Estonian NGOs as Civil Society?

Mikko Lagerspetz

Estonian Institute of Humanities

<mikko@ehi.ee>

The title of my paper poses an empirical question, and implies a theoretical statement. Relying on recent empirical work by myself and my colleagues [1] I wish to give an account of a political process, through which non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in today´s Estonia have attempted to define their role towards the government and towards the society in general. I will also show some of the controversies that during that process have arisen from different ways of interpreting the functions of ”civil society” within its environments. My theoretical point of departure is, that the NGO sector and civil society are not synonymous expressions; the latter is essentially a normative concept that looks upon non-governmental organisations primarily as independent channels of democratic participation. From this statement my empirical question arises. Before starting to look for an answer, I will discuss the theoretical background in more detail.

1. Introduction

In Western political and sociological thought, the concept of civil society has a dual meaning. The societas civilis or politike koinonia of the antiquity explicitly referred to the entirety of social relations within a political entity. In his treatment on ”Leviathan or the Matter, Form and Power of Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil” of 1651, Hobbes added a normative aspect by contrasting the ”Civil states” with the state of nature, in which there is always ”a War of every one against every one”.[2] Following him, a succession of influential political thinkers used the term to depict a political system ruled by a legitimate authority. For liberal thinkers, the ”civility” of a society was determined by its ability to preserve civil liberties and guarantee the citizenry´s political representation. At the early 19^th century, a different use of the concept was introduced. The existence of ”civil society” as a domain separate from the state was acknowledged first by the conservatives. Thinkers such as Hegel and Tocqueville turned their gaze towards institutions that structure the population´s daily life; they stressed their importance as complements to the core system of political rule. These institutions included local government and law-enforcement, but also such non-governmental entities as the press, corporations and voluntary associations.[3] Sociologists have preferred to place civil society to this realm, in contrast to political theory, which still has a tendency of using the term with reference to characteristics of the whole political entity. 

             As a contemporary synthesis of these two established ways of using the term, Ernest Gellner presented a combination of a narrower and a broader definition. On one hand, civil society is a set of non-governmental institutions which is strong enough to prevent the state from dominating and atomizing the rest of society. Importantly, the formative components of civil society also differ from rigid, traditional, status-based segmentary communities.[4] In a broader sense, however, civil society ”refers to a total society within which the non-political institutions are not dominated by the political ones, and do not stifle individuals either”.[5] In this second meaning of the term, civil society is a society containing civil society in the first, narrower sense; according to Gellner, it is an alternative term for a feasible society, almost interchangeable with, but more illuminating than that of democracy.[6] It is the normative aspect of Gellner´s definitions that builds a bridge between the narrower, ”sociological” and the broader, ”political” treatments of civil society: Non-governmental institutions of a right kind are presented as conducive to, and as necessary components of, a ”civil” totality.

            The 1980s and 1990s have seen a flourishing of research interest towards civil society. Reasons for this are manifold;[7] however, the liberation of Central and Eastern Europe from the rule of authoritarian socialism presently counts among the most important. The post-1989 development has included a creation of both new institutions of democratic political representation and an autonomous associational life. ”Civil Society” is a slogan that seems fit to represent both. At the same time, empirical research applying that term tends to be focussed on non-governmental organisations.[8] At a first glance, this practice seems to be in accordance with Gellner´s narrower definition. Organisational activists in Central and Eastern Europe, and those others of us who consider a strengthening of the NGO sector as important may gladly welcome the ideological support that it receives by association with a concept with such an amount of positive connotations. If we, however, adopt a more scientific point of view, we ought to acknowledge that the connection is based on an empirical, rather than analytical statement; it is still in need of empirical control.

In short, we need to ask and answer the following questions: First, are the NGOs in Central and Eastern Europe willing and capable to function as actors relatively autonomous from political institutions? and second, do they embody the idea of institutions open and respondent for initiatives by members of society? In short, their status as a core element of civil society depends on their ability to act as complementary channels of democracy. This point of departure is not changed by the fact, that ”politics” itself is a concept in transformation[9] – in addition to the national and communal level, it has come to include initiatives aimed at the global scene and attempts to influence personal life-styles. Non-governmental organisations count as elements of civil society to the extent that they serve the cause of civic engagement in structuring social life.

Stating the relationship between NGOs and civil society as an empirical question I am, of course, also aware of the fact that the answers will be relative, rather than affirmative or negative in an unambiguous way. This is to say, the success of NGOs in functioning as elements of civil society may be bigger or lesser; the sector´s internal democracy and autonomy from the state may be greater or smaller. Obviously, analysis of NGOs in different Central and Eastern European countries will also show different patterns. The answers for our question lie in careful, country-specific case studies.

