Civil Society conceptions in the Kyrgyz Republic

Civil Society conceptions in
the Kyrgyz Republic
An explorative analysis of the influence of a hegemonic discourse on the structure of and power
distribution in the Kyrgyz civil society
June 22, 2014
6.276 words
(excluding images and footnotes)
Author:
Ann-Kathrin Rothermel
Dominicusstraße 42,
10827 Berlin
Freie Universität Berlin
Otto-Suhr-Institut für Politikwissenschaft
Ihnestraße 22
14195 Berlin
Abstract
Engaging civil society has been a goal of the development industry since the end of the Cold War. In
Kyrgyzstan, international efforts at civil society building have been central to the large and
economically important development aid sector that developed after independence in 1991. This
sector promotes economic, political, and societal changes through financing projects, reforms and
the actors who embrace their conditions and ideas.
This paper examines the definitions of civil society offered by development aid donors and the local
actors who are the recipients of this aid. It finds that the discourse on civil society has the properties
of a hegemonic discourse, which is able to structure society by empowering or excluding certain
actors. Through interviews with Kyrgyz nongovernmental organizations it then provides an insight
into the self-perceptions of Kyrgyz civil society and finds a possible transfer of the importance of
discursive power for material power, not only in the political but also the nongovernmental, or
people’s, sector: civil society.
Abstract
Aufbau und Stärkung der Zivilgesellschaft gehört seit dem Ende des Kalten Krieges zu einem der
wichtigsten Ziele der Entwicklungsindustrie. In Kirgistan ist der Entwicklungshilfesektor insgesamt
und mit ihm die Anstrengungen zum Aufbau einer aktiven Zivilgesellschaft seit der Unabhängigkeit
des Landes extrem angewachsen und mittlerweile wirtschaftlich essentiell für das Land. Der Sektor
fördert wirtschaftliche, politische und soziale Veränderungen im Land durch finanzielle
Unterstützung von Projekten, Reformen und Akteuren, die bereit sind, die neuen Ideen und
Konzepte anzunehmen.
Diese Arbeit untersucht die Definitionen von Zivilgesellschaft, wie sie einerseits von
Entwicklungsgeldgebern und andererseits von lokalen Akteuren als Empfänger dieser Gelder
geäußert werden. Es zeigt sich, dass es sich um einen hegemonialen Diskurs handelt, der über die
Macht verfügt, die Gesellschaft durch Ein- und Ausschluss bestimmter Akteure zu strukturieren.
Durch Interviews mit kirgisischen Nicht-Regierungs-Organisationen vermittelt die Arbeit einen ersten
Eindruck in die Selbstwahrnehmung der kirgisischen Zivilgesellschaft und überträgt die Annahme,
dass diskursive Macht enormen Einfluss auf materielle Macht nimmt, vom politischen und
wirtschaftlichen Sektor auf die Sphäre, die eigentlich die „der Bürger“ ist: die Zivilgesellschaft.
II
Contents
ILLUSTRATIONS ................................................................................................................ IV
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
2. THEORY - CIVIL SOCIETY AND HEGEMONY ..................................................................... 3
2.1. CIVIL SOCIETY THEORY – DEVELOPMENT OF A MEANING ................................................................ 3
2.2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: HEGEMONY THEORY AND DISCOURSE..................................................... 4
2.3. CIVIL SOCIETY AS HEGEMONIC ARTICULATION .............................................................................. 5
3. CIVIL SOCIETY IN PRACTICE ............................................................................................ 7
3.1. CIVIL SOCIETY PRACTICE IN CENTRAL ASIA .................................................................................. 7
3.2. BACKGROUND – KYRGYZSTAN: A “DONOR’S PARADISE” ................................................................ 8
3.3. PRACTICE AND THE DISCOURSE: PROJECT PROPOSALS .................................................................... 9
4. THE CASE STUDY ......................................................................................................... 11
4.1. CASE STUDY PROCEDURE AND BACKGROUND............................................................................. 11
4.2. INTERVIEW RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 13
4.2.1. Part 1 – Settings ...................................................................................................... 13
4.2.2. Part 2 – Civil society conceptions ............................................................................ 15
4.3. LINKING CONCEPTIONS – SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES ............................................................ 18
5. CONCLUSIONS AND PROSPECTS .................................................................................. 20
6. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 21
7. TABLE OF LITERATURE: ................................................................................................ 42
III
ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURE 1: VISUALIZED OUTLINE OF THE STUDY ………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
FIGURE 2: DISTRIBUTION OF ACTIVE NGOS BY LOCATION IN KYRGYZSTAN …………………………………………………. 11
FIGURE 3: RESULTS OF THE SELF-POSITIONING OF THE INTERVIEW RESPONDENTS ………………………………………… 16
TABLE 1: DETAILS OF INTERVIEWED ORGANIZATIONS (SHORT VERSION) ……………………………………………………… 12
TABLE 2: DEFINITIONS OF CIVIL SOCIETY GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENTS ……………………………………………………….. 15
TABLE 3: LISTS OF ANALYZED CALLS FOR PROPOSALS (CPPS) ………………………………………………………………….. 23
TABLE 4: RESULTS OF THE CONTENT ANALYSIS CONDUCTED WITH THE CPPS ……………………………………………… 25
TABLE 5: DETAILS OF INTERVIEWED ORGANIZATIONS (FULL VERSION) ……………………………………………………….. 27
MAP OF KYRGYZSTAN …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21
IV
ABBREVIATIONS LIST
CA
Central Asia
CIA
Central Intelligence Agency
CPP
Call for Project Proposals
CS
Civil Society
CSO
Civil Society Organization
CSSP
Civil society strengthening program
FSU
Former Soviet Union
GNI
Gross National Income
GPSA
Global Partnership for Social Accountability
INGO
International Non-Governmental Organization
IO
International Organization
KR
Kyrgyz Republic
NGO
Non-Governmental Organization
NSA
Non-State Actor(s)
SU
Soviet Union
SSR
Soviet Socialist Republic
UN
United Nations
UNDP
United Nations Development Program
USAID
United States Agency for International Development
WB
World Bank
V
1. Introduction
“Growth of the civil society sector is very important for Kyrgyzstan. It enhances the lives of
Kyrgyz citizens and is the most important resource of the Kyrgyz Republic1 to improve the
country”
(Michael Green, USAID at the first annual conference for non-profit management in Kyrgyzstan, June 4, 2014).
Building and strengthening civil society (CS), especially in Post-Soviet countries, is viewed as an
essential component of global development programs. Therefore, many programs are dedicated to
strengthen and support local CS actors in their attempts to change the situation of their countries.
In the Kyrgyz Republic, a land-locked, mountainous Central Asian country, many CS strengthening
programs (CSSP) have been implemented since its independence from Soviet Union (SU) in 1991.
Given its small size and population, Kyrgyzstan disposes over a large and economically, politically and
socially important development aid business sector. In 2012, the total incoming aid was $ 472.9
million, which at 7.8% of its Gross National Income (GNI) ranks Kyrgyzstan 38th in the world (World
Bank 2014).
While donor organizations state that the CSSP funds strengthen local ownership and empowerment,
there is evidence that some actors are excluded from support and that the country’s economy has
not become more independent from foreign money as a result of the CSSPs (Jailobaeva 2012).
One factor that may contribute to this ongoing dependence is the difference in how donors and
Kyrgyz civil society organizations (CSOs) conceptualize the term ‘civil society’. Through a short outline
of CS theory and hegemony theory (Chapter 2), the author attempts to explain how the discourse
and conceptions of civil society by donors, mirrored in their practice (Chapter 3), might marginalize
and exclude local, Kyrgyz conceptions of CS.
This suggests a link between the conceptions of CS held by organizations and their power and
influence within Kyrgyz society, leading to the following research question:
Does the adoption of significant elements of the hegemonic discourse about civil society
influence the distribution of power in the civil society development sector in the Kyrgyz
Republic?
To answer this question, this paper provides insight into the CS sector and the views of local actors
through key-informant interviews with CSOs in Kyrgyzstan and assesses to what extend the donor’s
conception of CS has been adopted by local CS actors (Chapter 4). The underlying hypothesis is the
following: the closer the identity of CS actors (2) to the hegemonic discourse (1) as propagated in CS
1
While the official name of the country is Kyrgyz Republic, it is often used interchangeably with the older name Kyrgyzstan.
In this paper both names will be used without distinction.
1
development practice the better is their respective position inside the CS sector (3). Figure 1 illustrates
this process:
3 Position of
interviewed CS actors
in the sector
Degree of adoption of the 1 into 2
2. Identity of civil
society actors and
understanding of civil
society
Articulated in local
conference and interviews
conducted with Kyrgyz civil
society actors
Assessed through
interviews and
background research
about interviewees
Figure 1: Visualized outline of the study, showing the main elements of the main hypothesis of the paper, their relation
towards each other and the instrument to assess them.
2
Civil society sector in the Kyrgyz Republic
Articulated through the
practice of civil society
strengthening programs
1. hegemonic
discourse
of civil society
2. Theory - Civil society and hegemony
This chapter includes a short introduction to the current state of CS theory and hegemony theory. It
then links these two theoretical streams to produce the theoretical basis in order to identify
elements of the hegemonic discourse.
2.1. Civil society theory – development of a meaning
The concept of CS continues to be fashionable in both practical development cooperation and
theories which analyze the concept especially in a historical sense (e.g. Schade 2002; Trentmann
2004). The concept became popular in the wake of Enlightenment (Parekh 2004: 16). Linked with
modernization theory, CS theory was used to contrast “civilized and commercial society” in Europe
with other “backward” and “primitive” societies that lacked the concept of a functioning CS and were
dominated by their leaders (ibid.). This evolved into the idea of CS as a counterpart to the state and a
third sector between the state and the market. This idea, first espoused by Hegel remained the
dominant conception of CS for a long time. All CS theories that have come after Hegel2 draw on his
work and view CS as embedded in relations with but generally detached from the state (see: Schade
2002: 15).
While Hegel (1821) viewed CS as a double-edged sword, with the potential for positive and negative
outcomes, in the 21st century CS is largely perceived as a positive force. Since the end of the 20th
century, when CS actors triumphed over authoritarian states, ‘civil society’ has been framed as “a
solution to social, economic, and political dilemmas by politicians and thinkers from left, right, and all
perspectives in between” (Chandhoke 2007: 608). It is seen as inherently positive (Lingnau 2003:
233), completely without coercion (Parekh 2004: 23; Glasius et.al. 2004: 20) and as by default linked
to democratic values (Schade 2002:33) or “sine qua non of democracy” (Buxton 2011: 34).
Civil society is most often placed in a triadic model of (1) state, (2) for-profit (or business/market) and
(3) non-profit (mostly NGOs) actors (Buxton 2011: 40). Within this model, the non-profit sector
provides services instead of the state, and empowers or builds capacity within society (Anheier 1999;
Schade 2002) It is also seen as a “buffer zone, strong enough to keep both state and market in check,
thereby preventing each from becoming too powerful and dominating” (Anheier 2001).
