THE STATE IS CRIMINAL TO THEM, BUT THE BUDGET ISN’T! Citizens’ Initiatives spit on the state while taking its money

Citizens’ Initiatives have no problem whatsoever taking state money while simultaneously calling the authorities “criminal”, “illegitimate” and “usurping”, and Serbia a “captured state”. With such a narrative, Citizens’ Initiatives, without any hesitation, take millions of dinars precisely from that very state.

On the official list of donors to this NGO are numerous state institutions, ministries and local self-governments, that is, bodies of the system which CI in their statements and campaigns regularly target as part of a regime that, as they claim, should be overthrown. As we have learned, millions of dinars from the state and local budgets ended up with an organisation that today openly behaves as a political actor rather than a non-governmental organisation.

If, as CI have been repeating for years, the government in Serbia is the “main sponsor of crime”, why then do they, without any problem or hesitation, take money precisely from those institutions? Or is the state criminal only when it does not give money, and legitimate when it opens up the purse?

An even more serious question is whether state institutions knew that their money was ending up in an organisation engaged in para-political activity, political mobilisation and issuing instructions for protests?
Sources close to institutions that financed Citizens’ Initiatives told our newspaper that, at the moment of approving funds, nobody could have assumed that CI would use the money for open political and anti-state agitation.

“Projects were formally presented as work on improving respect for human rights and the functioning of civil society. Had there been any indication that they would engage in political mobilisation and issuing instructions for protests, those funds would never have been approved,” says our source from a state office.

Experts close to political and security circles go a step further and claim that, alongside foreign donations, state money served as “start-up capital” for the later para-political activity of Citizens’ Initiatives.

According to these claims, CI spent years building infrastructure, employing activists across Serbia and thereby strengthening their network on the ground. Then, when it suited them politically, they stepped outside the framework of the civil sector and entered open political struggle against the state that had financed them.

State money for the “Protest Guide”

Kurir previously wrote that Citizens’ Initiatives have on their official website a “Protest Guide” with detailed instructions for organising street actions. Is that what Serbian taxpayers financed?

Did ministries and government offices knowingly or unknowingly finance activities that CI today openly use for political confrontation with the state?

According to available data, donors to Citizens’ Initiatives include the Agency for European Integrations and Cooperation with Associations of the City of Belgrade; the Office for European Integrations; the Office for Human and Minority Rights; the Office for Cooperation with Civil Society; the Government of Serbia’s Coordination Body for the municipalities of Preševo, Bujanovac and Medveđa; the Ministry of Youth and Sport; the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development; the Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs; the municipalities of Bujanovac, Preševo and Sjenica; the City of Vranje and the Team for Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction.

All these institutions are part of the system which CI call “illegitimate”.

Kurir sent questions to all these institutions regarding donations to Citizens’ Initiatives, and we will publish their responses in one of the forthcoming articles.

Para-politics under the mask of an NGO

Experts warn that this is not a classic civil sector organisation, but one that operates on the edge of what is permissible, using NGO status to participate in political processes, yet without any democratic control or accountability.

If CI believe the state is usurping, why did they not refuse its money?

If they nevertheless accept funds allocated to them, does that mean the state is not criminal after all, as they persistently claim?

Why do Citizens’ Initiatives, as a non-governmental organisation, behave as an anti-government actor on the issue of European integration? That sphere should be a place of synergy between the state, for which EU membership is a strategic goal, and that part of the civil sector whose goal is the attainment of European values and standards.

What have Citizens’ Initiatives actually done that is good and useful inbringing Serbia closer to the EU?

One thing, however, is certain. This is not civil society but a political project disguised in NGO attire. And it is equally certain that the time of accountability is undeniably coming. 

Still without answers: Silence that speaks volumes

In an attempt to clarify these contradictions, we sent Citizens’ Initiatives, among other things, the following questions:

Whether the creation and maintenance of the “Protest Guide” is financed by donor funds and, if so, whose donations were used.

How they justify the fact that they take money from state institutions which they publicly call criminal and illegitimate.

Whether they consider it morally acceptable to finance themselves from the budget of a state they claim is captured and usurped.

How much total funding they have received from state institutions of the Republic of Serbia from their founding to date.

We have still not received answers.

Let us recall that we also did not receive answers from Citizens’ Initiatives to earlier questions about their work.

Among other things, we asked this organisation to explain on the basis of which article of the Statute the “Protest Guide”, hosted on their official website, was launched, given that organising and logistical support for protests are not mentioned among the goals and forms of activity of the association.

Our questions also remained unanswered regarding who the author of the “Protest Guide” is, how it was created and for what purpose it was placed on the website of Citizens’ Initiatives. They also did not answer whether the creation and maintenance of this guide were financed by donor funds, that is, whose donations were used.

Kurir also wrote about the role of Citizens’ Initiatives in the process of selecting members of the REM Council, that is, about their REMont project, which had a direct impact on that process.

We did not receive answers to questions about who financed the project, how much money was invested, what the concrete objectives of the project were and by which criteria candidates and their political suitability were assessed. We also remained without answers to questions: which exact organisations they represented, on the basis of which formal or informal process Citizens’ Initiatives were chosen to represent them, who defined the positions and goals they advocated during negotiations, how much real autonomy the organisations themselves, as authorised negotiators, had in the process of nominating candidates, and whether they participated in negotiations at all or whether Citizens’ Initiatives spoke on their behalf.

Kurir Politics