1

NEW PATHS TO ACTIVISM – an overview about activism in Romania -

Research report by Oana Preda, the Resource Center for Public Participation November 2011, Bucharest INTRODUCTION New Paths to Activism is part of the project Developing Active Citizen Participation in Central and Eastern Europe and Russia, initiated by C. S. Mott Foundation. This project is a learning, networking, and research initiative to support the development of citizen participation and activism in CEE/Russia. The purpose of this initiative is to provide a platform for reflection, discussion, research, and communication on a wide range of activism-related issues. “New Paths to Activism – an overview about activism in Romania” is an empirical exploration of activism. Its findings are based on conversations about activism with 20 individuals: people engaged in various types of activism, some representing NGOs active in the field of public participation, some active in different campaigns and projects but not representing any NGO. Interviews with a few representatives of the public administration and with a few journalists were also conducted. The interviews were analyzed through the lens of the author’s own beliefs, experience and direct observation of activism. The paper was also enriched as a result of a contributors’ meeting about activism in Romania and Bosnia-Herzegovina. We expect that this research and the discussions around it will inform practitioners and supporters of activism and public participation about the needs and opportunities in the participation/activism field in the region. Reflecting upon our work should lead to new possible strategies for the future support and development of activism. THE STATE OF ACTIVISM IN ROMANIA Defining activism A wide variety of definitions for the term activism was recognized by the respondents consulted during the research. Forms of activism are recognized in simple civic behaviour, such as picking up garbage, as well as in more complex initiatives, such as advocacy campaigns aiming at important changes of public policies. In between these two margins, we find activism defined as signing a petition, volunteering for a community project, influencing decision-makers, litigation, using your expertise to change a law, affecting the authorities, civic disobedience, getting out of your comfort zone, taking risks, mobilizing others around you for common good causes. All the definitions may fall in the broad understanding of activism “as any effort to act beyond one’s personal interest”.

2

Even though some recognize “individual activism” – individual attempts to solve a problem without an interest to associate with others – still, activism is largely associated with collective action and community. Activism between advocacy and direct contribution at the community wellbeing Narrowing down the broad definition above, led to two main categories: advocacy-related activism and direct contribution to the community wellbeing. Under the advocacy-related activism there are forms of activism such as campaigning for a decision, monitoring the authorities, citizens claiming for their rights or for a problem to be solved, even movements such as Occupy the City. Under the direct contribution-related activism fall forms of activism such as service provision, philanthropy or community projects. The activist If activism is defined in many ways, there is a single portrait of an activist drawn: an activist is one that has the courage, is one that has the right attitude. Becoming an activist is largely seen as depending on one’s nature – “you have to have it in your guts”, says one of my respondents (volunteer, leader of a young organization). Becoming an activist is based on values, critical thinking, the deep understanding of one’s rights and responsibilities: “an activist is one who does not remain indifferent, who needs to act based on the strong understanding that there is right and there is wrong, and there is nothing in between.” – says the same respondent. Empirical observation of the public perception about activists confirms the understanding that it takes courage, ambition, and leadership skills to be an activist. But, besides looking up to the people considered “activists”, the general perception is rather sceptical when it comes about the real change these individuals can bring about. “What you are doing is great. It is good that you are so optimistic. But you are young and don’t understand there is no point…” one citizen said with the occasion of a street event.” Similar answers are gotten by community organizers in their door to door work: “Would be great to happen, but I doubt it.” The portrait defined for an activist shows that activists are still seen as exceptional individuals, even as leaders. If it is encouraging that people appreciate what it takes to be an activist, it is upsetting that activism is not seen as something that anyone can do, but one needs to be somewhat special to do it. It is also upsetting that activists are appreciated for their courage but seen as too idealistic and naive. The level and the particularities of activism in Romania Asked if they feel there is enough activism in Romania almost all of my respondents said “there is not enough activism, there is too little” (leader of a grass root rural NGO, trainer/consultant). Despite the fact that people and institutions in power are not bothered to listen to the citizens, only sporadic collective action takes place, even when measures affecting large numbers of people are taken.