While widely accepted, this model of CS is not without critics. Common critique is that there is no
standard definition for civil society, leaving activists, citizens and researchers with the accusation that
it has “ceased to mean anything” (Chandhoke 2007: 609). Others question the positive implications
2
This includes Marx, De Tocqueville, Gramsci, Parsons, Habermas and Putnam. To avoid misunderstandings it
should be mentioned that everyone of these theorists had their own approach and they differ to a significant
degree, e.g. regarding the democratic (Putnam) or revolutionary potential of civil society (Marx and Gramsci) or
its potential to keep a nation together in solidarity (esp. American writers like de Toqueville and Putnam) (see:
Schade 2002; Parekh 2004).
3
of CS building by external actors. Instead they advocate for localization, a concept, rooted in postdevelopment theory3, believing that CS development should come from within the society (Lingnau
2003; Glasius et.al. 2004). Advocates for this line of thought demand the West4 to withdraw from
exercising power and knowledge over other societies (Banuri 1990: 97).
The meaning attached to civil society has changed over time and is being constantly contested.
Despite these criticisms CS development is largely viewed in a positive light, and framed as
counterforce to authoritarianism and as a powerful force in society next to market and state.
2.2. Analytical framework: hegemony theory and discourse
While belonging to a post-structuralist school, Laclau and Mouffe also draw on Gramsci’s PostMarxist attempt to include cultural processes into the notion of hegemony. Moreover, they refer to
Foucault’s discourse theory expanding his definition of discourse from mere speech acts to “all social
practices and relations”5 (Howarth 2000: 101; Stäheli 2006: 256).
As seen in 2.1, competing definitions, or meanings, of civil society co-exist. Following the theory, all
of these meanings attributed to one term, cannot coexist within the dominant, or hegemonic,
discourse of a society and so a surplus of meaning exists (see Howarth 2000: 103). The same concept
can be applied to society as a whole, where no dominant discourse can include all elements of
society. This creates a field called the social where competing discourses negotiate through
articulation.
Following the theory, identities are made up of a combination of meanings. Identities are related in
terms of the differences, both internally among their meanings and externally with other identities
(see Stäheli 2006: 257)6. The importance of differences means that discourses are always defined
negatively because the elements do not carry a meaning by themselves but develop meaning only in
delineation to other elements inside, and outside (Laclau/Mouffe 1991: 185). Because of this
negativity the outer meanings constantly threaten to flood and disrupt the current discourse and the
structure of the social. This means that a specific discourse consisting of the predominant meaning
3
Post-development theory (which in turn is more or less based on theories of post-colonialism) rejects all development
efforts of outside actors and calls for local knowledge and community action from within. “Respect for cultural diversity […]
prohibits generalizations. There are numerous ways of living a “good life, and it is up to each society to invent its own” (Rist
1997: 241).
4
I want to try to go beyond the assumption of „the West“ and „the Rest“ in development, which is why I put it in quotation
marks. Throughout the paper I will try to avoid this concept of simplified categorization of actors. However, this simplistic
differentiation is sometimes used in post-development theory which is why I cited it that way (see: Ziai 2006)
5
One example is the “Yes I do” at a wedding, which is inextricably linked to the action of exchanging rings (Howarth 2000:
104).
6
An example for this is the construction of national identities, where there are different discursive elements attached to
citizens of the respective nationality, like ‘reliability’ or ‘honesty’. These are all different and have a different meaning but
create through their connectedness an identity which stands against the identities of other nationalities that determine the
outside (Stäheli 2006: 260).
4
attributed at that given time can only be partially fixated (Nonhoff 2007: 175). To fixate and stabilize
the current discourse and its meanings, hegemonic articulations are made by actors who share the
identity of the discourse. Hegemonic articulations seek to achieve an imaginary closure of the
discourse to partially fix it. This is only possible through the use of empty signifiers, an essential
element for the creation of hegemony (Laclau 1996: 43). Because the empty signifier lacks a definite
meaning (Stäheli 2006: 262), it totally levels the inner discursive difference, ideally allowing the
entire identity to be represented in one very general term (Stäheli 2006: 261). This term lacks
meaning on its own and only takes on meaning from the other terms they are associated with it and
the context of society. Laclau explains this idea with the example of the empty signifier “order” which
he says can only become the powerful signifier of a discourse in a certain political context that is
lacking this state (Laclau 1996: 44).
“In this sense various political forces can compete in their efforts to present their particular
objectives as those which carry out the filling of that lack […]. As society changes over time
this process of identification will be always precarious and reversible and, as the identification
is no longer automatic, different projects or wills will try to hegemonize the empty signifiers
of the absent community”
(Laclau 1996: 44ff.).
2.3. Civil society as hegemonic articulation
“The idea of civil society has proved very elusive, escaping conceptual grasps and evading
surefooted negotiation of the concept itself”
(Chandhoke 2007: 607).
For the case of civil society, Laclau and Mouffe’s theories can help to explain the changes in meaning
that CS has experienced throughout different periods, as outlined in 2.1. There are hints suggesting
that the term ‘civil society’ might represent an empty signifier, since it has an elusive character
(Chandhoke 2007) and its meaning, as defined by donors, is too broad to operationalize7. At the
same time, a lot of positive effects are attributed to it. As a “key partner for development efforts” CS
serves especially to “empower poor and marginalized groups” (World Bank 2011). It is also “critical to
national ownership of development processes, democratic governance, and the quality and
relevance of official development programs” (UNDP 2014). Not only the elusiveness and emptiness
of the definitions used in CS practice, but also the theoretical framing of CS as the antonym of
authoritarianism, as was shown in 2.1, can be seen as hints that CS articulations are part of an
attempt to promote the identity that goes with it and partially fixate the hegemonic meaning and
understanding of the concept.
7
“[T]he term civil society refer[s] to the wide array of non-governmental and not-for-profit organizations that have a
presence in public life, expressing the interests and values of their members or others, based on ethical, cultural, political,
scientific, religious or philanthropic considerations. Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) therefore refer to a wide of array of
organizations: community groups, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), labor unions, indigenous groups, charitable
organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, and foundations” (World Bank 2013)
5
However, while the concept of Laclau and Mouffe is of importance to the ontological dimension of
social theory, it was never meant to conduct empirical analysis. Nevertheless, Nonhoff (2007) has
tried to establish a framework to make this possible, while at the same time acknowledging that it is
impossible to identify and categorize an entire discourse especially in an ongoing process which has
such a long history, like the one of CS building in the Kyrgyz Republic8. The goal, therefore, can only
be to improve the understanding of “the murmur of discourses” (174).
Laclau defines “demands” as the primary elements of a discourse (Laclau 2005: 73). According to
Nonhoff, in order to understand the discourse it is essential to analyze the meanings an identity is
composed of and to represent the main demands, rather than simply the meaningless empty
signifier9 (Nonhoff 2007: 190ff). An important part of the analysis is also the embedding of the
findings in the political context of power. The power of a hegemonic discourse is dependent on its
adoption by the population and can be enhanced by the “common will of political-societal forces”
(Nonhoff 2007: 184). For example, these forces can control important aspects of power, like the
distribution of knowledge and access to the institutional sphere of decision-making to restrict the
power of other counter-hegemonic discourses (see also: Nonhoff 2007: 185).
To link Nonhoff’s operationalization of Laclau’s and Mouffe’s theory to the research question, it is
necessary to identify major features (demands) of the CS discourse from articulations of actors, who
dispose over power in regards to access and knowledge (donors) and to examine the adoption of
these meanings and demands by the population (CS). Following Nonhoff (2007: 184), the theory
backs the hypothesis that the level of adoption of the hegemonic articulations can improve or
hamper CSOs access to material power.
8
For the importance of the development aid sector for the context of Kyrgyzstan see Chapter 3.
As an example Nonhoff states that articulations like the following can be seen as extensive demands because they strive
to represent the entire social: “[a]s long as our economic system is social market economy, the general material welfare will
exist, which is the aim of the people” (Nonhoff 2007: 183).
9
6
3. Civil Society in practice
“From a unitary model of society led by the communist party, the republics of [the] FSU have
moved at different rates and in different ways to a democratic/capitalist model with
separation of public, private, and civil society sectors”
(Buxton 2011: 40)
This chapter reviews the existing literature on CS in Central Asia and Kyrgyzstan, examining,
underlying features of the CS discourse in the Kyrgyz development sector.
3.1. Civil Society practice in Central Asia
In order to understand the current conceptions of CS in Central Asia10 it is important to take a look
into the historical context of societal organization in the region. Before being integrated into the
Soviet Empire, Central Asian societies were primarily11 nomadic pastoralists12. Traditional forms of
association played a significant role in the region, especially family and clan linkages (Giffen et.al.
2005: 88; Freizer 2004: 131; Buxton 2011: 45). In Kyrgyzstan, the Central Asian Republic with the
most tribal groups, there is evidence of consensual decision-making, such as the election of leaders
and the negotiation of pastureland. Historical institutions for decision-making included the aksakal
(elder’s council) and the mahallas (district committees) as well as traditional practices like ashar
(voluntary labor from the community for the community) (Giffen et.al. 2005: 79).
Many claim that civil society did not exist during the SU because complete control by the state (Petric
2011: 43) erased all positive values and starting points for a “civil culture” (Roy 2002: 126f). However,
the associations founded during the Soviet period, even though the government often strictly
controlled them, still influence social organization and interactions within society. Many of these
activities like the subbotniki13 built on traditional practices like ashar and certain traditional networks
even “undermined and used state power for their own ends” to secure benefits for their peer group
(Roy 2002: 128).
Despite these long-existing groups, the term ‘civil society’ was not frequently used until
independence. External actors brought the concept to Central Asia through Western organizations
and interest groups that entered the region in the early 90s. These actors focus was to overcome the
10
There are different definitions of what is being framed as “Central Asia”. Mostly the term includes five to six countries,
namely: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and, depending on the context, Afghanistan. In this
paper, the author uses the narrower definition, excluding Afghanistan, both because the country does not share the
experience of being part of the SU, and because of the recent war and intervention.
11
With the exception of the Uzbeks who settled along the famous Silk Road cities and the Tajiks who have always been a
settled people, “for the rest of the Central Asian peoples, however, the nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle was the norm”
(Giffen et.al. 2005: 73). For more information about the nomadic history of Central Asia and especially Kyrgyzstan see:
Anderson 1999, Paul 2012.
12
Pastoralists are defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as follows: “Exclusive pastoralists are livestock
producers who grow no crops and simply depend on the sale or exchange of animals and their products to obtain
foodstuffs. Such producers are most likely to be nomads, i.e. their movements are opportunistic and follow pasture
resources in a pattern that varies from year to year”(FAO 2001).
13
“Obligatory volunteerism” (Giffen et.al. 2005: 95) for people to work on their free day (Saturday = subbota) for the
common good.