The aim of the present paper is to describe a political process in Estonia, during which a number of NGO activists joined in an effort to define their understanding of civil society. This included staking out norms for how the relations should be arranged between NGOs and the state, and within the sector itself. The paper is based on materials of several different kinds. They include open-ended individual and group interviews with NGO activists, politicians, academic experts and government officials; public and less public documents; and the experiences from my own participation in the process. During a period of two years, working groups of NGO activists, politicians and allegedly independent experts have been engaged in the preparation of a document intended to create a framework for relations between non-governmental organisations and the government in Estonia. In the following, I will give an account of this process, discuss the mutual expectations between NGOs and the public power, depict the discourses on civil society that were reflected during different phases of the process, and conclude with some reflections over my own dual role as researcher and participant.

2. The preparation of the Estonian Civil Society Development Concept

Within the UN Development Programme, a programme for the enhancement of sustainability of Estonian NGOs was launched at the end of 1998. The programme came to be co-ordinated by a partner organisation, The Estonian Union of Non-Profit Organisations and Foundations (EMSL), which was known as an NGO umbrella organisation with a relatively wide base of member organisations, and as active in training and informing Estonian NGO activists. It received some funding from the state (which later ceased) and had close contacts with the local Soros foundation. As a first step of the programme, a mail survey mapping the activities and resources of NGOs was conducted.[10] In the spring of 1999, the co-ordinating committee of the programme launched the idea of developing a programme document, that would regulate the relationship between NGO sector and the state, and be adopted by the Parliament. The prospective document came to be called the Estonian Civil Society Development Concept (EKAK).[11]

For different reasons, the political situation seemed ripe for an initiative of this kind. Both the Government Cabinet and the Parliament had recently been alarmed by surveys showing the population´s growing mistrust towards political institutions and parties. Privatisation policies of the Ministries of Traffic and Economy had resulted in public scandal. The Ministry of Interior Affairs had committed itself to pressing through a territorial reform of the local governments, which is expected to reduce the number of administrative units radically. By then, this initiative was becoming growingly unpopular. From the point of view of the Government, showing recognition and goodwill towards a large group of opinion-leaders could be helpful in getting their support; the oppositionary parties could, in turn, wish to cooperate with NGOs critical of the government policies. 

The idea of regulating different spheres of politics by the help of ”conceptions”, or programmatic governmental documents, was not new in Estonia. Analogous documents had previously been prepared, e.g., for cultural policy and for educational policy; they can be seen as means used by interest groups for stressing the national importance of particular fields of society by seeking wide social and political consensus. The Economically Independent Estonia Programme (IME) could be concerned a more distant forerunner of these concepts. It was presented in 1987, and carrying it out had successively become one of the central demands of the Singing Revolution of the late 1980s.[12]

            A Co-operative Board of political parties and NGO umbrella organisations was created in December 1999, and it made a formal decision of starting preparations for the draft document.[13] In this first phase of work, a co-ordinative group was formed by leaders of umbrella organisations and chaired by Mr. Taivo-Ahti Adamson, the project co-ordinator appointed by the EMSL. In March 2000, separate working groups for drafting different chapters of the document started their work with varying activity.[14] After having been approved of by the Co-operative Board, the meant-to-be Bill was presented for inspection to the Cultural Committee of the Parliament on 18 April. The parliamentarians´ criticism of the document was, however, devastating:

Marju Lauristin: Judging on basis of the text, the conception should belong to the competence of the Constitutional Committee. From the point of view of political philosophy, the text is rather eccentric. /…/ Starting from the fact, that everything is turned on its head: ”The Civil Society Development Concept is that part of state policy, that reflects the principles by which the state is to create civil society”.  The state cannot create civil society, that would run against the very concept of it. /…/

Peeter Kreitzberg: Such a conception should be formulated with uttermost care. To begin with, it should be elementary to correct printing errors.

Paul-Eerik Rummo: I have followed this process from the beginning. The first problem is, that to some extent, the sprouts of civil society have been imported for us. Small groups of missionaries are now trying to awaken civic consciousness. One could say that it is like trying to crack down an open door, which is comical indeed. /…/In my opinion this is a phase already passed, which Estonia does not need to discuss any more. Bills are visible in the Internet and they are relatively accessible.[15]

 In conclusion, the Cultural Committee required the draft bill to be written anew with the help of academic experts and research, and that other parliamentary committees be involved in the process as well. Mr. Aare Kasemets, expert of the Parliament´s Information Service and likewise member of the Advisory Board of the UNDP project, volunteered to engage a research group and to organise a seminar for parliamentarians and academic experts.

