NGO STATE WITHIN A STATE: Who gave Citizens’ Initiatives and the National Convention the mandate to negotiate on behalf of the citizens of Serbia?
While citizens of Serbia wonder why the country’s European path has been standing still for years, behind the scenes serious talks are being held on key state issues, such as the selection of members of the REM Council, and at the negotiating table, according to sources close to the talks, sit representatives of Citizens’ Initiatives and the National Convention on the EU.
Kurir’s sources claim that at certain moments the impression was formed that these NGOs were treated as equal political actors, although, formally speaking, they have no democratic mandate whatsoever for this.
“No one has ever elected them, no one has delegated them, yet they behave as if they speak on behalf of the entire civil society,” says a Kurir source familiar with the meetings and their content.
For this type of activity there is no law granting them a mandate, no decision of parliament, no public state call, nor clearly defined criteria of representation. And yet, representatives of Citizens’ Initiatives and the National Convention are always at the negotiating table.
According to several sources, their legitimacy does not stem from citizens’ support, but from long-standing closeness to international donors and EU institutions, as well as from the fact that they are “always available” for negotiations. As our sources close to institutions state, these organisations are “legitimate” because the EU recognises them as partners in talks, not because they truly represent the pluralism of Serbia’s civil society. Malicious tongues even claim that this is a closed circle of the same NGOs that for years rotate roles, projects and donations, while new actors find it difficult to break through.
Response of the National Convention
To questions about the number of organisations the National Convention represented in talks with the leadership of the Serbian Parliament and the OSCE delegation, the selection process, the existence of a written mandate or representation platform, concrete advocacy goals related to the process of selecting members of the REM Council, and the existence of an evaluation of the results of the National Convention’s activities, which we sent to that organisation, we received the following response, which we publish in full:
“Activities carried out by the National Convention related to monitoring the selection of the REM Council, in coordination with the Delegation of the European Union in Serbia, stem exclusively from its role in monitoring the implementation of the Reform Agenda, in which the selection of the REM Council is one of the obligations undertaken by the Republic of Serbia. In accordance with legal criteria, the Convention could not be a proposer nor a representative of proposers and candidates in any of the fields from which candidates for the REM Council were selected. In this capacity, the National Convention also participates as a third, equal member of the Monitoring Committee for the Reform and Growth Facility, a joint mechanism of the European Union and the Government of Serbia that monitors the fulfilment of obligations from the Reform Agenda,” the Convention’s response states.
“That is legitimacy from above, not from below,” says one of our sources, pointing out that this is the essential problem in this process.
Special attention is also drawn to the question of money. Citizens’ Initiatives and the National Convention have for years been receiving significant funds from international foundations, with the explanation that they work on accelerating European integration and strengthening democracy.
However, according to our sources from the state administration, negotiations with the EU are stagnating, reform laws are being delayed due to the absence of consensus for their accelerated adoption, while key clusters remain closed.
“If they are the key guardians of Serbia’s European path, the results are, to say the least, thin,” our source points out.
Well-informed participants in negotiations go a step further and ask whether a permanent crisis is in fact desirable, because it guarantees certain most powerful NGOs continuity of projects and donations.
Another question hanging in the air is to whom these NGOs are accountable. They do not answer to citizens, do not report to parliament, do not submit public reports on whom they represent in negotiations, nor do they have limited mandates, which is one of the essential characteristics of democracy.
Their real accountability, as our sources claim, exists only towards donors, EU institutions and their own governing bodies. Citizens of Serbia, who should be the ultimate beneficiaries of European integration, do not exist in that chain of accountability.
Our sources highlight the fact that in Croatia the role of NGOs in the EU accession process was clearly limited and consultative, while political responsibility lay with elected institutions.
“Here, it seems, a parallel structure of NGOs is being created that are not elected, yet have influence on the process of making key political decisions,” says our source, adding that influence without control represents a dangerous precedent and a threat to the democratic process.
Citizens and the public in Serbia are increasingly asking whether our country has acquired an NGO elite that exerts disproportionate influence on reform priorities, participates in sensitive institutional arrangements, while no one can dismiss them, sanction them or call them to account.
As one of our sources concludes:
“This is no longer civil society; this is influence without any accountability!”