7
legacy of the Soviet system through democratization (Giffen et.al. 2005: 109) and economic
liberalization, intended to lead to a “transition west-ward” (Buxton 2011: 10). The decline of the
Soviet empire aligned with the growing consensus that civil society was the “ideal elixir to counter
the ills of the contemporary world” (Chandhoke 2007: 609). Thus, by the end of the 1990s, tens of
millions of money had been committed to develop Central Asian CS.
3.2. Background – Kyrgyzstan: a “donor’s paradise”
“If the Netherlands are the country where the tulips flourish, Kyrgyzstan is the country where
NGOs proliferate”
(Edil Baysalov, president of the Coalition for Civil Society and Democracy, in: Petric 2013: 39)
Kyrgyzstan14 became independent in 1991. During the early 90s, the unexpected independence led to
an economic crisis and at the same time a rapid growth in the non-governmental sector. The nascent
sector mostly focused on service-delivery, due to the sudden availability of external funding and the
state’s inability to address the increasing poverty of the population (see: Buxton 2009: 46; Giffen
et.al. 2005: 110). While other newly independent Central Asian states were equipped with
substantial natural resources and larger internal markets and attracted foreign investment,
Kyrgyzstan lacks resource wealth and the only branch that flourished in the country was international
loans and aid, which led to an increase in the formation of new NGOs (Connery 2000: 3). By the early
2000s there were more than 3000 NGOs registered in Kyrgyzstan (Marat 2005: 268).
The explosive growth of NGOs certainly contributed to the general vision of Kyrgyzstan as an “island
of democracy” in Central Asia:
“By many accounts, the Kyrgyz Republic is an example of democratic development in postSoviet Central Asia, one where the institutions of “civil society” are growing rapidly”
(Kasybekov 1999: 71)
Following the revolutions in 2005 and 201015, aid to Kyrgyzstan and the number of registered NGOs
continued to increase (Jailobaeva 2012). It does appear that donor aid may have peaked after the
2010 revolution and has now started to decline (ACSSC 2013: 11). ACSSC counted 10.627 registered
NGOs in the Kyrgyz Republic in 2013 (2013:7), of which 33% are rated as “active” (ACSSC 2013: 12). In
general, they note a remarkable urban-rural divide within the NGO-sector in Kyrgyzstan (also:
Buxton: 2009: 44) with 63% of the “active” NGOs located in the two biggest cities of the country –
Bishkek and Osh.
14
For more information about the country’s situation see country table in Appendix 1
For an overview about the riots in 2005 and 2010, which are sometimes referred to as revolutions, see: Schmitz/Wolters
2012.
15
8
3.3. Practice and the discourse: project proposals
A large NGO sector is generally seen as an indicator of a healthy civil society. However, many analysts
criticize Kyrgyzstan’s civil society as dominated and manipulated by donor interests (Petric 2013). But
to what degree does this business sector not only exert influence on the economy but also
represents a hegemonic attempt with influence on cultural understandings of civil society? Following
Laclau and Nonhoff, we need to understand the demands associated with the empty signifier civil
society16 (see Chapter 2). One way to do this is to examine the wide-spread practice of project
proposals, whereby Calls for Proposals (CPPs) are issued by donor organizations and typically lay out
project goals and the donors’ vision for CS development.
A search for CPPs focused on CS strengthening in the Kyrgyz Republic during the last two years
returned three results from the European Union (EU), the World Bank’s Global Partnership for Social
Accountability (GPSA), and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). A
content analysis of the guidelines for applicants, included with these CPPs, revealed often-used
terms which here represent the meanings. The most important results shall be outlined below, while
the full list can be found in Appendix 3.
The most frequently mentioned term was civil society which often appeared in combination with
verbs like strengthening, building, or enhancing (capacity of), indicating a perceived lack of civil
society (or its capacity) and thus giving hints that civil society could be an empty signifier (see
Chapter 2).
All three donors require respondents to the CPPs to be a “registered NGO, NSA or CSO17”, excluding
other actors from access to the resources to strengthen civil society. This supports the assumption
that registered CSOs are seen as the most vital agents for civil society development (also:
Chandhoke 2007: 608). Also the importance of projects for a vibrant CS development is clear by the
frequent use of the term. Both, the organizations and the way they shall act (project, initiative) are
therefore determined as the way to fill the lack of civil society.
The negative outside of the identity on the other hand is shown in terms like: poverty, difficulties,
and challenges, as brought about by the lack of projects and NGOs (the positive meanings).
Government and legislation are mentioned in the context of needing improvement and support to
function efficiently. This is where the CS understanding becomes most clear. CS actors (namely
16
Reminder: it is not proven that the term is an empty signifier. However, framing it here as such helps us in that the aim of
the paper is not to press assessed meanings into existing categories but keep them open as far as possible. If certain terms
attributed to the empty signifier can be extracted we can get a broader picture of the equivalency chain that is represented
by the signifier without putting our own presuppositions in the fore.
17
The authors of the three CPPs chose to use different abbreviations to refer to civil society actors, which in their definition
are interchangeable.
9
NGOs) are seen to have a democratizing impact on society as a counterpart to the state. Surprisingly,
the term democracy was rarely mentioned, especially compared to other terms that basically go in
line with it, like participation and accountability. These meanings, as well as knowledge,
sustainability, and above all, development represent both the goals and the preferred way to
achieve them.
Cooperation, shown by words like network, partnership, dialogue and support is a very important
theme in the CPPs on three different levels. First, projects should cooperate with, assist and support
state bodies to ensure CS actors are heard on the national level. Second, but less commonly
mentioned local level partnerships with citizens or other local NGOs should be formed. Third, donors
perceive themselves as enablers and partners for civil society who through their projects pave the
way to a positive sustainable development and an active, strong, capable civil society.
More thorough analysis into CPPs undoubtedly will uncover additional conclusions and aspects, but
these terms provide already a first insight into the hegemonic discourse surrounding the CS
development in Kyrgyzstan.
10
4. The case study
After having derived the important elements of the hegemonic discourse in Chapter 3, qualitative
interviews were conducted and a conference visited to identify the degree of adoption of the
discourse by local actors. A convenience sample was used and thus this study does not attempt to be
representative of Kyrgyzstan nor the Kyrgyz people. Rather, it provides a first look at the ideas of CS
actors in Kyrgyzstan. In this chapter, the research results are outlined and linked to the hegemonic
conceptions from Chapter 3.
4.1. Case study procedure and background
Four interviews were conducted in two locations in Kyrgyzstan. The interview subjects were chosen
disparate organizations to get a broader perspective of CS conceptions. Given the urban-rural divide
in the sector, two urban and two rural representatives were selected. Rural interviews were
conducted in Talas oblast18. A 2013 report about the non-governmental sector in Kyrgyzstan shows
that the distribution of “active”19 NGOs is lowest in Talas, with only 2% of all active organizations and
highest in Bishkek with 53% of active organizations (ACSSC, 2013: 13):
Distribution of active NGOs by location,
%
Bishkek City
10%
9%
Issyk-Kul oblast
2%
4%
3%
53%
Jalal-Abad oblast
Naryn oblast
9%
3%
Batken oblast
7%
Osh oblast
Talas oblast
Chuy oblast
Figure 2: Distribution of active NGOs by location, copied from source: ACSSC 2013:13
Thus, Talas and Bishkek provide a reasonable urban-rural perspective and represent the areas where
the CS is least and most active. However, both locations are in the Northern part of the country and
therefore cannot reflect the significant North-South divide within the country. This weakness of the
analysis is due to time and resource constraints.
18
There are 7 oblasts in Kyrgyzstan: Chuy, Talas, Naryn, Jalal-Abad, Issyk-Kul, Batken and Osh.
All the organizations that could be reached by their contacts were rated active. Out of the approximately 10.600
registered NGOs in Kyrgyzstan these were only 3.036 organizations.
19
11
Name
Айкол (Aiköl)
Нур Бала (Nurbala)
Арыш Инвест
(Arysh Invest)
Свободное
поколение (liberal
ways)
За реформы и
ресультат (for reforms
and result)
Location
Talas City
Talas City
Bishkek
Bishkek
Date of
Interview
May 16, 2014
May 16, 2014
May 27, 2014
June 5, 2014
Contact person
(name &
position)
Gulmira
Temirbekova
Zhyldyz
Turdugulova
Gulbara
Turdumatova
Timur Shaikhutdinov
(head of organization)
(chairperson)
(chairperson of the
board and director)
Aimira Djumasheva
Mission of
organization
(program manager)
Strengthen the potential
of non-profit
organizations to enhance
their capacity to support
local citizens
(chairman for strategic
development)
(coordinator of network)
Provide access and
integration for the best
possible development
of children with
disabilities, orphans
and children living in
difficult situations
Provide access to
services and for a
better livelihood for
internal migrants
active in the
construction sector
in Bishkek
Achieve a reform of the
current police forces for a
better safety in Kyrgyzstan,
a more efficient
government system and a
society in which authorities
listen to the voices and
needs of civil society and
normal citizens.
NGO
NGO
Microcredit
agency
NGO-network
Talas oblast
Talas oblast
Bishkek City
Kyrgyzstan
8
6 + 2 (part-time)
16
2001
2009
2012
4 + volunteers
network: 25
organizations
2007 NGO
2012 network
Misereor, International
Organization on
Migration, OECE, ACSSC,
National Democratic
Institute, Eurasia
Foundation Central Asia
Every Child, Peace
Corps, Soros, Eurasian
Foundation in Central
Asia, Fond ICCO,
Ministry of Social
Development of the KR
ICCO Cooperation,
CAMFA II, Arysh
NGO
Type of
organization
Range of
activities
Staff members
Foundation
year
Major
international
donors and
partners
Table 1: Background information to the interviewed organizations
12
SaferWorld, IRG
(International Resource
Group), East-WestManagement Institute,
Freedom House
As can be seen in Table 120, all of the CSOs interviewed were relatively small, with varying missions.
In Talas, Nurbala is engaged in traditional social work with children with disabilities and Aiköl
provides capacity building for youth and smaller NGOs, while trying to enhance cooperation between
CSOs in Talas. In Bishkek, Arysh Invest is a microcredit agency that provides loans for internal
migrants working in Bishkek’s construction industry. Liberal ways is focused on the management of
the nationwide network for reform and results (За реформы и резултать), which advocates for
reform of the Kyrgyz police forces. The author also attended the first annual non-profit management
conference21 in the Kyrgyz Republic. A short summary of the conference’s results can be found in
Appendix 6.
The semi-structured interviews were conducted in Russian and translated by the author. The
interviews consisted of two parts. The first part assessed the background of the CSO, including years
of active work, financial and human resources, the range and nature of their actions, partnerships
with local and national actors, and the level of funding from international donors. In the second part,
questions covered the subjects’ definitions of CS, and where inside of society they situated their
organizations22. Factors that may have biased the interviews include the author’s gender (female),
ethnicity (as Non-Kyrgyz) and age as well as translation biases. The author aimed to achieve proper
triangulation through the inclusion of more than one CSO representative in the interviews (if
possible) and reviewing both information material and online sources published by the respective
CSO.
