Why is there such animosity, often characterized by hysteria and orchestrated witch hunts, even persecution, towards civil society and its organizational forms – civil society organizations, in a situation of general social despair caused by a growing flood of problems, from which people from these areas are fleeing in an exodus of epic proportions? Starting from the systemic violation of human rights and freedoms, the caricatural omnipresence of corruption, the tragicomic level of public services, completely meaningless institutions and the division of power…
Even an astute analyst of social reality, or even an enthusiast of complexity theories or systemic thinking, would agree that it is difficult, if not impossible, to find even a fraction of merit and contribution of civil society to the aforementioned social scourges. But, alas…
Of course, the proverbially cautious and infinitely patriotic researcher of subversive phenomena could retort and cry out, how much, if it hasn’t hindered, has this civil society contributed to solving the aforementioned problems? It’s not that there are exact indicators and methodologies for reliably determining this, but one could assert without much hesitation that the real question is, how much worse would the situation be if it weren’t for the actions of civil society organizations?
Why then has civil society and its organizations become such a problem that so many, with such fervor and so systematically, deal with it, starting from the wisest academic minds in the pauses of writing letters of support to wise leadership, to patriotic youth or proven budget patriots and pre-paid analysts, that wise rulers simply have no choice but to deeply ponder over such concern and decisively act to cut the problem at its root, and the root if necessary, and it is necessary.
Civil society is a space of freedom in which free citizens associate, articulating their legitimate interests, a civil activist will cry out in the heat of an argumentative debate, and be right.
Isn’t civil society a key step on the path (albeit less traveled) towards democratization, and haven’t civil society organizations won countless battles for the public interest, the experienced student of social change and democratization will add.
Even the proverbially cautious Euro-bureaucrat could not help but mention that the development of an environment conducive to the development of civil society is, neither more nor less, among the 14 priorities from the European Commission’s opinion for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
But as the poet said, life on the border is dangerous and hard, and across the border on the European periphery stuck in the quagmire of endless transition, it is also brutally cruel.
In jungles like our societies, it’s actually not too difficult to discover where the crux of the matter lies. In hybrid regimes, which incline far more towards autocracy and have connections with democracy only insofar as they hold elections at regular intervals, civil society is a mortal enemy, of course to those who have every interest in nothing changing, while being in possession of complete control over all levers of power and public resources.
Ruling political parties, which have completely captured institutions and public resources and put them in the function of staying in power and illegal enrichment, without even a remotely coherent program because there is no real need for it, as they win voters through simple exchange of votes for public goods, be it employment or contracts with public institutions, see civil society organizations, which criticize, file lawsuits, submit complaints, as nothing but an existential threat.
Hence, it is no wonder that the ruling regime devotes so much attention to the fight against civil society and its organizations, with, of course, the assistance of sinecure-dependent, previously mentioned wise academic heads, budget patriots, and pre-paid analysts. The essence and goal of this struggle is to completely delegitimize any criticism of the existing state, and to narrow the space for it so much as to create an impression of monolithic uncritical support for the regime, while simultaneously completely preventing any organization that is not under the control of the regime.
This unscrupulous struggle of the ruling regime against civil society can be identified on three different levels or fronts, which only confirms the seriousness with which the ruling regime perceives civil society as a threat.
The first front, where authoritarian, distorted, and retrograde legal solutions that often encroach on the domain of human rights and freedoms are used to try to limit the freedom of association, assembly, thought, speech, etc., which are the very essence of civil society – if such freedoms do not exist, civil society can then practically only operate illegally. There is no need to specifically cite examples; they are well-known, from the criminalization of defamation to the introduction of legal solutions on foreign agents that are forthcoming, then restrictions on freedom of assembly, etc.
The second front essentially comes down to various types of pressures ranging all the way to persecution or even physical attacks. This front includes repression equally from official institutions, most often organs of the repressive apparatus, but also ‘patriotic organizations’, or organized criminal groups that work on a short leash for the regime. The goal is, of course, to intimidate, drive away, discourage, and judging by the number of civil society activists who have left these regions, impressive results have been achieved.
The third front consists of so-called manipulation techniques and brainwashing, through systematic and endless repetition of mantras about foreign mercenaries, color revolutions, British spies, through all means of mass disinformation controlled by the regime. Of course, these are such nonsense that it’s pointless to even engage in argumentative debate, but sometimes one simply can’t resist, if only to ask questions like why aren’t there color revolutions in Germany or Denmark, for example? Or what exactly are foreign mercenaries in countries where the EU reconstructs courts, schools, and bridges, or where the IMF creates the country’s economic policy, and foreign peacekeeping forces are authorized to maintain peace? But for these kinds of ‘gaslighting’, arguments are helpless.
Of course, these phenomena are not from yesterday, they have been present for years, but lately, the situation has been worsening. Does anyone need civil society and is it worth fighting for? Or as the old Peščanik saying goes, ‘if you’re doing well, then nothing’ and if not…
