly active role of Bulgarian NGOs in shaping the public agenda, although institutionalized mechanisms to ensure NGOs’ input in these processes remain underdeveloped. A considerable number of NGOs have established themselves as participants in the decision-making processes, cooperating with government bodies at various levels, participating in joint work with the legislative and the executive branches, engaging in advocacy campaigns, and gradually becoming an important player in Bulgarian political life. This has also led to some changes in the legislative and administrative framework to enable participation of NGOs in important policymaking committees. Besides the established practice of recruiting certain NGO experts as policy advisors on some parliamentary committees, the 2001 Parliament set up a permanent committee to address the needs of civil society and to secure the more efficient representation of their interests. This committee is meant to function as a bridge between policymakers and civil society. The committee’s public council includes 21 members representing 28 NGOs, able to participate actively in the legislative process by commenting on and drafting proposals (LGI 2001). Important proposals to emerge from this committee include the new Act on Lobbying, the new Electoral Code, and the Ombudsman Act, among others. As for the executive side, most ministries today maintain a continuous dialogue with NGOs in the relevant field, and involve civil sector representatives and experts in the decision-making process.

Some good examples of this are the practices of the Decentralization Group in the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works and the Fiscal Decentralization

T H E S T A T E O F L O C A L D E M O C R A C Y I N C E N T R A L E U R O P E

Working Group in the Ministry of Finance. Proof of the increased role of civil society organizations in political life is evident in the case of the Bulgarian Media Coalition, which initiated the first public session of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court to review the newly adopted Radio and Television Act. As a direct result of this action, a drastic violation of the constitution has been eliminated—the breach of privacy in allowing authorities to search private homes for undeclared television sets. Notwithstanding this particular success, the general receptivity to NGOs’ input is often dependent upon a great number of subjective factors, including the good will of the lawmakers (NGO Sustainability Index 2000).

NGOs have strengthened their capacity to initiate public debate on particular issues.

A successful example is the anticorruption debate, which was initiated by a group of NGOs in 1998 and developed into a major nationwide public discourse (CSP 2001).

While cooperating with various government institutions, Bulgarian NGOs have so far succeeded in preserving their independent status and keeping the sector safe from the influence and control of government and politics.

Though NGOs have become increasingly influential at the central and regional levels, their role in local public life has been limited to working together with local representatives on specific issues and on larger projects and programs. However, certain newly institutionalized forms of policy dialogue between local representatives and NGOs are a positive development. An example is the Forums for Development, usually conducted at the municipal level around a specific local agenda, with local government playing a leading role and with the partnership of an NGO (CSP 2001). Another example is the various NGO-piloted initiatives to introduce the institution of the Ombudsman into Bulgarian decision-making machinery. However, apart from a small core of strong and influential NGOs with permanent staffs in Sofia and other big regional centers, the organizational and technical capacity of most civil society organizations at the local level is not yet sufficient to allow their meaningful participation in local political life. As noted by the 2000 NGO Sustainability Index, 20% of the NGOs do not have any computer equipment. They are mostly project driven and have a limited constituency. In addition, their ability to establish local networks for joint action is still not well developed in most cases. All this affects the status and work of civil society organizations in Bulgarian communities and cities. The opportunity to nominate candidates for municipal elections could have an impact on their successful participation in local political life.

11.4 Contacts between Local Government and Civil Society Organizations

As stated in the CSP report of 2001, “Cooperation between NGOs and local govern-ments, however, has not yet been placed within any fixed and stable—let alone agreed

R E P O R T O N T H E S T A T E O F L O C A L D E M O C R A C Y I N B U L G A R I A

upon in detail—framework.” Cooperation so far exists in an institutionalized framework consisting largely of ad hoc initiatives that are either project- or problem-driven. Apart from the few exceptions already reported, a long-term vision of cooperation between local governments and the third sector has not yet developed beyond random joint actions. The complexity of the current relationship between local governments and civil society organizations (CSOs) is apparent in the LGS research findings as well. The results show that small municipalities with fewer than 10,000 residents have received almost no support from locally active CSOs (91.1%). The picture is considerably different in bigger municipalities. One-third of municipalities with over 50,000 inhabitants have been supported by locally active CSOs.

Neither local self-governments nor civil society organizations have yet shown an ability to tap the potential harbored by these organizations at the local level. Field studies have established a “definite connection between positive attitudes and the municipal administrations’ practical experience with NGOs: the longer the experience of working with NGOs, the greater the number of problems that have been solved and the greater the administration’s inclination to cooperate with NGOs” (CSP 2001).