4.2. Interview results
This section presents the results of the interviews structured in two sections, following the interview
structure (see section 4.1.).
4.2.1. Part 1 – Settings
Interview subjects spoke freely, including information about their recent actions and their financial
situation. All four CSOs mentioned that grants to Kyrgyz CSOs have shrunk over the last years and
that securing their financial situation has become more difficult. The chairman of liberal ways
described the situation as follows: “Unfortunately the Kyrgyz NGO sector is supported only by
international actors. That is our [Kyrgyzstan’s] weakness”. Liberal ways was the only CSO that
planned to conduct their projects without external funding23. They recognize this might limit their
impact and that they would have to become more economic and innovative with their operations.
20
A more detailed list of the interviewed organizations can be found in Appendix 4.
For the conference’s agenda, see Appendix 5.
22
For the full questionnaire in Russian and English, see Appendix 7.
23
“Money is only an instrument to make the actions deeper and faster but through our partners in all the regions in
Kyrgyzstan who work for the sake of the aim and the ideas and not for the sake of projects we will conduct our actions even
if there is no money available. Money and projects should never be a goal in itself”(liberal ways).
21
13
Nurbala, Aiköl and Arysh Invest, on the other hand, all postponed planned activities due to
inadequate funding. Nurbala plans to become more independent by charging for their consulting
services rather than relying on donor funding24. Arysh Invest is already in itself the attempt of their
mother-NGO Arysh, who founded the microcredit branch to raise money and become more
independent through profits from their loan portfolio.
Aiköl, Nurbala and liberal ways said that many other NGOs adjust their activities align with CPPs in
order to secure funding. While Aiköl did not refer to themselves, their projects are diverse, ranging
from transparency, CS strengthening to child labor and migration and are always in line with the
focus of the respective donor organization. That may be why they have a comparative advantage to
other less powerful NGOs which cannot adjust as easily to the CPPs. Aiköl stated, that as the
strongest organization in their oblast, they do not pursue small grants, so that smaller NGOs in Talas
have an opportunity for funding, “because, you know, the strongest NGOs usually get the money”.
Liberal ways was proud that 50% of their network’s proposals were successful. However, they are a
relatively young foundation and have only written six project proposals to date.
Aiköl, founded in 2001, is the most experienced of the four CSOs. Nurbala was founded when
Eurochild withdrew from Talas in 2009, due to the financial crisis in Europe, leaving their projects and
parents’ centers unfinished, but donating their office facilities to Nurbala to help with their
establishment. Arysh Invest was founded based on ideas and startup capital from ICCO Cooperation.
The network for reforms and result was founded in 2012 by local organizations such as Interbilim, a
powerful and established NGO in Kyrgyzstan, the Central Asian Free Market Institute and liberal ways
and with international support from OTI/USAID and the first funding from Saferworld, a British
organization.
The CSOs range in size from four to 16, mostly female, permanent staff members. Despite their small
size, only Nurbala said that their size prevented them from carrying out planned activities. In general,
constraints were primarily financial. Arysh Invest is actively looking for international investors,
because they believe local investors would not be interested in their programs. They also face
substantial competition from larger microcredit companies founded by foreign NGOs. Nurbala is
applying for the second time for unallocated funding, so that they can retain their key staff and are
able to plan ahead. Aiköl, in their efforts to preserve Kyrgyz heritage and teach it to young people in
24
“Right now the focus of donors is on Human Rights, but what if that changes during the next five years and they say: no,
we are going to fund only ecological projects. So we have to think ahead” (Nurbala).
14
the region25, is attempting to operate without international funding, because they are convinced that
international donors would not be interested in this kind of action.
4.2.2. Part 2 – Civil society conceptions
Organization
Definitions of civil society26
“NGOs are an important part of civil society. In general, civil society is all
Arysh Invest
citizens, but they pass their words and opinions only through NGOs or political
parties. Not every opinion can be taken into account. That is why there have to
be experts, and that is what NGOs are. Also, who takes care about bigger
problems, like ecological or financial crises? NGOs, parties and the media”
“In Talas, I would say that civil society is the active part of the population that
Aiköl
helps the authorities to solve certain local problems, like with migrants, orphans
or women. Civil society should not only criticize, but openly talk about problems
and at the same time suggest constructive solutions to find ways out of the
problems”
“Voluntary non-profit organizations, which engage in strengthening and
Nurbala
developing the social sphere of a country. In difference to the governmental
sector, where you have to negotiate and study more, in the civil society sector
there is the possibility to work more freely to realize one’s potential”
“The active part of the citizens of a country that can organize themselves and
Liberal ways
take independent action or effectively cooperates with the authorities. Civil
society can take many forms: NGOs, informal groups, individual activists, it can
even be business if they not only work for their profits but only engage for their
interests and own ideas. Most people in Kyrgyzstan think that only NGOs are
civil society, but the single woman in the village who fights for her rights in a
group with her neighbors can be a more effective part of civil society than NGOs
who just wait for the next grant to come”
Table 2: Definitions of civil society given by the respondents
Table 2 shows the interview subjects’ definitions of CS. Two of the four CSOs said that NGOs are the
representatives or the entirety of CS. Even liberal ways, whose definition of CS is very different from
the rest, said that the common perception in the country is that CS consists of formal NGOs. All four
CSO representatives first heard the term ‘civil society’ during internal trainings or trainings led by an
international organization. Most of the subjects were unfamiliar with the term before they worked in
the sector. Nurbala said that only the big and experienced NGOs knew the term, while smaller NGOs
especially in the countryside, would not know what it was. Liberal ways and Nurbala said their
definitions of civil society had changed substantially since they first encountered the term. For both,
they initially believed that it only included the NGO-sector, while now they realize also other actors
are part of CS.
25
“Globalization dissolves former structures but we have to remember the specifity of our people […]. This is not
nationalism; […] it is a matter of finding your identity in the big world” (Aiköl).
26
The given definitions are not direct citations but are being presented in a readable form, extracting the essentials and are
translated by the author of this paper.
15
Nurbala, Arysh Invest and Aiköl referred to a well-known triadic model, which defines CS as one of
three forces in society, together with the market and the state, which is why Figure 3, that the author
showed the participants to locate their organization inside society, caused some confusion27.
Political sector
Public sector
общественн
ый/государс
твенный
сектор
family sector
политическ
ий сектор/
режим
Граждане
Бизнес
сектор
Business sector
Семейный
сектор
Figure 3: Position of the organizations in society on the base of the arena model by Buxton 2011 (40). The figure is shown
in Russian to make the original terms clear that were used, while the arrows with the translations were not originally in
the picture given to the interviewees.
The colors in Figure 3 are the same as in Table 2: Arysh Invest is represented in orange, Aiköl in
green, Nurbala in purple and liberal ways in yellow. Most placed themselves in the public sector,
which translates in Russian to the civic/national or public sector, reasoning that actors who are part
of society are also part of the public sector. Local governments and local authorities, who were
emphasized by all respondents as important partners are also seen as being part of the public sector
and not as part of the political regime. However, while Arysh Invest saw themselves as part of the
public sector, and emphasized their financial and social goals, they said they were not part of CS.
Only liberal way considered themselves to be part of the political sector, after clarifying that they do
not engage in power politics. Liberal ways were also the only ones, who identified themselves as
lobbyists, but all four CSOs said that they are involved in lobbying activities. Nurbala and Aiköl
believe the government has a bad image of the NGO sector and views them as “grant-eater[s]”
(Nurbala). Both hoped that this perception would change over time. According to liberal ways, the
practice of NGOs to do “not one step without foreign support” is jointly responsible for the negative
image of the Kyrgyz NGO sector.
27
At Aiköl, the respondent drew her own figure consisting of the traditional three circles.
16
Interestingly, three of the four CSOs see themselves as part of the business sector. Apart from Arysh
Invest also Nurbala and Aiköl said that “what we do is business: we provide employment and pay
taxes” (Nurbala) and “we ourselves are a business and we provide services” (Aiköl). Liberal ways
aspires to become part of the business sector, but currently is only active in the public and political
sphere. Without exception, and very emphatically, all of the interviewed organizations said that they
see the business sector as an important partner in the future and a source of alternative funding.
All four respondents believe the only role of the family sector is as a beneficiary. Aiköl pointed out
that the families of their supporters are influential change agents, but none of the respondents saw
their organizations as part of the sector or their actions as influenced by it.
The respondents emphasized the importance of cooperation between the sectors and within the
NGO community to provide effective support for the population. While they believe this is possible at
the local level in the public sector and within the NGO-sector, they see problems for enhanced
cooperation with other sectors. With the political sector, the main challenge mentioned was the
“closed” (Aiköl, liberal ways, Nurbala) government and the negative image of CSOs in national
institutions. With the business sector, they perceive it as a sphere where actors do not yet take
responsibility for the country (liberal ways, Aiköl). At the international level, the CSOs believe that
international actors are not open enough to priorities from within the country and instead change
their priorities based on international trends (liberal ways, Nurbala, Arysh Invest).
17
4.3. Linking conceptions – similarities and differences
The CSO and donor views of CS are highly correlated. Aiköl and liberal ways stressed the importance
of assistance, support, strengthening, developing potential and efficiency. All these terms lead to
the importance of cooperation among sectors, which is also advocated by the CPPs. Nurbala and
Arysh Invest also used many terms in the same context as the CPPs. Development and progress are
the goals, whereas government is an entity that needs to be changed. NGOs are seen as the most
important actors.
The respondents’ understanding of CS appears to be derived and heavily influenced by the
hegemonic discourse. The term was unknown before independence and even among CSO actors,
most learned their definitions from trainings conducted by IOs or INGOs. Same applies to the
positioning of their organizations, because the CSOs who referred to the triadic model indicated they
learned it from international actors.
Despite sharing common definitions of CS, donors and CSOs do express different priorities. Aiköl
prioritizes strengthening of Kyrgyz traditions but because this project was not funded, they only
discussed it very late in the interview. One possible reading is that they did not immediately
associate it with day to day business and the sphere of CS, which was inextricably linked to funds and
projects.
While the term sustainability was rarely mentioned during the interviews, it is a major concern for
the interviewees. All the respondents were to some degree worried about their future situation and
the prospects of their actions. Therefore, while it was seen as entirely positive in the CPPs, for the
interviewees the term project equaled insecurity of funding and dependency. On the other hand the
term business and cooperation with this sector took such an important part in the results of the
research, that the idea suggests itself that this is perceived as the only way to sustainability and
financial independence.
Cooperation at the local level was more important to the CSOs than it was in the CPPs which mostly
stressed cooperation with the national government. Political decentralization and the Kyrgyz history
of local decision-making, mean that a lot of political decision making is held at the local government
(AO)28, which the respondents view as one of their most important partners. Here they differ from
the mainstream definition of CS as a counterpart and advocate to the state, rather than a partner.
