At a time when democracy is stagnating and institutions are becoming extensions of party interests, civil society organizations (CSOs) remain one of the last pillars of defense of the public interest and civic responsibility, was assessed in the final episode of this season’s Civic Angle show by the Centre for Civic Education (CCE) on TV E. On the increasingly challenging position of civil society in the region, its role in the context of weakening democracy, and the possibilities to resist pressure and preserve the space for free action, spoke the guests of Zvezdana Kovač, Strategy and Outreach Director at the CCE: Dajana Cvjetković, Programme Manager at the Centre for the Promotion of Civil Society (CPCD) from Sarajevo, Slobodan Georgiev, News Director at TV Nova S from Belgrade, Beba Zhagar, Researcher at the European Policy Institute from Skopje, and Daliborka Uljarević, Executive Director of the CCE.
“Twenty years ago, we assessed civic society in Montenegro as one with a weak tradition and uncertain future. I think today we have established some kind of tradition and vitality,” said Daliborka Uljarević reflecting on civic society in Montenegro and its beginnings. She emphasized that the sector still operates under pressure, but has survived thanks to the strength of principles and the support of citizens. “Research indicates that NGOs are among the most trusted institutions. That shows the void created in trust toward system institutions,” she explained. Uljarević also warned about the trends of discreditation attempts: “Civil society organizations are subject to continuous negative campaigns. The goal is clear – to weaken and discredit us.”
Dejana Cvjetković from CPCD pointed out the paradoxes in which they work in BiH. “We have 28,000 registered organizations for three million inhabitants, but we don’t even have a registry. No one knows how many of us there are or what we do,” she said, adding that the authorities systematically discourage sector development: “There is no political will to create a supportive environment, because strong civil society forces the state to work better.” She condemned the practice of selective funding. “At the end of the year, millions are distributed to organizations that are extensions of parties, while others are left out. Additionally, we have cases of open targeting of civil sector representatives by high-ranking political officials, without any sanctions,” she explained the mechanisms of repression in that country.
Slobodan Georgiev believes that “there has never been a great time for civil society in Serbia, because the authorities do not tolerate criticism, so critical NGOs are often labeled as foreign mercenaries, domestic traitors, Ustashas, and Nazis.” However, he highlights strong citizen support for some organizations, such as CRTA, whose election monitoring activities are funded by citizens themselves. “Citizens raised the money they asked for. So how can anyone call them foreign mercenaries?” he asked. He reminded that certain environmental organizations have emerged as key drivers of civic resistance. “People are beginning to understand that activists are not their enemies, but their neighbors,” he assessed, adding that the role of pro-government organizations has been exposed by BIRN’s research, but that did not stop the regime from using them as instruments to discredit the legitimate sector.
Beba Zhagar stated that the environment for civil society in North Macedonia is mostly encouraging, but there are many problems, primarily related to finances. She also emphasized the low awareness of citizens about the role of the civil sector. “Only 4% of citizens participate in any form of work in civic organizations, and when you ask them what form of association meets their needs, they don’t know how to answer,” she said. She also highlighted that trust is highest in the church and religious communities, followed by civic organizations and trade unions. “That still shows a large space for the development of civic awareness,” she stated.
The discussion also highlighted the problem of shrinking space for civil society action, due to both internal pressures and foreign policy circumstances. “Firstly, we saw in Vučić’s Serbia attacks on organizations through inspection visits, then with Dodik, and now in the Federation. I expect the same model in Montenegro,” said Cvjetković. At the same time, she emphasized the growing wave of solidarity. “In B&H, although attacked, more mutual support is shown within the healthy part of civil society,” she said.
Uljarević stressed that NGOs in Montenegro increasingly appear publicly as a corrective to the government, which makes them targets but also the voice of the citizenry. “Citizens contact us for various problems they face. They feel protected when they see us at trials because they believe that will make the process fairer,” Uljarević elaborated.
The interlocutors agreed that the withdrawal of American funds left serious consequences, and Cvjetković pointed out donor (non)coordination. “Donors taught us for years to diversify funding sources. At the same time, they divided among themselves, so for example, USAID funded independent media, marginalized groups, and anti-corruption programs, while others – the EU, SIDA, SDC – the rest. When USAID withdrew, an entire pillar collapsed. The problem is not that America left, but that the structure disappeared,” she said. In North Macedonia, according to Beba Zhagar, the consequences were equally severe. “USAID financial support was about 10–20%. With the end of that support, 23 projects were shut down, 34 million dollars were lost. And the state allocates only about 3% from the budget for civil society support,” said Zhagar. Georgiev additionally warned about the absurd reality in Serbia where the government uses the rhetoric of “foreign mercenaries” while cooperating with the same foreign structures. “While persecuting CRTA and the Centre for Modern Politics, the government poses with representatives of USAID and the EU. USAID gave 15–20 times more money for state programs than for NGOs. The same goes for the European Commission,” said Georgiev.
“The European Union today in many ways acts more like a trader, and much less insists on the values that were actually the transformative factor. That is why it is now harder for us to function,” said Uljarević commenting on the EU’s attitude toward civil society in the Western Balkans. “It is not enough for the EU to fund projects – it is necessary that what civil society points to is politically recognized and finds a place in key European reports and negotiating platforms,” she explained.
“Maybe we expected too much from the EU. This was a slap of reality. The only ones who can change something here are us – citizens. It’s crucial to stop with the illusion that someone from the outside will solve the region’s problems,” said Dejana Cvjetković. She also raised the issue of “economic colonialism,” where the resources of the Balkans are turned into strategic reserves for Europe, while citizens are pushed to the margins. “Maybe they see us as a mine for lithium, wood, water… Our authorities call that economic development, while citizens lose, and civil society is powerless,” she said.
“Europe must decide – does it see the Balkans as partners or as a buffer zone. If it leaves us to Russia and China, then this area will be emptied. People will emigrate. And that will be the end,” warned Georgiev, noting the stakes are enormous. “If this fails, then Serbia has taken the path of Russia, China, and Belarus. There is no civil sector there. There is no resistance or alternative,” he said reflecting on the student protests in Serbia.
“The EU cannot behave as if the region will one day belong to it while in the meantime watching the collapse of what is most valuable – a free, organized, and resilient society,” warned Zhagar as well.
Asked about the need for a new kind of social and civic mobilization, for an awakening – both within the civil sector and among citizens, especially the youth, Uljarević stated that work in the civil sector is not easy. “Civil society is not attractive to young people. It is draining. It’s a daily struggle – it requires alertness, monitoring, reaction, it demands standing up for values even when everyone else has gone silent. We constantly have to step out of our comfort zone, empower ourselves, and remain principled. That is what keeps us going. We have to make civil society more appealing to the youth because it is a space of freedom, influence, and solidarity,” said Uljarević.
“I know it’s hard. Sometimes you have to be a jack-of-all-trades. But civil society is a space where we make change – for others, but also for ourselves. That should be motivation for everyone to join us,” added Zhagar. “We must return to the values of civil society and remind that it is us who bring change,” she concluded.
The full episode is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB_5foQgO8o
The show was produced through the CCE’s project “Europeanization through the Civic Angle” supported by the regional program SMART Balkan – Civil Society for a Connected Western Balkans, implemented by the Centre for the Promotion of Civil Society (CPCD), the Center for Research and Policy Making (CRPM), and the Institute for Democracy and Mediation (IDM), and financially supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway. The content of the show is the sole responsibility of the CCE and its interlocutors and does not necessarily reflect the views of CPCD, CRPM, IDM, or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway.
Maja Marinović, Programme Associate