Moreover, as Porsughyan explains, actual social networks, outside of the confines of somewhat closed NGO circles which are usually based on ‘elitist’ social and political connections, are far larger and therefore far more influential.
Howard’s arguments and public opinion data show that increasing the quantity of civil society organizations and providing them with more assistance will not resolve problems of weak civil societies in the South Caucasus. These countries continue to have sceptical attitudes towards all types of formal organizations and are generally apathetic about the economic and political conditions facing them. Traditional social networks are therefore trusted and valued over state and public institutions.
Of course, for community specific and non-politicized groups such as NGOs working in the area of gender and LGBT rights, this is not so much a problem, but for those working in other areas, and especially peace building, it’s a significant one. And, as mentioned in a previous post, it’s probably why most projects in this area do not attract the attention of nationalists or the authorities. In a sense, they are tolerated because they are arguably ineffective.
Nevertheless, what does become apparent is quite simple. In the 16 years since the ceasefire agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan in their conflict over the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh, civil society has failed to initiate proper open discussion in the societies of either country. Yet, donors continue to spend exorbitant amounts of money on their projects while ignoring genuine grassroots movements.
In a recent Twitter exchange, and commenting specifically on Himelfarb’s reference to a growth in citizen-citizen dialogue, one international aid worker with experience in the South Caucasus agreed.
NGOs are important, of course, but not in an environment of their choosing, especially when they consider, as Šporar says, that they have the ‘monopoly’ on problem solving. Instead, the two need to work together, and in a region as volatile as the South Caucasus, where talk of a new war between Armenia and Azerbaijan is increasing, the consequences of not doing so are very grave indeed.
Unfortunately, however, the international donor community appears to have become as complacent as the handful of NGOs they continue to fund, often to the tune of millions of dollars. In a sense, it has to be asked, does the international community’s obsession with pumping money into a largely ineffective civil society in the Caucasus contribute to change or merely frustrate and delay it?
Or should they simply re-evaluate the situation and place stronger demand on NGOs to work with wider circles of participants and partners than the few they do so with at present? They might also want to examine whether grassroots initiatives are not only innovating more than NGOs, but also have the potential to reach a wider group of people for significantly less, something that has been very evident in recent years.
Isn’t it about time this situation changed, with the objective taking center stage rather than the division and duplication of efforts in this area because of the inherent desire from most NGOs to monopolize the scene? Meanwhile, grassroots initiatives have so much more to offer, especially in terms of ideas and approaches, and can reach an arguably larger and different target group, as social media guru Dan McQuillan says.
There’s a strong interest in developing an online civic space where there can be level-headed discussion of controversial topics across communities. […]
But like most other places the existing NGO sector seems poorly prepared to make the most of the digital opportunities: “many throughout the civil society and NGO sector are unfamiliar with these new technologies, do not understand how to use them effectively, or lack tools for their particular setting. Despite the growth of new media in recent years, NGOs have yet to adjust their outreach strategies, ignoring the possibility of using platforms such as blogging and social networking sites to promote their activities and research, in the process attracting members of the younger generation”.
Although online campaigning is of interest to both journalists and NGOs, the real innovations will come from people thinking outside of those disciplines. If the web is going to catalyse in Georgia then people need to to think differently and feel more empowered.
Well, the possibility of creating a collaborative and wider-reaching approach, even without funding, is something that I’ll be examining at a meeting in just a few hours.