3

More direct contribution than advocacy-related activism Analyzing the activism in Romania from the perspective of the distinction between advocacy-related activism and activism as direct contribution to the community wellbeing, empirical observation shows that the majority of endeavours fall in the second category – direct contribution. Providing social services, charity, environmental direct work is much more spread than advocacy or watch dog work, as also shown by recent reports1. While most people recognize that the advocacy-related activism is the one that really empowers people, as it alters the balance of power, they explain that doing things by yourself is more motivating for people as they feel they have more chances to succeed. Advocacy-related activism or political activism is rather a long term effort, seen as unlikely to succeed. Another reason for the scarcity of advocacy-related activism might be related with the perception people have about it, considering it is “too political”, therefore something that is not adequate, or that might harm the integrity of an organization or a group. It is to be noted at this point that lobbying in Romania is not yet largely accepted or it is misunderstood by many, assimilated with corruption or traffic of influence. This understanding might be further explained through the general lack of trust in government and political parties as throughout the transition to democracy, Romanians lost trust in the state and its institutions. A third reason brought into discussion is related with the NGOs efforts – community development NGOs working with people to solve community problems as well as service providers are more active in Romania and more likely to reach out to communities than advocacy or watchdog groups that could have developed more advocacy related activism. Unless measures are taken, advocacy-related activism will continue to fade as, once Romania joined the European Union and started to benefit the Structural Funds, an important shift in funding for the non-governmental sector was noted. As a result, many watchdog or advocacy oriented NGOs altered their focus towards new funding opportunities such as those for service delivery. Direct contribution is to be strongly appreciated as it leads to mobilising new resources, solving problems and, most importantly, developing a sense of belonging to a community. What is though more difficult to achieve through such initiatives, is the very much needed balance of power between the state and the civil society. NGOs-led activism rather than citizens-led activism An important particularity – considered a major weakness - of the activism in Romania is that it is mostly developed by NGOs and not by citizens. There are only a few cases when citizens act by themselves, getting organized and engaging in civic activities. In most of these cases citizens act around small community problems, like cleaning a green space, planting few trees or organizing a

1 Civil Society Development Foundation, Romania 2010. Non-governmental Sector – Profile, Tendencies, Challenges (Bucharest: Civil Society Development Foundation, 2010

4

festivity. In terms of citizens led advocacy things could go as far as fighting for a park in danger or petitioning for more parking spaces. It was also emphasized that, for a society as Romania, one cannot expect that the citizens by themselves, especially those in-need or marginalized, will gather together and initiate civic action. Thus, NGOs remain the main actors in the field of civic participation. In the last couple of years, even trade unions weakened their public participation attempts. Another actor emerging in the field of activism, but only with a “direct-contribution” approach, is the private sector. Little by little, corporations are developing programmes, in partnership with NGOs, leading to more engagement of the citizens in their communities. More white collar activism than street activism Looking closer at the NGOs-led activism, especially at the advocacy-related activism - we find a lot of “white collar” activism rather than street activism, engaging citizens and showing power. NGO-style activism is mostly based on technical arguments and lobbying and less on tactics involving media and people. The “white collar” activism is important but its effectiveness is limited. While the state institutions respond rather to strong leaders, media and street action, NGOs are more inclined to use tactics such as reports, conferences, petitions. Many of my respondents representing different NGOs said during this research that “we shouldn’t be many but we should be right and speak the right language” (leader of a small grass root NGO). Mobilizing people and engaging them in the advocacy campaigns led by NGOs remains an important challenge for the Romanian non-governmental sector. Most of the Romanian civil society organizations, even when they are trying, are failing on doing that. For example, the average number of people showing up at a protest for example is around 40 and the large majority are NGO members. One reason appeared in my research as obvious: NGOs are disconnected from the citizens. The gap between citizens and the organized civil society can be also seen in the scarcity of membership based organizations or in the different agendas the two parties have. While citizens care about their day to day lives – employment, health, education, community matters, NGOs care more about problems such as: environment, city planning, corruption. Very few NGOs decide to pick up problems more likely to gather citizens’ support and many do not manage to explain their big issues in a language that could make regular citizens to leverage support. Lack of coordination, strategy and follow up “Good activism should include smart, long term strategies, careful follow up and good coordination and we often lack all those” one of my respondents tells me (member of a support organization). Analyzing