            This outcome of the first discussion of the document in the premises of the Parliament was alarming. The Advisory Board of the UNDP project held rather a heated meeting, during which Mr. Adamson had to defend himself against accusations for lacking professionalism and for not having taken the working groups´ proposals into account. He guarded himself with the argument, that previous parliamentary conceptions have rarely resulted in concrete action and accordingly, their exact wording is of minor importance.[16] In July 2000, Adamson suddenly resigned his position in the EMSL and entered the post of managing director at a NGO umbrella organisation, The Estonian Council of Civic Organisations (EKLE). It had been established in the previous month by six NGO umbrella organisations claiming to represent 4,000 to 6,000 membership NGOs.[17] Shortly afterwards, the new organisation made a co-operation agreement with the Ministry of Interior Affairs.[18] According to the agreement, the Ministry recognised the EKLE as representative of the whole Estonian non-profit sector. The co-operation partners declared their intention to plan together and introduce new regulations for the system of state financing of the NGOs. The EKLE also obligated itself to work for an embetterment of the Ministry´s public image. Along with the signing of the agreement, the new umbrella organisation received a commission for a research project on the ability of NGOs to function as sub-contractors of public services.[19]

As a new project co-ordinator from August 2000, the EMSL appointed Mr. Daimar Liiv, a former MP of the present government coalition and lawyer with a post-graduate degree from Harvard. When exposing his views for the Advisory Board of the programme in early October, he regretted what he considered the lack hitherto of a competent central working group. He stated, that such a group should consist of experts who would need no formal mandate from any of the existing umbrella organisations. For carrying out the tasks to be specified by the document, the government would however be in need of a partner, i.e., of a representative body of NGO organisations; nevertheless, none of the existing umbrellas should be preferred here, but a roundtable open for all should be created in stead.[20] In order to propagate the idea and to gather opinions from different NGOs, Mr. Liiv conducted a series of thirteen regional roundtables from October to early November. A central working group of academic experts and NGO activists was created; two of the academic experts were also included in a research group that conducted an interview study simultaneously commissioned by the Chancellery of the Parliament.[21]

            A new version of the EKAK was published in a national daily on 27 October,[22] and it was likewise sent for 3,000 organisations by electronic mail.[23] On 5 December, a seminar was conducted for the Cultural, Constitutional and Social Committees of the Parliament, with the participation of the working group and invited representatives of different NGOs. On that occasion, Mr. Liiv presented the new version of the EKAK, the Statutes of the prospective Roundtable, and the procedure of making proposals for changes in both documents. The ongoing research project was discussed by the two academic experts.[24]

            The Roundtable of Non-Profit Organisations, a new co-ordinating structure stipulated by the new version of the document gathered in Tallinn on 3 February, 2001. The 272 participants were divided in five chambers: The registered non-profit membership organisations; umbrella organisations; foundations; non-registered non-profit organisations; and organisations for minorities. Real estate associations, religious organisations and labour unions were not represented. Both the EKAK draft document and the Statutes of the Roundtable were accepted rapidly and without major changes. The different chambers delegated three representatives each (five from the largest chamber, that of registered non-profit organisations) for a Representative Assembly of the Roundtable, which was elected for the period of one year.[25] On 23 April, the Representative Assembly presented the EKAK for the Parliament for discussion and acceptance as a parliamentary document.[26] The parliamentary debate is expected to take place during fall 2001.

3. Controversies over the draft document: The representativity issue

The original draft document was short, on 4.5 pages, and included vague formulations, beginning with its definition of civil society. According to an early version from 26 February, 2000, civil society was “an all-embracing concept, including the totality of the social reality in which we live”. It stipulated the creation of a State Council of Civil Society, consisting of representatives of umbrella organisations and those of the local and national government. It was to be situated as a consultative body at the Ministry of Interior Affairs. A spread of information for all members of society “on the possibilities and needs arising from a transition to information society” was depicted as the main means of carrying out the conception. The practical tasks were to be specified by a frame programme later to be worked out by the State Council of Civil Society.[27] After the debate at the Cultural Committee of the Parliament and the subsequent substitution of programme co-ordinator, the preparation of the document was started anew almost from scratch. The British Compacts between Government and the Voluntary Sector were now studied and used as reference material. The new, 24 October version already included several formulations directly translated from the British compacts, and its structure – especially the inclusion of a chapter on “Shared Values” between the government and the NGO sector – also bore some resemblance to the document´s British counterparts. However, the Estonian Concept formally remained a document adopted by the Parliament alone, not taking the form of an agreement between two sectors.