Strong associations of municipalities have already proven their capacity to stimulate cooperation between local representatives and CSOs. These include the National Association of Municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria, the Foundation for Local Government Reform, and the well-established regional associations of municipalities.

All of them have been extremely successful in bringing together local representatives, with a particular focus on mayors. The effect of such involvement is that mayors and members of municipal councils and municipal administrations become more open and politically sensitive to activities initiated and carried out by civil society organizations.

Thus, it may be assumed that the good record of participation of local representatives in projects and other capacity-building events organized by the third sector will contribute to a more productive dialogue and more meaningful cooperation between local governments and local CSOs.

Meanwhile, the social environment that will encourage a new level of dialogue and cooperation between local representatives and the third sector organizations has already improved. Research conducted in 1999 by the MBMD polling agency concluded that: “An evolution of public opinion with respect to the nongovernmental sector is evident; this evolution finds its expression in the formation of ever clearer ideas of the sector’s role and importance among the young, the educated, and the residents of the larger cities, and in a growing lack of interest in the weaker social groups—the elderly, the poor, the uneducated, and the residents of villages.” The 2001 field work of the CSP, carried out in 40 sites, confirms that “virtually everyone who has had some contact with NGOs and their work has formed a strongly positive attitude towards the nongovernmental organizations, their activists, and their activities.” The 2003 NGO Sustainability Index has also confirmed the improved public image of the NGO sector

T H E S T A T E O F L O C A L D E M O C R A C Y I N C E N T R A L E U R O P E

with the general public, as well as with the government units and businesses at various levels. This evolution of attitudes, if capitalized on by NGOs, may well turn into a strong force for an intensified and meaningful dialogue between local representatives and their electorates, and local NGOs.

With regard to service provision, NGOs are active in a wide range of fields, although there are legal restrictions on working in particular areas such as health and education, where specific professional requirements apply. Although local governments generally appreciate the value of the services delivered by NGOs, the percentage of CSOs contractually providing public services is still low. The LGS results show that in almost 90% of the municipalities assessed, the local CSOs do not contract any public services. The situation is slightly different in large municipalities. In 80% of municipalities with over 50,000 residents, the local CSOs do not contract any public services. The understanding of civil society as a service-selling “third sector” has not developed outside the big cities. NGOs are also rarely asked to provide services to businesses, partly due to the perception among businesses that NGOs are unprofessional (NGO Sustainability Index 2003). Since 2003, a change in the legislative framework has allowed local governments to contract out the provision of certain social services, including to NGOs. As the interests of urban dwellers in the countryside are mainly residential, it will be necessary for experts who commit to work in the countryside to become integrated into local community life. On the other hand, local capacity and expertise are gradually being developed.

11.5 Conclusion

Since its rebirth in 1989, the Bulgarian civil society sector has shouldered immense responsibilities in establishing an agenda, promoting public, civic dialogue, and upholding the reform in several major spheres, including decentralization and local government reform. Having found itself from the beginning at the very heart of public debate, the sector has had no choice but to gradually establish itself as a powerful player in the political arena. A key element in the history of Bulgarian NGOs was its sustained contact with the decision-making and policy-formation spheres (CSP 2001).

Notwithstanding the many constraints, including political, institutional, organizational, financial, informational, and societal issues, Bulgaria’s civil sector has achieved undisputed sustainability. Its influence is ever increasing and it is widely accepted as a “permanent force in the country, actively representing citizens’ interest and providing needed services”

(NGO Sustainability Index 2003).

The next area of NGOs’ activity will be working intensely with local communities.

This will involve communities, media, government units, NGOs, and other local action groups in the process of designing and implementing various development

R E P O R T O N T H E S T A T E O F L O C A L D E M O C R A C Y I N B U L G A R I A

strategies, plans, and projects. Such cooperation presents both serious challenges and extraordinary opportunities. The nongovernmental sector in Bulgaria is calling for the intensification of transfer of experience, resources, knowledge, and personnel in the sphere of civic initiative. The rather disproportionate development of the NGOs (in terms of territoriality and the priorities of their activity) highlights the necessity of establishing working mechanisms for overcoming the “center–periphery” gap. An appropriate organizational frame is needed to successfully institutionalize contact between local representatives and CSOs. Even though the most active NGOs have already started to specialize (rather than chase all possible funding), they still continue to work in more than one field and lack coordination of their efforts. On the other hand, the opportunities are outstanding. A remaining challenge is the CSOs’ capacity to manage effectively the incoming EU accession funds in support of the civil society democratic agenda.