However, many Kyrgyz do not consider the AO as part of the political sector. Rather, they see it as
part of the public sector along with the CSOs.
28
The local government in Kyrgyz is the ayil ökmötü (аыйл окмоту).
18
All interviewees were registered NGOs, and therefore eligible for the CPPs, but only two of them
viewed NGOs as the sole representatives of CS. The other two said NGOs are the most visible, but not
the only part of CS. Thus there is a more global understanding of CS than is promoted by the CPPs,
which might have roots in the history of decision-making processes on a local, individual level.
The overall adoption of the wording of the donors’ discourse by the CSOs was high. One reason for
this may be that all of the interviewed CSOs are relatively well established, have worked with several
donors, and are currently conduction one or more projects. None of them was obviously excluded
from the system. However, there are differences between the CSOs that back the hypothesis.
Aiköl, the most experienced NGO, is also the most flexible, working in a wide-variety of sectors to
produce more opportunities for funding. Their success appears directly linked to their ability to adapt
to changing donor priorities. Aiköl also framed their organization as the most influential in their
oblast and least concerned about future funding.
Although liberal ways is a relatively young organization, they have already adopted much of the
hegemonic discourse, which appears to have influenced their success. Interestingly, they equally
emphasize their success in fundraising and their pride in conducting actions even without external
support. Liberal ways appears determined to both appear and become more independent, hoping to
work within the hegemonic conception of CS to achieve influence and then broaden it from within.
Nurbala is the least successful of the four CSOs. They only work in one certain sphere and are aware
that this makes them more vulnerable than CSOs working in multiple spheres, should the priorities of
the donors shift. Their usage of terms is least similar to the donors’. For example their chairperson
was embarrassed because she could not give the official definition of CS. She then directly stated
that a lot of other smaller NGOs do not even know that it exists. In line with the hypothesis of the
paper Nurbala was then also most anxious about their future. Their limited adoption of the
hegemonic discourse limits their ability to win grants, in turn limiting their power and influence.
Moreover, the four CSOs all explicitly mentioned that their adoption of the donor’s wording was a
comparative advantage versus smaller NGOs that do not have the vocabulary or skills to write project
proposals for international donors.
19
5. Conclusions and prospects
The hegemonic definition appears to dominate the discourse and influence the position of CS actors.
However, since all of the interviewed actors adopted the discourse to some degree it is difficult to
separate the discourses’ influence from other factors. Especially since the CSOs acknowledged that
adopting the discourse increases their chance for success.
Over the past 24 years, the CS sector has been strongly influenced by international organizations and
so it is not surprising that of CS expressed by donors and CSOs match to an overwhelming degree.
But these ideas did not naturally converge, but were actively taught to the CSOs by international
actors. Yet the CSOs retain some ownership of the meanings they attach to the term, like tradition,
business and independence that are not part of the hegemonic definition.
Kyrgyz CS actors have identified their material dependence on the hegemonic discourse and view it
as a problem. However, this view is highly likely influenced by the current decline in international
support of the development of the Kyrgyz CS sector. Additionally, the national government is
becoming increasingly hostile to funding from ‘foreign agents’, which limits the prospects of
cooperation between CS and national government, the espoused goal of the IOs who fund these
activities. But, whatever factor may influence this development the most, it is certain that it will
change the structure of the CS sector and the meanings attributed to CS by the CSOs.
The CSOs represented in the interviews and the CS conference, envisage CS and business working
closely together to influence the state, which is still associated with Soviet legacy. The results would
look very different from traditional views of Western CS, where CS actors often work against the
business sector or try to limit its influence on the state.
It remains to be seen whether this is the way civil society will be going in Kyrgyzstan, but if the
financial influx is going to continue declining, it is highly probable that the sector will change in one
or the other direction. Hopefully, if the current discourse is weakened, the CS arena will become
more open to the influx of local meanings and thus more inclusive, allowing Kyrgyz conceptions of
civil society to shape the discourse of their sector and their country.
20
6. Appendices
Appendix 1: Country Information Kyrgyz Republic
Map of Kyrgyzstan, URL: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/maps/asia/kyrgyzstan/ (retrieved May 23, 2014).
Basic information:





Area: approx. 199.000 km² (80% mountainous, landlocked)
Borders with China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan
Population: 5,6 millions
Biggest cities and population: Bishkek (capital) – 854.000; Osh – 232.600
94% of the country is more than 1000 m above sea level
Population:





Ethnicities: Kyrgyz 64.9%, Uzbek 13.8%, Russian 12.5%, Dungan 1.1%, Ukrainian 1%, Uighur 1%, other
5.7% (1999 census)
Languages: Kyrgyz (official) 64.7%, Uzbek 13.6%, Russian (official) 12.5%, Dungun 1%, other 8.2%
(1999 census)
Religion: Muslim 75%, Russian Orthodox 20%, other 5%
Literacy: 99%
Youth Unemployment 14.6%
Economy:






GDP per capita: 2.500$
GDP by sector: 20.8% agriculture, 34.4% industry, 44.8% services
Employment: 48% agriculture, 12.5% industry, 39.5% services
33.7% of the population below poverty line
Currency: Kyrgyz Som
Natural resources: hydropower, gold
21
Recent historical events:





1867 annexed by the Russian Empire
Became part of the Soviet Union in 1918, Kirghiz SSR in 1936
Independence 1991
Tulip Revolution in 2005
Uzbek-Kyrgyz ethnical clashes in the South and referendum resulting in new constituency in 2010
Source of data: (CIA, 2014).
22
Appendix 2: List of Calls for Proposals (CPPs)
#1
ENHANCED ENABLING ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM (E3)
Organization USAID Central Asian Republics
Objective
“To improve the legal and operational conditions for a more robust civil society in
Central Asia”
“1. Strengthen government and civil society ability to improve legal enabling
environment
2. Support government and civil society by establishing a conducive operational
environment
3. Increase sustainably CSO legal knowledge of their rights and responsibilities” (3)
Amount of
800.000 US$
Grant
Application
June 2, 2014
Deadline
Eligible
US-PVO with a partner NGO and experience in the region
candidates
local Non-Governmental Organization organized under laws the laws of a country in
the region have to “attach official documentation of their formal legal status as an
NGO in the host country or in a country in the region” (18)
Link
http://www.grants.gov/searchgrants.html?agencies%3DUSAID|Agency%20for%20International%20Development
#2
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP FOR SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY (GPSA)
FIRST GLOBAL CALL FOR PROPOSALS
Organization GPSA, hosted by World Bank
Objective
“to improve development results by supporting capacity building for enhanced citizen
feedback and participation […], country-level governance reforms and improved
service delivery” (2)
Amount of
500.000 – 1.000.000 US-$
Grant
Application
March 13, 2013
Deadline
Eligible
- CSOs and CSO networks that are legal entities in one of the opted-in countries (4)
candidates
- CSOs that “confirm their status as legal entities in one of GPSA’s opted-in countries
and […] evidence of experience (at least 3-5 years) in the area of the call for proposals,
and a vision matching the goals of the GPSA” (5)
Link
https://wbchallengeedit.imaginatik.com/wbchallengefiles.nsf/files/GPSA-ApplicationGuidelines-CfP1.pdf/$file/GPSA-Application-Guidelines-CfP1.pdf
23
#3
Organization
Objective
Amount of
Grant
Application
Deadline
Eligible
candidates
Link
NON-STATE ACTORS (NSA) IN DEVELOPMENT
Delegation of the European Union to the Kyrgyz Republic
“promotion of an inclusive and empowered society”
“strengthening the capacity of civil society organizations and local communities
through support to their “own initiatives”” (4)
“- to support Non State Actors in their actions towards poverty reduction and
promoting sustainable social and economic development in rural areas of Kyrgyzstan,
based on initiatives of local communities
- to reinforce their development capacities and facilitate their participation in poverty
reduction” (5)
400.000 – 450.000 €
September 26, 2013
Non State; Non-Profit; legally established n accordance with the legislation in force in
the country concerned (KR) and must have been registered for at least three years”
or: Non-State Actors form EU in partnership with local organization(s) (6)
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/europeaid/onlineservices/index.cfm?ADSSChck=1402146905184&do=publi.getDoc&documentId=1348
12&pubID=134874
Table 3 - List with details about the analyzed CPPs
24
Appendix 3: Content analysis of the Calls for Proposals
1. Analyzed documents: Guidelines for grant applicants (three times)
term
USAID (45
pages 21147w)
EU (25 pages 9401 w)
GSPA (8 pages Sum
- 2847w)
civil society
346
8
6
360
CSO
198
0
39
237
government(al)
136
3
6
145
support
61
34
18
113
Development
66
21
9
96
enabling
84
0
0
84
capacity building
39
2
26
67
legislation
63
3
0
66
0
1
65
66
project
44
10
8
62
organization
29
1
25
55
capacity
27
9
18
54
assistance
47
1
4
52
local
28
18
3
49
Best practice
41
4
0
45
improve(ment)
36
1
5
42
effective/ efficiency
29
10
3
42
monitoring
34
1
5
40
NSA (Non-State Actors)
0
37
0
37
Accountability
1
0
36
37
gender
33
2
1
36
NGO
33
2
0
35
knowledge
24
1
10
35
4
22
4
30
sustainable/sustainability
20
5
2
27
partnership
10
3
14
27
initiative
14
6
7
27
network(ing)
22
1
4
27
cooperation
17
5
0
22
difficulty(ies)
beneficiary(ies)
25
participation
14
4
2
20
6
8
5
19
opportunity(ies)
16
2
1
19
advocacy
16
1
0
17
Governance
5
0
10
15
social services
0
3
12
15
community(ies)
3
7
5
15
Democratic/democracy
14
0
0
14
restrictive/restriction
13
1
0
14
citizen(s)
11
0
3
14
strengthen(ing)
2
1
11
14
transparency
2
1
10
13
dialogue
11
1
1
13
expertise
10
1
1
12
challenge(s)
12
0
0
12
awareness
9
1
0
10
education
7
2
0
9
access
6
2
1
9
poverty reduction
0
7
0
7
civic
5
0
1
6
stable
0
2
4
6
growth/grow
4
0
1
5
enhancing skills
5
0
0
5
basic needs
0
2
2
4
target group
0
4
0
4
poverty
0
4
0
4
ownership
0
3
1
4
empower(ed)(ment)
1
2
0
3
discriminatory
0
0
2
2
need
Table 4 Absolute number of mention of the most common words in the three CPPs with highlighting of the words only
frequently mentioned in one of the CPPs.