            Apart from an enhanced skill of formulation and clarity in details, a transfer of legitimate representation is the clearest change revealed by comparison of the versions prepared by the Adamson and Liiv working groups. Initially, the EKAK sketched an institutional arrangement for co-operation between public administration and NGO umbrella organisations, which were by definition recognised as representing the whole field of membership organisations (and as being responsible for their conduct). The newer versions stress the role of individual organisations and stipulate the creation of a new body of representation, in which the previous umbrella organisations play a minor role. According to the new version, the State “acknowledges the role of umbrella organisations in representing the interests of their members, but does not exclude the right of individual organisations to represent their interests themselves, and promotes the latter in appropriate cases”.[28] The Roundtable of Non-Profit Organisations (which at that time did not exist yet) was acknowledged “as the most important body representing the interests of the whole sector”.[29]  In a group interview that was conducted later with members of the elected Representative Assembly of the NPO Roundtable, the need for a new body of this kind was stressed:  

(Group interview/members of the Representative Board (2), 050701):

(Respondent 1:) One of our strengths lies in flexibility, the lack of formal rules.

(Respondent 2:) As myself representing an umbrella organisation I would like to stress, that as representative of an umbrella organisation you are bound to further the interests of your own field of activity. As members of the Representative Board we are not dealing with furthering the interests of our own organisations or sub-sectors. We try to stand for the right of /all the many thousands of civil society organisations/ to have a legal space to work in. I find this to be our major role, but as another important aspect I would add, that the legally registered institutions tend to become self-sufficient. The important thing with the Roundtable is that it brings together the people who are active at the moment and who are needed for a re-structuring of society. /…/

(Respondent 3:) /…/ When representatives of the umbrella organisations are given word, they tend to express their highly personal opinions. In reality, dialogue with membership organisations very seldom takes place. /The leaders of umbrella organisations/ represent no one else but themselves as individuals. I do not mean that they fail to address real problems, but in reality, they do not rely on the numerous people in their member organisations.

Same kind of difference between two ideas of representation is visible in the changes in the procedure of preparing the draft documents. Originally, the central working group formed by Mr. Adamson included the leaders of umbrella organisations, which would secure the representation of their member organisations. The group was supposed to create a synthesis of proposals coming from advisory groups formed for the discussion of separate issues. The new working group of Mr. Liiv was composed according to another principle. The group was understood as comprised of experts not representing the interests of any specific fields of the NGO sector, but relying on science and on general experience on the sector´s needs.  Only in the final stage of the process, representatives of NGOs would have their say when participating in the NPO Roundtable. 

            Not surprisingly, Mr. Adamson – now leading the EKLE, which did not send its representative to the Roundtable - made fierce criticism of the assembly´s legitimacy in representing the whole sector:

Personally, I do not insist on the excellency of /the old draft EKAK/, but it was nevertheless a worked-through compromise between organisations which really are representatives of somebody and have received mandate from their members. /…/ The reason for why our distinguished politicians consider the NPO Roundtable as the eclipse of democracy is, that they themselves have only vague ideas of democratic procedure. If I myself announce a forum for everybody interested in Estonian politics and let myself be elected the leader, would you consider me a substitute for the Prime Minister and the President? /The EKLE was created, because/ the EMSL lacked structure; everybody, both the organisations and their unions had equal representation. /…/ The EKLE represents the common interests of its members. Only the biggest organisations on each field may join, and only one from each field, in order to prevent discord. There are only SEVEN members, but they do, in turn, represent about 4,000 organisations. If we come to an agreement, it is up to each member to acquire a mandate from his or her respective field.[30]

The contrast with the functioning principles of the Roundtable is sharp indeed: According to the Statutes, the Roundtable is not registered as a legal person, it has no permanent members, but the membership simply consists of the total number of organisations present at the annual gathering. The Roundtable is to be organised each year by a different organisation specified by the Representative Assembly. However, members of the Representative Assembly considered this lack of formal organisation not a backlash, but a virtue:

(Group interview/members of the Representative Board (1), 050701):

(Respondent 1:) The strength of an organisational form like this comes from the fact, that it impossibly can become distorted and turn to an organisation or union that represents the interests of one group of people only. If we have no legal status and do not deal with money, we can discuss on a neutral basis and represent organisations much more effectively, without being in the danger of provoking opposition from some other smaller group.

(Respondent 2:) Personally I am in favour of such a solution also. Of course, certain dangers exist. For instance, the role of chance is very big. /…/ In the end of the day it is nevertheless a better solution than any system of proportional representation based on the number of members. That would be a very dangerous solution also. In any case, I see no better solution than the Representative Board.  

