KYRGYZSTAN TODAY Policy briefs on - Department of Geography

presence of those major elements of institutionalization mentioned above ensure an
effective institutional framework for dialog?
Background
Unquestionably, many factors help explain the existence of this problem. Within
such a variety, one can identify contextual and substantial reasons that depend on one’s
perspective and analysis.
“Substantial” causes
From the first years of independence and until today, the relationship between
government agencies and NGOs has an ad hoc character. During the first 5-6 years of
independence, a state and non-government sector had emerged. In this period of mutual
non-recognition, each sector was concerned with its own agenda. In those days nonrecognition
was explained by the absence of prior experience of cooperation, and the
immaturity of state and NGO institutions. This explanation is no longer true. Nowadays,
both state and NGOs have enough institutional capacity and practical experience to
meaningfully interact. And yet, systematic cooperation is still not present. This is because
of the absence of 1) a comprehensive normative basis (the current legislation does not
prohibit the state/civil society cooperation, but it also does not encourage or regulate
it), 2) channels of succession (the high level of political instability, often changes of
leadership and as a result the non-continuation of agreed policies) and 3) joint strategic
vision of country’s future.
“Contextual” causes
Some argue that another important characteristic of state/civil society relationship
is the presence of contrasting logic. This logic implies that “the stronger the civil society,
the weaker the state.” This view results not only in an unhealthy atmosphere for
cooperation and partnership, but also encourages short-sighted approaches and policies
with real consequences for society.
The state/NGO relationship may also be generally characterized as contradictory.
Such contradiction is expressed through paternalistic expectations that the state “must
help or must do” vis-а-vis growing doubts about the state’s capacity to address socioeconomic
problems.
Having said that, one must not forget that both state and civil society in all postcommunist
countries “are derived from the same social and political structures” 4 and
in most respects are mutually reflective. Such “contextual” causes are important to
consider, but cannot and must not be viewed as factors that prevent cooperation; rather,
productive inter-sector cooperation may wipe out such thinking. At the same time, the
dynamics of this relationship since independence shows that the state does not consider
NGOs as equal partners for cooperation, first of all because of the belief that NGOs
have insufficient competence and capacity. Obviously, such beliefs cannot be justified
either theoretically and practically. The social domain consists of three independent
elements that are equally important to build an open society that is based on democratic
principles. In practice today, not only in Kyrgyzstan but across the developing world,
4
Tessa Brannan, From ‘Antipolitics’ to Anti-Politics: what became of East European ‘civil society’? Working
Paper Series, Development Studies Institute, January 2003, p.16.
91