THEY RECEIVE ONE MILLION EUROS A YEAR, BUT WHERE ARE THE RESULTS? Citizens’ Initiatives, donor millions and zero contribution to Serbia’s European path

While presenting themselves to the public as great fighters for democracy, European values, transparency and active civil society, the financial reports of Citizens’ Initiatives reveal a completely different picture – an organisation that has been swimming in donor money for three full decades, while leaving behind no measurable or visible results for the state and society

The list of donors to Citizens’ Initiatives looks impressive: foreign embassies (USA, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Norway), the European Commission, USAID, NED, OSCE, the Council of Europe, UNDP, UNICEF, the World Bank, the Open Society Foundation, Freedom House… There are also state bodies of the Republic of Serbia, ministries, Government offices, local self-governments… And then the curiosity of the year: the betting shop “Soker bet”, which even the President of Serbia mentioned as an example of absurdity in financing the so-called civil sector. So much money, so much support, but no clear answer as to where the concrete long-term effects are, apart from participation in protests, political agitation and encouraging destabilisation of the state.

Numerous questions: silence even about their projects

Through this series of articles, Kurir has posed numerous questions about the actions and mode of operation of Citizens’ Initiatives, attempting to obtain answers primarily from this organisation, but also from its donors. However, as with previous topics, Citizens’ Initiatives did not respond to our questions about their projects: how they concretely measure project success; what three measurable contributions of the work of Citizens’ Initiatives have been made in accelerating Serbia’s European integration; how they explain the discrepancy between their declarative advocacy of European values and their practice of constant public delegitimization of Serbia’s institutions and political alignment, which objectively hampers the process of European integration; whether they believe that open political agitation and sending political messages is in line with the ethics and purpose of non-governmental organisations, especially bearing in mind that they are financed by state bodies of the Republic of Serbia; and whether any project has ever been suspended due to a lack of visible results?

What is symptomatic when looking at the list of financed undertakings leads to the conclusion that these are projects that go in circles, endlessly pushing the same themes and the same narratives. On the project list are: “Together for civil society”; the fight against so-called SLAPP lawsuits; “From the margin to the centre”; “Public about public calls”; “Dealing with the past – new generations”; the festival “Mirdita, dobar dan”; “Media shelters”; regional hubs, reports, networks, task-force groups, as well as the Umbrella Organisation of Youth (KOMS), which in public is almost exclusively present through messages of dissatisfaction with the state and institutions. Although on paper everything sounds fine, the question remains: where are the results on the ground? Or how do funds donated by a betting shop contribute to improving the position of young people through KOMS?

European integration in words

Citizens’ Initiatives in their documents and public appearances declaratively advocate accelerating Serbia’s European path. However, in practice they engage in constant delegitimization of institutions, continuous sending of political messages about Serbia as a “captured state”, political alignment and open agitation, as well as an international campaign against their own state.

The question, however, is whether this truly helps European integration or consciously obstructs it. Is unity and consensus of key social actors – institutions, opposition and civil society – necessary for membership in the European Union and the implementation of the accession process, or is the logic that institutions pull forward while other actors throw obstacles into the wheels in order to use every slowdown to gain political points in the struggle for power? The European Union does not function on the principle of dismantling its own institutions, but on strengthening them.

A particularly pressing question concerns the results of projects dealing with “dealing with the past” and regional relations. After a full three decades and millions of euros spent, is society more reconciled, are tensions lower, is there broader social consensus? Or is, in fact, maintaining the narrative of constant conflict the key to the survival of these projects? While the problem exists, million-euro donations keep arriving. If the problem is solved, the money dries up!

The most important question that remains unanswered is: who measures the success of these projects, who assesses whether the objectives have been fulfilled, and what happens when results are not visible? Does anyone bear responsibility, or is responsibility a principle demanded exclusively from others? The public knows almost nothing about this, because the communication of Citizens’ Initiatives is reduced to political messages, agitation, attacks on the authorities and alignment with political blocs, but not to transparent reporting and presentation of the effects and results of donors’ invested money.

The impression is increasingly growing that Citizens’ Initiatives do not function as a classic non-governmental organisation, but as a para-political actor that uses the civil sector as a shelter, donor funds as fuel for political activity, European values as a curtain, and political struggle as its main objective – not for Serbia’s progress, but for its own influence and survival. At the same time, the impression is also formed that this is a textbook example of donor money wasted in vain, and that Serbia’s European path is collateral damage of their political agenda.