4. Discourses on Civil Society by politicians, civil servants, NGO activists and business people[31]

From 22 June to 4 December, 2000, our research group engaged by the Chancellery of the Parliament conducted a series of open-ended individual and group interviews with 71 men and women who were classified either as academic experts, civil servants, politicians, local government officials, business people, or NGO activists. To some extent, this classification is arbitrary: Several academic experts, politicians and civil servants had experience of NGO activities, especially from national NGO umbrella organisations. To put it the other way round, it was the business people on one hand, and the persons active in local grassroots NGOs on the other who had less experience of contact with the other groups of interviewees.

An analysis of the interviews allowed us to formulate three competing discourses on the role of the NGO sector in Estonian society. We termed them as the discourse of the third sector, the discourse of corporatist organisation, and the discourse of participant society. The first of the three discourses is based upon analogies from economic sphere and economic theory; the discourse of corporatist organisation calls for consensus-based mobilisation in order to support the nation-building process; the discourse of participant society presents the NGOs as elements of pluralist democracy.

            According to the discourse of the third sector, the main difference between the non-profit and for-profit sectors consists of their different principles in the organisation of finances. The NGO sector acts within the market economy, and its primary role is to offer social services at monetary costs as low as possible.  This is made possible by the NGOs´ thorough knowledge of their fields of activity, and by their access to voluntary (unpaid) labour force. According to this view, the main content of an agreement between the public and NGO sectors should consist of a set of rules for the contracting out of public services. Consequently, a central issue to be discussed is the reliability and professional standard of the NGOs who are to carry out the tasks delegated for them by public authorities.  Especially the civil servants on whose responsibility it is to make decisions on financing, were in doubt about the reliability of their prospective partners:

(Individual interview/civil service, 010900):

(Answer:) This might not be a proper example, but I would prefer to see more people with a mission. I do not wish to criticise the third sector, but many people are there because of rather a good salary. Those meant-to-be volunteers and so forth – for example, the sole activity of /a certain NGO during 1999/ consisted of eight foreign visits by its director, with all costs paid.

Representatives of the business sector, but also many politicians stressed, that as a rule, the NGOs should not require public financial support:

(Individual interview/business sector, 120900):

(Question:) /…/ In order to be active, /the civic organisations/ also need money, and if they haven´t any, should one=

(Answer:) =Then let them cease their activity! I mean, it is /…/ clear enough, that if you have a hobby or if you want to be active in some way, then you ought to finance it yourself. You should not say, that I (.) that we want to create a civic organisation for knitting socks, buy us needles and yarn. /…/ In my opinion, the Estonian state already wastes tens or hundreds of millions crowns on hobbies and activities of such things as country women´s associations and the like.

The discourse of corporatist organisation sees the primary role of NGOs in their informing the government on different problems, particularly on the fields of cultural and social policies. At the same time, organisations act towards the citizenry as mediators of initiatives from the government. For politicians and civil servants it becomes important to find criteria for defining those partner organisations, who represent a substantial part of the electorate and whose opinions thus have legitimate ground for being taken into account. For this reason, the decision-makers would prefer a clearly structured, hierarchical field of NGOs, which would be capable of formulating a consensual opinion:

(Individual interview/politicians, 200900):

(Answer:) Yes, judging from the state´s point of view it would be favourable if the civic organisations would be in the possession of one relatively strong umbrella organisation, or (.) it is perhaps not correct to speak of one single organisation, but of two or three, because the state is not capable to communicate with everybody and it is better to receive general political advise from a union of some kind, eventually leading to applications in different concrete cases. It is essential for the state also, that there would exist a few organisations which are relatively representative of the whole civil society.

This opinion in turn received criticism especially from representatives of grassroots organisations, who doubted the commitment and capacity of the umbrella organisations to represent the manifold, sometimes conflicting interests of their member organisations. From the point of view of the discourse of participant society, the role of the NGOs is to represent the plurality of interests and opinions that exist in society. Accordingly, state policy towards the sector should aim at securing the viability of those organisations above all, which represent the social groups that are poorest in resources.

(Group interview/academic experts, 080700):

(Respondent 1:) What I would like to see is, that different organisations, be they big or small, have the possibility of standing for their interests. Inevitably, when you create umbrella organisations from above, the umbrellas which ought to represent everybody are in practice unable to represent the total plurality of interests. /…/ Having myself participated in negotiations between different interest groups I see it very clearly, that an interest group is what it is, because it represents the interests of a given group. And it does not lie in the interests of an interest group to uniform its interests with the interests of another interest group.