5

the NGO work in Romania we see a lot of evidence of poor coordination and strategy, many abandoned campaigns or projects lacking sustainability of results. Cause related activism Many of the participants in this research made an important distinction between activism triggered by a specific cause one relates with on a personal level and activism as a behaviour or instinctive activism. The second one was described as being triggered by the deep understanding that one has the right and responsibility to act. Looking at the activism in Romania from this perspective, we see the most of it is generated by specific causes or problems, while there is too little activism for its own sake, as an end. One of the people I interviewed tells me about a desired “participatory community - a community where […] there are enough resources and abilities so that if something comes up you are sure there is somebody knowing what to do, and doing it; there is solidarity and people do not participate only for their causes, but for others’ as well; there are shared values; there are leaders in the community, they do not need some outsider to intervene. A community where participation is behaviour” (leader of a grass root rural NGO, trainer/consultant). In Romania, we are yet to have the activism described in this statement. WHAT GENERATES ACTIVISM A cause to fight for Most of the people involved in this research recognize that the most important trigger for activism is to have a clear cause to fight for. Being a social issue, lack of infrastructure, the built patrimony, the environment, it is a problem or a passion one relates with on a personal level to get involved. The engagement become stronger as the problem one fights for is more substantial or as the discontent is bigger. In order to generate civic action a problem or a cause has to be relevant enough to create frustration, passion, or anger. However it does not mean that as poor or marginalized a community is, as strong the activism will be. There are many other triggers for activism as well as obstacles and cannot be expected that the people will engage in civic action only because there is a problem worth fighting for. Actually, the literature shows that participation is usually initiated by people having a certain status and the needed resources and not by the people in-need. Seeing activism as being mostly triggered by specific causes or problems, leads to the idea that people tends to rise up for the winnable fights, aiming at getting their problem solved. Values, character, critical thinking

6

Even if one needs to have a cause to act for in order to get engaged, there are some that care less about wining or not, but they feel it is important to act regardless their chances to win. This was referred to me as activism for the sake of activism, triggered by the deep understanding that one has the right and responsibility to act. One of my respondents also made reference to the “mature” activism and “less mature activism” (leader of a grass root rural NGO, trainer/consultant). She explains that the second one happens when a group has a problem they urgently need to solve or a passion that gather them in action, while the first one is acting just because one needs to act and cannot stay indifferent. Asking the people I interviewed how they became activists, many told me that activism is a matter of personality, education and culture. One of them said that what made his an activist was: “my gutsy wish to contest, to protest against the abuse” (volunteer, member of a militant NGO). Critical thinking was mentioned many times by my respondents during the research as an important mechanism favouring participation and activism. And it comes together with the inability to stay indifferent. Activism is in many cases a matter of reflection and action. One needs to reflect on things around and decide not to stay indifferent. Going from reflection to action sometimes relates on the feelings one has. Frustrations, anger, hope, passion were mentioned as feelings that can trigger activism and generate civic action. Leadership, facilitation and guidance Strong leadership is largely recognized as generating activism. It was noted before that, even if having a cause to fight for or a problem to solve is an important motivation, it is not enough to generate civic action. People need leaders to trust and to follow, they need models: “People are sometimes angry, says one of my respondents, but without a leader to make the anger public, participation goes as much as to the fourth household” (leader of a grass root rural NGO, trainer/consultant). People do fear, do not trust, they are submissive. To engage they need one to encourage them, to convince them that they have chances, one who is willing to be the first one and act as a model. Then, that one might have followers and generate collective action. Leadership is not seen only as a vehicle for people’s voice to be heard but also as facilitation, guidance and mobilization. It was noted that is unlikely that the citizens will get organized by them selves. It was also noted that many are not aware about their rights nor about the mechanisms they can use to bring about change. In this respect, facilitation and guidance is seen as an important generator of activism.