26
Appendix 4: List of interviewed organizations
Name
Айкол (Aiköl)
Нур Бала (Nurbala)
Арыш Инвест
(Arysh Invest)
Свободное
поколение (liberal
ways)
За реформы и
ресультат (for reforms
and result)
Location
Talas City
Talas City
Bishkek
Bishkek
Address
Sarygulov Street 77,
724205 Talas City
Karl Marx Street 21,
724200 Talas City
Togolok Moldo 60,
720033 Bishkek
Prospect Manasa 5-10,
720044 Bishkek
Date of Interview
May 16, 2014
May 16, 2014
May 27, 2014
June 5, 2014
Contact person
(name & position)
Gulmira
Temirbekova
Zhyldyz
Turdugulova
Gulbara
Turdumatova
Timur Shaikhutdinov
(head of organization)
(chairperson)
(chairperson of the
board and director)
Aimira
Djumasheva
Mission of
organization
(program manager)
Strengthen the
potential of nonprofit organizations to
enhance their
capacity to support
local citizens
(chairman for strategic
development)
(coordinator of network)
Provide access and
integration for the best
possible development
of children with
disabilities, orphans
and children living in
difficult situations
Expand our activities
and provide access to
services and for a
better livelihood for
internal migrants
active in the
construction sector in
Bishkek
Achieve a reform of the
current police forces for a
better safety in Kyrgyzstan,
a more efficient
government system and a
society in which authorities
listen to the voices and
needs of civil society and
normal citizens.
NGO
NGO
Microcredit agency
NGO-network
Training,
consulting,
lobbying
Talas oblast
Consulting, project
work, lobbying
Trainings, lending,
lobbying
Talas oblast
Bishkek City
Lobbying, awarenessraising, provide
information
Kyrgyzstan
8
6 + 2 (part-time)
16
2001
2009
2012
Every Child, Peace
Corps, Soros, Eurasian
Foundation in Central
Asia, Fond ICCO,
Ministry of Social
Development of KR
Fond ICCO, CAMFA II,
Arysh NGO
Type of
organization
Major activities
Range of activities
Staff members
Foundation year
Misereor,
International
Major donors
Organization on
Migration, OECE,
ACSSC, National
Democratic Institute,
Eurasia Foundation
Central Asia
Table 5 - Full details of the interviewed organizations
27
4 + volunteers
network: 25
organizations
2007 NGO
2012 network
SaferGold, IRG
(International Resource
Group), East-WestManagement Institute,
Freedom House
Appendix 5: Conference Agenda – Nonprofit Management
FIRST ANNUAL NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE: “THE KYRGYZ CIVIL
SOCIETY SECTOR IN THEORY AND PRACTICE”
June 4, 2014
Bishkek,
Kyrgyz National University named after Zh. Balasagyn, Bishkek
AGENDA
Goals:

Strengthen the capacity of the Civil Society sector by enhancing academic capabilities
and resources for nonprofit management education in the Kyrgyz Republic by
providing an opportunity to discuss current topics in depth among academic and
practitioner colleagues.
Moderator:
Irys Beybutova, Dean, School of International Relations, Kyrgyz National
University
09:00 - 09:30
Participant registration
09:30 – 10:00
Welcome:
-
10:00 - 10:50
Sadykov Kanat, Minister of Education and Science of the Kyrgyz Republic
Michael Greene, Mission Director, USAID for the Kyrgyz Republic
Mira Karybaeva, Department on Ethnic, Religious Policy and Liaising with
Civil Society, President’s Apparatus of the Kyrgyz Republic
Iskender Isamidinov, Rector of HUB-University, KNU
"Kyrgyz Civil Society: History, Successes and New Challenges"
Raya Kadyrova, President, Foundation Tolerance International
10:50 - 12:00
Panel discussion “The Role of Public-Private-Civil Society Sectors in
Development of the Kyrgyz Economy”
-
-
12:00 - 12:30
Janna Saralaeva, Expert, Department on Ethnic, Religious Policy and Liaising
with Civil Society, President’s Apparatus of the Kyrgyz Republic
Raya Kadyrova, President, Foundation Tolerance International
Nurbek Elebaev, Chairman, Committee for Public-Private Partnership, Stock
Markets and Investments under the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of
the Kyrgyz Republic, member of the Board of Directors of the Kyrgyz Stock
Exchange
Nurbek Atakanov, Director General, Shoro Company
Presentation by Irys Beybutova & Aizhan Abdesova, NPM Fellowship
28
Alumni
12:30 - 13:30
Lunch
12:30 - 15:30
Sessions:
Section 1, Room 310, Non- Profit Management Center
Moderator: Beybutova Irys
«Civil Society in Kyrgyzstan: its present and perspectives»
1. Zainidin Kurmanov, Evolution and Peculiarities of Civil Society Institutions in
Kyrgyzstan
2. Avazbek Asanov, The Role of Higher Education Institutions in the
development of Non-profits in Kyrgyzstan
3. Murat Suyunbaev, Democracy: Political and Economic Freedom
4. Aisuluu Sulaymanova, Endowments: is there future for their development in
Kyrgyz Republic?
Section 2, Room 201, American Center
Moderator: Ismailova Baktygul
«Theoretical and pragmatic aspects of Non-profit sector development»
1. Venera Sabirova, The Role of Human Resource Management in Non-profit
organizations
2. Baktygul Maksytova, Social entrepreneurship in Non-profit Organizations
3. Aida Kurbanova, Organizational audit: External Motivation and Selfmanagement Resource
4. Gulnaz Kutubaeva, Volunteering in Non-profits: Jalal-Abad oblast, Kyrgyzstan
15:30 – 16:00
Closing ceremony
29
Appendix 6: Summary of discussions at the conference
In the first annual nonprofit management conference: “the Kyrgyz civil society sector in theory and
practice” participants talked about the general challenges and problems in the non-profit sector in
the Kyrgyz Republic. Here shall be only mentioned the results that are relevant to the view about CS
functioning and consistence in Kyrgyzstan.
The most discussed topic was the future of the sector in the light of declining grants for the country
and unsustainable actions. About international support and donor’s actions, participants complained,
that “donors are supporting projects not programs of organizations and implement often very simple
projects that could be implemented by locals, although IOs should do help with expertise in areas
which we still do cannot handle on our own” (Raya Kadyrova).
One of the major tasks for the future was said to develop better ties and relations with the
government and improve the negative image of the NGO sector in the country. On the one hand,
this could help solve the huge problem of donor dependency, said the director of the new Master
Program if NGOs were allowed to also take money from the government: “In Holland 60% of the
financial support for the CS sector comes from the government, in the USA it is 40% and in
Kyrgyzstan it is almost none”. Also the negative image of the NGO-sector especially in the
government was seen as a major challenge that needed to be overcome. A lot of the speakers said it
is necessary to take action against the newly introduced draft law defining NGOs with foreign
assistance as foreign agents. A lot of the participants referred to Soviet heritage when complaining
about inefficiency and “anti-democratic hostility” (Sainidin Kurmanov – history professor and
politician) in the government structures. Another participant earned a lot of applause when she
complained that the economic input by the NGO sector should be more appreciated by the
government by providing better social services for NGO-workers relations of the sector with the
government.
Like, the respondents to the interview, also the conference participants stressed the importance of
business actors for the NGO sector. Nurbek Elebaev, chairman of the PPP stockmarket and
investment, said that in developed countries business determines the state’s actions and that CS
should engage more in socio-economic activities to help establish a stable partnership between the
state and the business sector. Elebaev advocated for privatization and CSR, and got much support
from the public; following speakers from CSOs supported his point of more interaction with the
business sector, which was perceived more positive than the government sector.
30
Thus, oppositional rhetoric apart, the main conclusion was that more research as well as more
cooperation with other sectors was needed, especially the government and business, in order to
overcome the dependency and paternalist (Sainidin Kurmanov) situation in the sector.
31
Appendix 7: Interview Questionnaires in English and Russian
Introduction
0.
“Hello, thank you very much for agreeing to meet me. I’m Katya and like I wrote you before, I’m
conducting research about Civil Society conceptions in Kyrgyzstan. Therefore I would like to get
some insight into your organizations settings and projects and most of all your ideas about Civil
Society … ”
“I’m going to ask you some questions now, which will take us about an hour. If you feel
uncomfortable with any question you don’t have to answer. Just tell me and we can skip the
question. That is not a problem”
“Else, are you okay with being cited with your name and the name of your organization or
would you prefer to stay anonymous? The paper is for only being published internally. It is only
for university purposes.”
“Would you be okay with me recording our conversation? That would help me a lot with the
transcription”
“Do you have any questions before we start, about my research, myself or about the procedure
of the interview? Feel free to ask!”
First Part: Setting of organization/group inside society
1
So could you tell me a bit about yourself and your role inside the organization?
2
3
4
Sub-questions:
- name, surname
- position in the organization
- experience with the organization
- experience before
- foundation member?
- (maybe age, gender, family)
Please tell me something about the history of your organization/group
Sub-questions:
- foundation year
- purpose of foundation
- reason for foundation (what need was there to found it?)
- what scope did it have
- foundation members
Going to the presence of the organization/group – could you tell me a bit about the people who
work with you and your organization?
Sub-questions:
- How many staff? (women/men?)
- average age of the staff
- what positions do they hold?
- are these full-time or half-time positions?
- If half-time: do they hold other jobs?
- average experience with the organization
- where did they work before? What’s their overall experience in the sector?
Who does your program seek to serve? Could you describe me the people you work for?
Sub-questions:
- Where do the people you call your target group mostly live? (rural/urban)
- demographics (gender, age, income situations, livelihoods etc.)
- how far is the scope of your actions?
32
5
(country /community (ayil ökmötü)/ village/rayon/oblast/city)
- How do you usually reach out to your target groups?
( posters/radio/bazaar radio/television/personal visits/social media/presentations/trainings
etc.)
If you don’t mind I would like to ask you about your organizations resources. Do you have a
“past actions table”? And if so, could you walk me through it?
If not, I’d like to ask you some questions about your financial situation:
6
Sub-questions:
- how much money did you get from grants during last three years (2010 – 2013)
- Who did finance these? Who were your donors?
- Have you received non-project funding for general organizational use?
- How many project proposals did you send out during last 2010-2013?
- solicited or unsolicited (answers to a call or general concept notes?)
- average size of the proposals (in $)
- how many of the sent out did get funded?
- If you had a year without external funding, how did you fund your operations?
Could you describe your most recent projects (2-3) shortly for me?
7
Sub-questions:
- how did you get to the ideas? What was the need?
- what was the aim of the project?
- who did you seek to serve?
- what were your main strategies?
- what were the impacts?
- do you see them as successes for your organization?
Are there any actions you would like to take and haven’t?
8
Sub-questions:
- what kind of actions are these and why could you not pursue them so far?
- have resources prevented you from taking these actions?
- have you tried to get donor support for these actions? why (not)?
What is your organization’s overall goal?
Sub-questions:
- do you have a mission statement?
- could you elaborate on your key goals? What do they mean to you?
- What does a world here your organization is no longer needed look like?
Second part: self-definition and definition of civil society
9
Thank you very much for all this information. I would now like to get a deeper insight into your
personal ideas about civil society.
Could you please tell me what you think of when you hear or talk about Civil Society?