It should be stressed, that the discourses formulated here were not present in the interviews as consistent programmes, but rather as fragmentary sets of opinions and attitudes. By the time of making the interviews (late 2000), public discussion on civil society and the role of NGOs had merely begun, and the issue was rather distant for most of our respondents. It can be expected however, that the eventual parliamentary debate over the EKAK comes to be structured around the three core discourses described above.

5. The quest for Civil Society

Let us recollect Gellner´s statement on the relationship between two concepts: Democracy and Civil Society. According to him, the former concept is normative and vague, and for that reason not much more than an ideal, less suitable for empirical analysis. On the other hand we should acknowledge the fact, that especially the democratisation processes during the latest decades have resulted in the creation of something that can be called a standard set of rights, institutions and procedures that feature in the political systems of all countries calling themselves democracies. The new constitutions of the different post-communist democracies include large sections which are practically identical. As a contrast, the concept of civil society still allows for very different operationalisations. Studying how it is interpreted in the society can tell us more about its prevailing political culture than does a study of its formal political institutions.

During the preparation process of the Estonian Civil Society Development Concept (EKAK), a conflict between two rivalling umbrella organisations surfaced. No doubt, much of the controversy was about gaining strategic position for re-distribution of public money and for influencing political decision-making. But we also saw a rivalry between two sets of ideas on civil society and democracy.

            The first version of the EKAK was prepared in co-operation with leaders of umbrella organisations, and it endowed them with a key position in carrying out the concept together with representatives of the government. Uniting several organisations, they considered themselves to be in possession of a mandate for representation of the whole sector. Clearly enough, this idea coincided with what has been depicted above as  the discourse of corporatist organisation. It is also clear, that from the point of view of policy planners, the principle of a hierarchical organisation of the NGO sector solves many potential problems. The politicians and civil servants receive a clear message about which organisations they are to accept as partners; questions of financing, contracting out services and of controlling finances and professional standards can be solved together with a reliable body of organisations. The NGO sector – a new and unpredictable actor in society – is incorporated within the existing system of power with minimum effort.

            But the NGOs themselves may also find important advantages in letting themselves be represented through a body of sub-sectoral umbrella organisations. Having so far not secured themselves any influential role in society, they might see unity in face of other powerful actors as condition for a more efficient mobilisation of resources. Here, a crucial question is of course, whether or not the grassroots organisations are willing to pay the price of uniforming their interests; that will depend both on the actual width of the common interests within a sub-sector, and on the responsivity of the umbrella organisations for signals from below.

            Finally, the idea of civil society as a unitary sector co-operating with the government is not alien to at least two different currents in the Estonian political tradition. During the authoritarian regime of Konstantin Päts in the late 1930s, associational life became organised around a system of corporatist chambers, which in practice acted as arm´s-length bodies of the government.[32] Then as now, the young republic was involved in the process of consolidating itself as a nation-state; after the country´s liberation from Soviet rule in 1991, the previous period of independence has often served as a source of models for to-day. But from the point of view of the present, the Soviet experience is, no doubt, even more relevant. The Real Socialist state never acknowledged the existence of different, not to speak of conflicting, legitimate interests of its citizenry. Interests of every social group were presented either as identical to those of the State as an embodiment of the strivings of the working class – or as belonging to the enemies of the people. Such a ”Post-Marxist”idea of a monolithic society was characteristic of the oppositional movements also, which came to lead the political transformation of Central and East European societies.[33] The discourse of corporatist organisation, as many other recent calls for national unity, is thus supported by some remnants of the Soviet political tradition as well.

The final draft of the EKAK, but especially the standpoints of the members of the Representative Board of the NPO Roundtable, are clearly more reminiscent of the discourse of participant society. Rather than organisations, the Roundtable is viewed of as representing different interests and activities. During the few months after the gathering of the Roundtable, the elected representatives seem to have come a long way in creating a coherent ideology out of such attitudes, that still in late 2000 were rather scarcely represented in our interviews. They clearly see themselves as an avant-garde facing a conservative environment:

(Group interview/members of the Representative Board (1), 050701):

(Respondent 1:) I have experienced difficulties in explaining our open, democratic structure for people whose thinking is based on a model of rigid organisation. Because we lack clear organisation and membership, they question our right to represent the whole third sector. Successful communication would require a same kind of open-mindedness on behalf of the umbrella organisations and other institutions inside and outside the sector. They ought to understand that this is what our model is about, that we do not wish a strict organisation.

/…/

(Respondent 2:) There are problems on the level of individuals also. When discussing with several members of the Parliament I have experienced, that their thinking is not flexible enough. If we lack an official, legally fixed hierarchy, they are unable to understand our way of thinking. The coming debate over the EKAK can be expected to be quite an interesting process indeed. We´ll see.