7

OBSTACLES FOR ACTIVISM The culture of obedience The culture of obedience strengthened by the 40 years of a totalitarian communist regime is mentioned by many of my respondents as obstructing public participation. One of my respondents points to an old proverb, very familiar to Romanians: “The sword shall not cut the obedient head” (activist, leader of a cultural NGO). We all remember our parents or grandparents teaching us “you shall stay in your place” or the Orthodox Church preaching about compliance and humility. All these elements, might have led to the today citizen rather passively waiting for a better future than engaging in civic action to earn it. These cultural barriers explain the lack of the activists described above as people with courage and the right attitude for action. Even though the regime has been changed, fear is still present and visible, especially in smaller or marginalized communities, where many are dependant on the social assistance system and where for many the mayor or local council has unlimited power. A culture of suspicion A culture of suspicion and mistrust among people is another cultural obstacle for collective civic action. People often mention envy, suspiciousness and meanness when are asked to describe the local mentality. Recalling yet another proverb “My neighbour’s goat should die too” (“If I can’t have it, then neither can you”) is another depiction of a mentality making difficult for people to act together. Lack of communication and negotiation skills To work in groups and to act together people need basic skills such as listening one another, staying on topic in a discussion, giving constructive feedback. The lack of such skills is easy to be observed in almost any conversation among a few Romanians. An American community organizer, coming to Romania and participating in a community organizing meeting of a local group said he had never seen a group having such a difficulty to communicate and reach consensus or compromise over a very simple topic. Many attempts to organize collective action fail or are much difficult than should be simply because people do not manage to communicate well. Distrust in democracy The newly gained distrust in democracy of the Romanians does its fare share in alienating people, especially when it comes about activism as influencing the decision makers.

After few years of enthusiasm following the ‘89 revolution, nostalgia for communism took place. The main reason for nostalgia is the low level of living, as year after year, all the political parties in office failed in delivering what the people expected them to deliver, especially in terms of economic grows. The failure of the government, as well as corruption, made Romanians to believe that democracy is not necessarily the best way of governance for one country.

8

The assumption above is also supported by statistics. A recent report of ERBD/World Bank – Life in Transition Survey II2, which explores the attitudes and perceptions of more than 34,000 individuals and households across the EBRD transition region, in countries from central Europe to central Asia, as well as a selected group of Western European countries, discusses the relationship between the people’s satisfaction with their life and their support for a free market. As far as Romania is concerned, only one third of the respondents preferred a free market against a state controlled one while the number of people considering democracy as preferable to any other system decreased in the last 5 years to 43%.

Not trusting democracy makes people reluctant to use democratic means to bring about change. Scepticism about the chances to succeed Distrust in their power and capacity to succeed, especially of marginalized people, is another important obstacle for participation. Not having enough successful examples and not trusting their own power many people do not believe they can bring about change. Once again, scepticism prevents participation, especially in terms of advocacy and influencing decision-makers. In a best case, a group would try to do what they can to solve a problem by themselves rather than by claiming for those responsible. Bureaucracy and un-openness of the decision makers To say at least, institutions and people in power do not bother to consult citizens in taking public decisions. When people by themselves voice their opinions and make them known, the most of the decision-makers or public servants are ignorant, reluctant to receive input from the society, sometimes even aggressive. Thus, a bureaucratic and opaque political system is yet another obstacle for participation mentioned by many of my respondents. Unsuccessful attempts to influence the governance or failed dialog between NGOs and state institutions often determine groups to give-up and add to their already existing distrust. The unprofessional means of communication with the public used by the state institutions is a clear explanation for why people are not enthusiastic about participation in the decision-making process. The public administration representatives often complain that “people do not participate even when they are invited to”. And this is true but perfectly understandable. A too weak and resource-less organized civil society The organized civil society is considered by many the most important actor in developing activism. But the same many blame a too weak, sometimes corrupted civil society. Lack of resources is largely recognized by the people I discussed with as a relevant obstacle for their work. Many of them mention