10
Sub-questions:
- definition in own words
- where did you learn this definition?
- where did you first hear the term?
- has your view of civil society changed over time?
- what caused it to change
Do you see yourself as Civil Society actor(s) according to your definition? If so, why? And if not,
why not?
33
11
Some people so see society as follows. I’m going to explain what the different circles mean and
would like you to position your organization/group in this diagram? (as a space or circle,
please)
political
sector/
regime
public
sector
Citizens
business
sector
Family
sector
Explanation of the circles:
Public sector: academic and educational institution, law agencies, public services and
organization, the police, the army
Business sector: trade unions, mutual-help groups, cooperatives, local companies, national and
transnational corporations
Political sector/regime: political activists, lobby groups, public service user groups, political
parties, legislature
Family sector: traditional systems of mutual self-help, clans, formal and informal support
systems
So I’ll give you an example: If I am a car importer, I do get cars from abroad and sell them in the
country. I would be part of the business sector, because I am part of the market and have to
deal with its forces, as well as with competition, I also am integrated into the public sector
because I do pay taxes, I obey the laws, am registered etc. and follow regulations I have to
consider buying and selling cars. Me thus being part of these two sectors and interacting with
the citizens means I am situated here (red).
This doesn’t have to be the case however:
For example, if my business is a family business and I am supported by my family/clan to build it
up (most of my workers are part of my family and they help me in times of problems with the
economy. I also adjust my goals and preferences to their needs. If this is the case I am rather
situated here (green):
34
political
sector/
regime
public
sector
Citizens
business
sector
Family
sector
Could you now please do the same for your organization? And tell me your thoughts and major
reasons to put your circle exactly there? Overall, every institution is part of all different circles
but the form can represent the parts of society that you consider yourself mostly integrated into
and where you as an organization interact most.
12
Okay, thanks a lot. Now we talked about where your organization is situated in society. The
following question is slightly different, because it is not about your position inside society but
about your partners inside society.
Out of the institutions we talked about (market, public sector, political sector and family sector)
which sector four is your most important partner to pursue your goals as a organization/group
and why?
Sub-questions:
- inside the sector you named, which institution (1 to 2) do you consider most important?
- how often do you interact with this institution?
- who is your main contact from this institution?
- of what nature is your relationship to the contact?
- How do you estimate the power of the contact to help you with your mission?
- in general how is your relationship with the institution?
- how do you estimate the power of the institution to help with your mission?
13
I would like to ask you about the field you’re working in. Are there any other organizations who
do similar projects like you? Could you describe them to me in comparison with your
organization/group?
Sub-questions:
- what size of funding do they have?
- project activities?
- what impact do they have?
35
14
- what is the difference between you and them in terms of mission,
goal and values?
- do you think they do have other conceptions of Civil society?
Okay, we’re almost done. I would like to ask you one last question about your organization,
considering its future.
Where do you see your group future going in the next three to five years?
Sub-questions:
- do you see any changes happening?
- will there be changes in the mission?
- will there be changes in the partners you are working with?
- will there be changes in the scope/size/position of the organization inside of society? Do you
think your circle from question 11 will change?
- what are the reasons for these changes? Do you think this is a good or bad development?
That would be all. Thank you very much for your answers, you have helped me a lot! Do you have any
questions?
Thanks again for having me and spending your time to talk to me.
Interview questionnaire in English, Remark: during the interviews the order of the question was sometimes changed in
order to keep the conversation flow.
Введение
0.
" Здравствуйте , спасибо , что согласились встретиться со мной . Я Катя , и как я
писала Вам раннее, я провожу исследования о гражданском обществе в Кыргызстане.
Поэтому мне бы хотелось получить некоторое представление о об устройстве и
проектах Вашей организаций, а также, прежде всего, представление о ваших идеях и о
гражданском обществе ... "
" Я задам вам несколько вопросов сейчас, а интервью будет длиться около часа. Если
вы не хотите отвечать на некоторые вопросы, то просто скажите мне, и мы можем
пропустить этот вопрос. Это не проблема "
" Кроме того, согласны ли вы, чтобы я цитировала наше интервью, указывая ваше
имя, и название организации, или вы бы предпочли остаться анонимным? Мое
исследование будет использоваться только в рамках университета, а так же для
целей моего университета."
" Вы согласны на запись нашего разговора? Это помогло бы мне в дальнейшем с
транскрипцией интервью "
" Есть ли у вас вопросы о моем исследовании или о процессе интервью прежде чем мы
начнем? Не стесняйтесь спрашивать!"
Первая часть (устройство и положение организации / группы внутри общества)
1
Сначала, не могли бы вы рассказать мне немного о себе и своей роли внутри
организации?
Суб-вопросы:
- Имя, фамилия
- Должность в организации
- Опыт работы в этой организации
- Предыдущий опыт
- Учредитель?
- (Может быть, возраст, пол, семейное положение)
36
2
3
4
5
Расскажите мне, пожалуйста, об истории Вашей организации / группы, пожалуйста
Суб-вопросы:
- Год основания
- Цель основания
- Причина основания (какие факторы повлияли на ее основание?)
- Как широка сфера деятельности Вашей организации в это время было?
- Учредители (кто они? они до сих пор работают в этой организации или поменяли
работу? Какая должность у них сейчас?)
Могли бы вы рассказать мне немного о людях, которые работают с вами и в вашей
организацией?
Суб-вопросы:
- Сколько сотрудников? (женщины / мужчины?)
- Средний возраст сотрудников
- Какую должность они занимают?
- Работают ли они полный день, или на пол ставки?
- Если на полставки: Работают ли они на другой работе?
- Средний опыт в компании
- Где они работали раньше? Какой у них опыт в секторе?
Каким целям служит ваша компания? Не могли бы вы описать мне людей, для который
работает/предоставляет услуги ваша организация.
Суб-вопросы:
- Где люди, для которых вы работаете в основном живут? (город / село)
- Демографические (пол, возраст, доход, средства к существованию и т.д.)
- На сколько широка сфера вашей деятельности?
(страна / сообщество (айыл окмоту) / деревня / район / область / город)
- Каким образом вы предоставляете (bereitstellen) информацию для ваших целевых
групп?
(Плакаты / радио / базар радио / телевидения / личные визиты / социальные медиа /
презентации / тренинги и т.д.)
Если вы не возражаете, я бы хотела спросить вас о ресурсах вашей организации.
У вас есть "таблица вашей прошлой деятельности"?Если есть, то не могли бы вы
мне, пожалуйста, дать немного информации по ней?
Если нет, то я хотела бы задать вам несколько вопросов о финансовых вопросах вашей
компании :
Суб-вопросы:
- Сколько денег вы получили в виде грантов за последние три года (2010 - 2013)
- Кто финансировал ? Кем были ваши доноры?
- Получали ли вы финансирование не в целях проекта, для пользования на общие цели
вашей организации?
- Сколько проектных заявок (project proposal) вы отправили в течение последних 3х лет
2010-2013?
- Были ли они целенаправленно направлены (gerichtet an) на определенный конкурс
грантов, или вы их направляли на общей основе, без объявления конкурса? (ответы на
тендеры или общая проектная заявка?)
- Средняя сумма общего финансирования (в $)
- Сколько из проектных заявок вам финансировали?
- Если бы вам пришлось работать год без внешнего финансирования, то каким
образом бы вы финансировали свою деятельность?
37
6
7
8
Могли бы вы описать ваши самые последние проекты (2-3) в ближайшее время?
Суб-вопросы:
- Как появилась идея? Кто нуждался в проекте?
- Цель проекта
- На кого была нацелена ваша деятельность ?
- Какова была ваша основная стратегия?
- Каково было влияние проекта?
- Был ли проект успешным для вашей организации.
Существует ли деятельность, которую вы хотели бы осуществить и не осуществили
досих пор?
Суб-вопросы:
- Какого рода деятельность/действия, и почему вы до сих пор не могли их
осуществить?
- Повлияло ли отсутствие ресурсов на осуществление этой деятельности?
- Вы попробовали получить донорскую поддержку для это деятельности? почему
(нет)?
Какова общая цель вашей организации?
Суб-вопросы:
- Миссия?
- Вы могли бы подробнее рассказать о ваших ключевых целях? Что они значат для вас?
- В каком мире ваша организация больше не нужен? Описываете его пожалуйста!
Вторая часть - (представление гражданском обществе):
9
Спасибо большое за всю информацию. Теперь я хотела бы, получить более глубокое
понимание ваших личных мыслей/идей о гражданском обществе.
Не могли бы вы сказать мне, о чем вы думаете, когда вы слышите или говорите о
гражданском обществе?
10
11
Суб-вопросы:
- Определение в собственных словах
- Где вы узнали это определение?
- Где вы впервые услышали этот термин?
- Менялось ли ваше мнение о гражданском обществе с течением времени?
- Что повлекло к изменению мнения? Из-за чего вы поменяли свое мнение?
Видите ли вы себя деятелем гражданского общества соответсвующего вашему
пониманию ГО? Если да, то почему? А если нет, то почему?
Некоторые люди видят общество следующим образом. Я собираюсь объяснить, что
означают различные круги и хотела бы, чтобы разместили вашу организацию на этой
диаграмме ? (как пространство или круга, пожалуйста)
38
политическ
ий сектор/
режим
обществен
ный/госуд
арственны
й сектор
Граждане
Бизнес
сектор
Семейный
сектор
Объяснение кругов:
Общественный/Государственный сектор: академические и образовательные
учреждения, юридические агентства, государственные службы и организация,
полиция, армия
Бизнес сектор: профсоюзы взаимное группы взаимопомощи (SHG), кооперативы,
местные компании, национальные и транснациональные корпорации
Политическая сектор / режим: политические активисты, лоббистские группы,
группы пользователей государственных услуг, политические партии,
законодательные органы
Семейнный сектор: традиционные системы взаимной поддержки, кланов,
формальный и неформальные системы поддержки
Так я дам вам пример: Если я являюсь автомобиля импортер, я получить автомобили
из-за рубежа и продавать их в стране. Я был бы частью бизнес-секторе, потому что я
часть рынка и иметь дело с его сил, а также с конкуренцией, я также интегрированы
в государственном секторе, потому что я плачу налоги, я подчиняюсь законам, я
зарегистрировано и соблюдать правила я должен рассмотреть когда я покупаю и
продаю автомобилы. Меня таким образом быть частью этих двух секторов и
взаимодействия остроумие граждан означает, что я нахожусь здесь (красный).
Однако, Это не должно быть случае:
Например, если мой бизнес это семейный бизнес, и я при поддержке моей семьи / клана,
чтобы построить его (большинство моих работников являются частью моей семьи, и
они помогают мне во времена проблем с экономикой. Я также настроить своих целей
и предпочтения с их потребностями Если это так я скорее расположен здесь
(зеленый):
39
политический
сектор/
режим
общественный/
государственны
й сектор
Граждане
Бизнес
сектор
Семейный
сектор
12
Не могли бы вы теперь, пожалуйста, показать в каком секторе или в каких
секторах находится ваша организация? И скажите почему вы расположили себя
именно там? В целом, каждое учреждение является частью всех различных кругов, но
форма может представлять части общества, к которой вы себя в основном
относите, и где вы больше всего взаимодействуете как организация.