Jokingly, one member of the Representative Board even defined the meaning of the ongoing process in a quasi-Leninist formulation:

(Group interview/members of the Representative Board (1), 050701):

(Respondent 3:) /…/ Non-profit organisations find their intellectual weapon in the EKAK, and the EKAK finds its material weapon in the non-profit organisations.

Taking into account the important role played by the UNDP and the local Soros foundation, it is not surprising that this second Estonian discourse of civil society bears the hallmark of international influences. It can be said however, that even this activist model of civil society does not lack precedents in Estonian political tradition. In both Estonia and the two other Baltic republics, much of the events during the Singing Revolution of the late 1980s was catalysed by movements without clear organisational structure, and by public gatherings putting pressure on the political leadership of the Soviet Republic and its Communist Party.[34] As the Soviet-type official channels of political representation existed as empty forms only, genuine grassroots activities emerged as vaguely institutionalised movements and collective episodes. This stress on activism rather than formal procedures of representation was, however, a central component of Gorbachev´s perestroika ideology also, with roots in the revolutionary ethos of the Leninist era.

The relationships between state and civil society, between institutionalisation and spontaneity clearly belong to the central issues facing researchers and activists of civil society. It is quite clear also, that no standard answers can be given to the questions that arise from these issues. The processes described in this paper led to the explicit formulation of two mutually excluding visions – those of the Adamson and Liiv working groups. In the interviews conducted a few months earlier and described in Chapter 4 of this paper, both had been only vaguely visible. Interestingly, the third discourse focussing on NGOs´ service-providing functions no more appeared in the later debate between the NGO activists themselves. Debate over the Concept has not begun at the Parliament yet; at the current phase of the events it seems, however, that the rivalry has been won by the more radical set of ideas, with stress on autonomy and openness of the NGO sector. It seems obvious, that the conflict between the Advisory Board of the initiating UNDP Programme and a group of NGO umbrella organisations pushed the outcome in a more radical direction. But somewhat paradoxically, the Liiv working group was also more successful in mobilising the support of those few MPs and other politicians who showed interest towards the process. Here, the Ministry of Interior Affairs (led by the Fatherland League) was the only, although notable exception.

To conclude this discussion, some reasons for this success may be put forward. Firstly, Mr. Liiv had both the juridical skills and previous parliamentary experience that were necessary for gaining credibility. Secondly, he was conscious of the existence of analogous documents in Britain and Canada, and was thus able to argue for the need of a similar document in Estonia, at the same time as the first working group merely intended to prepare a document of a more home-made flavour. And finally, the new working group skilfully leaned on and exploited the authority of academic research. The remaining chapter of my paper discusses the role of research and myself in the political process.

6. The double role of researcher and participant

This paper was based on experiences from a two-year period of research and participation in the policy-making process. The activities have included collecting and analysing interviews, writing and presenting research reports, and participation in committees and workshops. When at best, the research process has included swimming in the waves of the Baltic Sea with the “objects”. As member of two working groups preparing the EKAK draft document, my participation in the process, that I simultaneously did research on, probably extended the limits set by traditional ideas of participant observation. However, I do not wish to over-emphasise the effects of my participation on the final outcome: I consider myself as not having done much more than participated in mutually supportive discussions over ideas usually introduced by others than myself.[35]

            Probably, my main contribution to the process had little to do with what I did in the working groups; rather, it was connected to the assistance I could offer for the outward legitimation of the draft document. As was correctly noted by a parliamentarian quoted above, many of the current discussions over civil society and NGOs in Estonia have their origins in the import of international discourse. New possibilities for training abroad have made both politicians and leaders of several organisations acquainted with international anglophone ideas and rhetoric. This has prepared ground for the idea of academic expertise as essential in the preparation of a conceptual document; as was shown by the same quotation from the Protocols of the Culture Committee of the Parliament, this was really the most important demand made by politicians. The piece of research summarised in Chapter 4 of this paper, commissioned from me and my two co-workers by the Chancellery of the Parliament had, strictly speaking, not much to do with the EKAK draft document itself. However, we agreed to present our research results for parliamentarians and for participants of the NPO Roundtable. In practice, that contributed to a somewhat misleading image of the EKAK draft as being directly based on empirical academic research. Personally, I considered this partial loss of my scholarly integrity a reasonable “entrance fee” to be paid for my participation in a good cause.