2 http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/research/surveys/LiTS2e_web.pdf

9

the need to pay at least some staff to manage the day to day work of the organization, to engage more resources in professional communication, to bring in experts. Romania has a diverse NGO sector, in terms of fields of activity, and also in terms of resources. There is a small number of resource-full NGOs, most of them working in the field of service delivery. On the other hand very few resources are available for smaller NGOs or for organizations still working in other fields of interest, such as strengthening democracy, citizens participation, corruption, good governance. The diminished intervention of many foreign private donors has not been yet replaced by too many local private donors willing to invest in the nongovernmental sector. KEY FUTURE NEEDS TO STRENGHTEN ACTIVISM To build citizens led activism Developing strong and sustainable citizen led activism is a major requirement for a healthy democracy. Democracy cannot exist only with NGOs participating in the decision-making process. It needs engaged citizens as well. Critical thinking and grass root leadership are major elements that can generate activism and bring about change, and in Romania we lack both of them. As mentioned before, activists are seen as exceptional individuals. Only when people will see that there are enough “exceptional individuals” to make a difference they will decide to follow. But working at grassroots level and developing individual leaders is largely recognized as a major challenge for NGOs. One needs to face many obstacles: a shortage of critical thinking, a culture of obedience, a distrust of democracy, scepticism, a lack of trust among people, a lack of communication skills. The way people relate with each other and the quality of the dialogue among them needs to be addressed. Such an approach requires long term interventions, special skills and a great deal of resources. Still, in our efforts to build local leadership we need to avoid creating new “gate keepers”. Gate keepers are described as individuals having the necessary leadership skills, connections and energy, but lacking the openness and the willingness to enlarge the space for civic participation to other people. This is the experience of many NGOs that started projects to enhance citizens’ activism but ended up working with gate keepers: “you need those leaders that know when and how to hand over to others, leaders that want and are able to bring in new people” advices one of my respondents, (representative of a support NGO). The need for long term interventions was strongly emphasised during my research, as being very important for the NGOs’ attempts to build grassroots activism by working with regular citizens and mentoring them to civic action. “You need to take it easy, you are not allowed to push, just to offer

10

options, to give a large framework and leave people decide where they want to go, “it has to be on their terms and in their rhythm not in yours” (member of a support organization). Bridging the gap between citizens and NGOs The discussion about bridging the gap between citizens and NGOs can be twofold: on one hand, the participants to my research recognize the value of NGOs being relevant for the citizens’ concerns and on another hand they recognize the importance of citizens leveraging more support for the NGOs’ actions, enhancing their ability to bring about change. To prove they are relevant for people and to win their trust NGOs can do better in engaging with issues from the citizens’ agenda and they could also better align the issues they are fighting for with the citizens needs. Better strategies for the NGOs led activism Romania has a fair share of unsuccessful activism, especially in terms of advocacy related activism. There are many reasons but one is clearly related with the strategies used to influence the decision-makers. As already mentioned the tactics that are the most used by the Romanian NGOs are – petitioning, issuing reports, organizing press conferences and maybe lobbying. All are tactics that use the power of arguments, while there is very little activism proving the public support for a cause. Having good reports and analysis is good but not enough. I asked the people I interviewed what they thought should be emphasised, the power of voice or the power of arguments. Most of the people representing NGOs said that it is indeed important to show public support but it is more important to come with solutions, with arguments, with the right language. Only one group said “We have experts all over. It is not our job to bring in solutions or expertise, it is our job to show what people wish” (leader of a militant organization). The public administration representatives, asked the same question, said that, in practice, political leadership rather responds to initiatives that prove public support, to strong leadership, to media exposure. When I asked journalists what made them write about an initiative they also said it was important for them to see the real people benefiting of and supporting that initiative. Considering these conflicting answers, combining think tank efforts with activism emphasising public support might be a winning strategy. Maybe only after showing the public support, through media, leaders, and crowds, one might read a report or a petition and listen. Strategic litigation is yet another tactic that proved to be successful, but is underutilized in Romania. Many NGOs do not consider it is suitable for a NGO to take legal action against the government during a campaign, others do not have the courage or the needed resources, including knowledge, to do that. Discussing about strategies, many, especially those outside the NGO sector, mentioned that we need to use much smarter tactics. We need to be more careful in framing our issues in a way that could