Хорошо, спасибо большое. Сейчас мы говорили о том, где ваша организация находится
в обществе. Следующий вопрос немного отличается, потому что речь идет не о
вашей позиции внутри общества, но о позиции ваших партнеров
Из учреждений о которых мы говорили (бизнеса, общественного/государственного
сектора, политической сфере и семейного сектора), в каких секторах находятся ваши
самые важные партнеры, для того, чтобы следовать цели вашей организации?
13
Суб-вопросы:
- Внутри этого самого важного сектора, какое учреждение (от 1 до 2) вы считаете
наиболее важными?
- Как часто вы взаимодействуете с этим учреждением?
- Кто ваш главный контакт с этим учреждением?
- Каково ваше отношение с партнером?
- Как вы оцениваете силу контакта, чтобы помочь вам с вашей миссии?
- В общем, как у вас отношения с учрежением?
- Как вы оцениваете силу учреждения, чтобы помочь с вашей миссии?
Я хотела бы спросить вас о сфере вашй работы. Есть ли другие организации, которые
делают подобные проекты здесь, как вы? Не могли бы вы описать и дать сравнение с
Вашей организации / группы?
Суб-вопросы:
- Какой размер финансирования у них есть?
- Деятельность по проектам?
- Какое влияние они имеют?
40
14
- Какая разница между вами и ними с точки зрения миссии, цели и ценности?
- Как вы думаете, отличается ли их представления о гражданском обществе?
Хорошо, мы почти закончились. Я хотела бы задать вам последний вопрос о вашей
организации о его будущем.
Где вы видите свою организацию в ближайшие три-пять лет?
Суб-вопросы:
- Вы видите какие-либо изменения, которые будут происходить?
- Изменится ли миссия?
- Изменятся ли партнеры с которыми вы работаете?
- Будет ли изменения в сфере / размере / в позиции организации внутри общества? Как
вы думаете, изменится ли расположения вашей организации в круге из вопроса 11?
- Каковы будут причины этих изменений? Как вы думаете, это хорошая
или плохо для развития?
Это было бы все. Огромное спасибо за ваши ответы, вы мне очень помогли! Есть ли у вас
вопросы?
Еще раз спасибо за то, что уделили меня свое время.
Interview questionnaire in Russian, during the interviews the order of the question was sometimes changed in order to
keep the conversational flow.
41
7. Table of Literature:
ACSSC (Association of Civil Society Support Centers) (2013): The Status and Prospects of
Development of the Non-Governmental Sector in Kyrgyzstan, Study with the help of
USAID, Bishkek: 2013.
Anderson, John (1999): Kyrgyzstan: Central Asia’s Island of Democracy?, Amsterdam:
Harwood Academic Publishers.
Anderson, John (2000): Creating a Framework for Civil Society in Kyrgyzstan, in: Europe-Asia
Studies, Vol. 52:1, London: Routledge, pp. 77-93, URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09668130098271 (retrieved March, 30 2014).
Anheier, Helmut (1999): Der Dritte Sektor im internationalen Vergleich. Ökonomische und
zivilgesellschaftliche Dimensionen von Nonprofit-Organisationen, in: Berliner Journal
für Soziologie, 2, pp: 197-212.
Anheier, Helmut (2001): How to measure civil society, LSE 2001, URL:
http://fathom.lse.ac.uk/features/122552/ (retrieved May 23, 2014).
Banuri, Tariq (1990): Modernization and its Discontents: A Critical Perspective on the
Theories of Development, in: Apffel-Marglin, Frédérique/ Marglin, Stephen (eds.):
Dominating Knowledge, Development, Culture and Resistance, WIDER (World
Institute of Development Economics Research) Studies in Development Economics.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 73-101.
Buxton, Charles (2009): NGO networks in Central Asia and global civil society: potentials and
limitation, in: Central Asian Survey, 28:1, pp. 42-58.
Buxton, Charles (2011): The Struggle for Civil Society in Central Asia, Sterling: Kumarian
Press.
Chandhoke, Neera (2007): Civil Society, in: Development in Practice, 17: 4-5, pp. 607-614,
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614520701469658 (retrieved January 11,2014)
CIA (2014): The CIA World Fact Book, Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan, URL:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kg.html
(retrieved: June 19, 2014).
Connery, Joyce (2000): Caught Between a Dictatorship and a Democracy: Civil Society,
Religion and Development in Kyrgyzstan, in: The Fletcher Journal of Development
Studies, XVI, URL:
http://fletcher.tufts.edu/Praxis/Archives/~/media/Fletcher/Microsites/praxis/xvi/Co
nnery.pdf (retrieved: May 15, 2014).
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2001): Pastoralism in the new millennium, FAO
Animal Production and Health Paper 150, produced by: Agriculture and Consumer
Protection, URL: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y2647E/Y2647E00.HTM (retrieved:
January 20, 2013).
42
Freizer, Sabine (2004): Central Asian fragmented civil society, Communal and neoliberal
forms in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, in: Glasius, Marlies/Lewis, David/Seckinelgin,
Hakan (eds.): Exploring Civil Society, political and cultural contexts, London:
Routledge, pp. 130-137.
Glasius, Marlies/ Lewis, David/ Seckinelgin, Hakan (2004): Exploring civil society
internationally, in: Glasius, Marlies/ Lewis, David/ Seckinelgin, Hakan (eds.): Exploring
Civil Society, Political and cultural contexts, London: Routledge, pp: 3- 13.
Giffen, Janice/Earle, Lucy/Buxton, Charles (2005): The development of Civil Society in
Central Asia, in: INTRAC NGO Management and Policy Series, 17, Oxford: INTRAC.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1821): Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, in:
Naturrecht und Staatswissenschaft im Grundrisse, zum Gebrauch für seine
Vorlesungen von Dr. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Berlin: Nicolaische
Buchhandlung, access through: Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Online, URL:
https://download.digitale-sammlungen.de/pdf/1403172902bsb10926984.pdf
(retrieved: June 19, 2014).
Howarth, David (2000): Discourse, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Jailobaeva, Kanykey (2012): Zusammenarbeit zwischen internationalen
Entwicklungsorganisationen und Zivilgesellschaft in Kirgistan seit April 2010:
Perspektiven, Risiken und Beschränkungen, in: Zentralasien-Analysen, 60, p. 2-10.
Kasybekov, Erkinbek (1999): Government and Nonprofit Sector Relations in the Kyrgyz
Republic, in: Ruffin, M. Holt/Waugh, Daniel C. (eds.): Civil Society in Central Asia,
Seattle: Universit of Washington Press/Center of Civil Society International, pp. 7184.
Laclau, Ernesto (1996): Emancipation(s), London, New York: Verso.
Laclau, Ernesto (2005): On Populist Reason, London, New York: Verso.
Laclau, Ernesto/Mouffe, Chantal (1991): Hegemonie und radikale Demokratie, Wien:
Passagen Verlag
Lingnau, Hildegard (2003): Zivilgesellschaft – zur Problematik einer Wunschvorstellung der
staatlicen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, in: Nord-Süd aktuell, 2nd quartal, URL:
http://www.gigahamburg.de/sites/default/files/openaccess/nordsuedaktuell/2003_2/giga_nsa_2003
_2_lingnau.pdf (retrieved: March 13, 2014).
Marat, Erica (2005): Civil society in Kyrgyzstan before, during and after the March 24
Revolution, in: Helsinki Monitor, 16:4, pp.267-277, URL:
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=84c2c0a7-01be-43139510-6dad61c6d69e%40sessionmgr4004&vid=2&hid=4114 (retrieved May 14, 2014).
Nonhoff, Martin (2007): Diskurs – radikale Demokratie – Hegemonie, zum politischen
Denken von Ernesto Laclau und Chantal Mouffe, Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.
43
Parekh, Bhikhu (2004): Putting civil society in its place, in: Glasius, Marlies/ Lewis, David/
Seckinelgin, Hakan (eds.): Exploring Civil Society, Political and cultural contexts,
London: Routledge, pp: 15-25.
Paul, Jürgen (2012): Zentralasien, in: Neue Fischer Weltgeschichte, 10, Frankfurt am Main:
Fischer Verlag GmbH.
Petric, Boris (2013): On a mangé nos moutons, le Kirghizstan, du berger au biznesmen, in:
Abélès, Marc/ Petric, Boris (2013) (eds.) : Anthropolis, une collection dirigée Paris :
Éditions Belin
Rist, Gilbert (1997): The History of Development. From Western Origins to Global Faith,
London: ZED Books.
Roy, Olivier (2002): Soviet legacies and Western aid imperatives in the new Central Asia, in:
Sajoo, Amyn B. (ed.): Civil Society in the Muslim World: Contemporary Perspectives,
London: IB Tauris, pp: 123-148.
Schade, Jeanette (2002): “Zivilgesellschaft” – eine vielschichtige Debatte, Heft 59, INEF
Report, Duisburg: Institut für Entwicklung und Frieden der Gerhard-MercatorUniversität Duisburg.
Schmitz, Andrea/Wolters, Alexander (2012): Politischer Protest in Zentralasien, Potentiale
und Dynamiken, Studie des SWP Februar 2012, Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und
Politik.
Stäheli, Urs (2006): Die politische Theorie der Hegemonie: Ernesto Laclau und Chantal
Mouffe, in: Brodocz, André/Schaal, Gary S. (2006) Politische Theorien der Gegenwart,
Band 2, Opladen, Farmington Hills: Verlag Barbara Budrich, pp. 254-284.
Trentmann, Frank (2004): The problem with civil society: putting modern European history
back into contemporary debate, in: Glasius, Marlies/ Lewis, David/ Seckinelgin, Hakan
(eds.): Exploring Civil Society, Political and cultural contexts, London: Routledge, pp:
26-35.
UNDP (2014): United Nations Development Program, UNDP engagement with civil society,
official website of UNDP, URL:
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/partners/civil_society_orga
nizations/ (retrieved: June 18, 2014).
World Bank (2011): Social Development, Civil Society Fund, Official Website of the World
Bank, URL:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/EX
TSMALLGRANTS/0,,menuPK:952550~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:95
2535,00.html (retrieved: June 18, 2014)
World Bank (2013): Civil Society, Official Website of the World Bank, URL:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/CSO/0,,contentMDK:2010149
44
9~menuPK:244752~pagePK:220503~piPK:220476~theSitePK:228717,00.html
(retrieved: June 6, .2014).
World Bank (2014): The World Bank, Databank, URL:
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/databases.aspx (retrieved June 19, 2014).
Ziai, Aram (2006): Post-Development: Ideologiekritik in der Entwicklungstheorie, in:
Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Vol. 47: 2, pp. 193-218.
45