The problems in combining partisanship with scientific inquiry are well-known.[36] They may include elitism and inability to see phenomena that are incompatible with the researcher´s background theory; he or she may fail to comprehend the viewpoints of all actors concerned. In defence of my own research I wish to stress that during the processes observed, not only the ideas of the working groups underwent change, but also those of myself. My research has nevertheless been biased in one sense: It has emerged from the normative starting-point which considers civil society a precondition of democracy, and which above all holds non-governmental organisations responsible for its creation. This idea is reflected in the title of this paper. I am happy for having been witness to developments of a kind that in the future may enable me to omit the question mark. 

Literature

Beck, Ulrich (1995): “The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive Modernization”, in Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens & Scott Lash, eds.: Reflexive Modenization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press

Cohen, Jean L. & Andrew Arato (1992): Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA & London, UK: The MTI Press

Dahlkvist, Mats (1995): “´Det civila samhället´ i samhällsteori och samhällsdebatt. En kritisk analys”[´Civil Society´ in social theory and social debate. A critical analysis], in Lars Trägårdh, ed.: Civilt samhälle kontra offentlig sektor. Stockholm: SNS Förlag: pp. 153-230

Gellner, Ernest (1994): Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society and Its Rivals. London: Penguin

Lagerspetz, Mikko (1996): Constructing Post-Communism: A Study of Estonian Social Problems Discourse. Turku: University of Turku

Lagerspetz, Mikko (2000): “Kodanikeühiskonna rollid tänases Eestis” [with a summary in English: “The Roles of Civil Society in Today´s Estonia”]. Riigikogu Toimetised, 2/2000: 230-236

Lagerspetz, Mikko; Rein Ruutsoo & Erle Rikmann (2000): “Olelemisest osalemiseni? Eesti kodanikualgatuse hetkeseis ja arenguvõimalused” [with a summary in English: “From Vegetation to Participation? The Present and Future of Civic initiative in Estonia”]. Akadeemia, Vol. 12, No. 2: 269-298

Lagerspetz, Mikko; Rein Ruutsoo & Erle Rikmann (2001): “Kodanikeühiskonna edendamise strateegiad Eestis: probleemid ja perspektiivid. Uurimusraport” [Final report of the research project “Strategies for promoting civil society in Estonia: Problems and Perspectives”]. Manuscript presented for the Chancellery of the Estonian Parliament

(also available as http://www.riigikogu.ee/osakonnad/msi)

Lieven, Anatol (1993/1994): The Baltic Revolution: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Path to Independence. New Haven & London: Yale University Press

Liiv, Daimar (2001): “Koostöökokkulepped Suurbritannias ja mida meil on neist õppida” [with a summary in English: “Compacts between the Government and Third Sector in Great Britain and What Can We Learn from Them”]. Riigikogu Toimetised 3/2001: 261-272

Raun, Toivo U. (1987): Estonia and the Estonians. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press

Salamon, Lester M.; Helmut K. Anheier; Regina List; Stefan Toepler; S. Wojciech Sokolowski & Associates (1999): Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies

Schöpflin, George (1994): “Postcommunism: The Problems of Democratic Construction”, Daedalus 123/3: 127-141

Silverman, David (1993): Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. London etc.: SAGE Publications

Estonian NGOs as Civil Society?

Abstract

In Western political and sociological thought, the concept of Civil Society has a dual meaning. On one hand, it has been used to depict a political entity ruled by legitimate authority; on the other, it refers to a domain of institutions autonomous from the state. In any case, contemporary writers agree that a strong and autonomous sector of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is an important part of civil society. However, the connection between those two ought to be treated as an empirical, rather than analytical statement. This is to say, the success of NGOs in functioning as elements of civil society may be bigger or lesser; the sector´s internal democracy and autonomy from the state may be greater or smaller.

                In Estonia, the issue of NGOs and civil society has recently become highly topical. In 1999, an initiative for creating a parliamentary document called "The Conception for the Development of Civil Society in Estonia" (EKAK) was made by an Estonian umbrella organisation for non-profit associations. In April 2001, this document was presented to the Estonian Parliament for discussion and eventual adoption. The preparation process of the draft document and discussions over it reveal widely differing ideas on the overall role of NGOs in society. The controversies have to do with the relationships between state and civil society, and with the actors´ preference for either institutionalisation or spontaneity. The paper accounts for that chain of events and examines the mutual expectations that representatives of the public and non-profit sectors have for each other in Estonia. It also makes use of group and in-depth-interviews of politicians, civil servants and NGO activists. The final section of the paper reflects over the author´s double role as researcher and participant in a political process. 

Key words:

Estonia, non-governmental organisations, civil society, representation, post-communism

Paper initially to be presented on the 5^th Conference of the European Sociological

Association, August 28 to September 1, 2001, Helsinki, Finland