11

leverage support easier, to communicate smarter and to engage more resources in communication. It was also emphasised that fighting for constructive alternatives rather than only “fighting against” might give more legitimacy to the NGO sector with the governance but also with the larger public and media. Continue to challenge the opacity of the decision-makers Unsuccessful attempts to influence the authorities often force civic groups to give-up and add yet more frustration and distrust to their experience. Citizens are also reluctant to engage, especially in advocacy-related activism due to the unprofessional and ineffective way the state institutions prefer to communicate with the public. Activism influencing the authorities needs to be further strengthened as a tool to constantly keep the government accountable, reminding the people in power that they have to consult the citizens, to report to them and to really represent their interests. Citizens should not be asked to only contribute to the wellbeing of their communities without having a place at the decision making table as well. Given the huge distrust of citizens in government and political parties, as well as in democracy, NGOs have a tremendous role in reviving citizens’ energy, as little as it might be, and getting citizens engaged in the decision-making process. RECOMMENDATIONS After 20 years, many will expect that Romanian society has found its own path for sustainable activism. Reality proves them wrong. Activism still needs a lot of support: “We need 50 more years of doing things right” (activist, leader of a cultural NGO). Attempting to summarize a long list of recommendations addressed to practitioners, supporting organizations and donors, we outline the following: … to build citizens led activism by working with regular citizens and mentoring them to civic action. Long term, flexible interventions are needed, focusing on developing individual leaders and building new behaviours. Education, critical thinking, promoting models and success stories are needed. … better engagement of NGOs with issues from the citizens’ own agenda: health, education, small community problems. Many times, citizens are seen as “volunteers” or “supporters” of our projects, but in very few cases were our projects really relevant for citizens. To be relevant for its constituencies, the organized civil society needs to treat citizens as “clients” of its work. … to be more effective in its efforts the non-governmental sector needs to create more effective strategies. Combining think-tank efforts, strategic litigation and activism which emphasizes public support might be a winning strategy. Both public administration and the media, as potential leverage, need to see the citizens support behind our professional reports and petitions.

12

… flexibility. NGOs need to have good strategies but they also need flexibility to be able to tailor their activities to what is needed, to respond quickly to new challenges and to start or to support a campaign exactly when it is required. … NGOs should keep their leaders and activists aside management or administrative positions, giving them the freedom to act in the field and not burdening with bureaucratic assignments. And the donors should accept this need. … a learning and exchange of experience about effective activism need to be facilitated. Drawn into their daily work, NGOs do not care enough about reflecting and learning. Enough space should be created for a group to evaluate its activity, to improve, to take decisions and to build better strategies. Donors are collectors of valuable information and lessons learnt that can be used for NGOs to learn one from another, to connect, to share and to explore. … networking for learning, but also for cross-sectorial or regional support is needed. Networking among different fields of interest or even among NGOs from different countries should help NGOs to find useful support for their causes. … long-term intervention is needed, from both donors and practitioners, if indeed they want to see a change in behavior on a large scale. … to continue to invest in strengthening democracy. Many traditional donors in the field of citizen participation decreased their support for Romania, expecting that we had already found our way and leaving the European Union to lever support. European integration led to a NGO sector relying mostly on the European Structural Funds distributed throughout governmental structures. And it is obvious that the government will not fund activism, especially the kind of activism that is aimed at affecting the government. Corporate donors are not yet interested in supporting activism, maybe only as community development projects or awareness campaigns. In this funding context, most of the advocates or watch dog organizations face the need to reinvent themselves, not only in terms of fundraising but in term of mission and core business. In supporting activism donors need to select the initiatives to support considering the existing weaknesses in the filed, coordinating and complementing each other.