STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF ALBANIAN CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS (CSOs)

Strengths

• CSOs are generally open to networking and exchange of information. The creation of networks and encouraging civic participation through a range of organisations offers better opportunities for active citizens;
• Civil society organisations (especially think tanks) have better capacities to influence policies and achieve greater impact;
• CSOs’ advocacy and lobbying activity is fully supported by, and well-grounded in research work and analysis;
• There is currently an upward trend in state actors willingness to cooperate with CSOs, although often driven by a pro-forma approach;
• CSOs human resources and capacities are often attractive to political and governmental actors. Yet, once involved in politics, former civil society members have failed to facilitate a greater impact of civil society;
• CSOs are generally flexible and efficient in adjusting to developing situations or sectors;
• Compared to state institutions, CSOs are better equipped with, and more aware of communication opportunities, particularly with regard to interactions with beneficiaries and foreign/international bodies;
• CSOs have reached a higher level of efficiency in human resources management as compared to state agencies;
• There is a high level of sensitivity among citizens on specific situations or the needs of certain social groups (marginalized communities, people in need etc.);
• Civil society has been quite successful in promoting certain values such as religious harmony, interethnic relations or good neighbourly relations at the national and regional level;
• Well targeted activities of CSOs do succeed in attracting citizens’ support (for instance trainings for people in need or marginalized categories, e.g. unemployed women).

 Weaknesses

•  Citizens are sceptical of civil society and perceive CSOs mainly as a source of financial benefits. Civic participation often depends on the profile and credibility of CSOs;
• CSOs do not rely on consultations with citizens and interest groups during involvement in policy making processes;
• Low levels of civic participation are often the consequence of policy / decision makers underestimating the values of civic actions and initiatives;
• Civil society is widely perceived as, and identified only with non profit organisations;
• The painful transition period has lead to individualistic attitudes and apathy towards volunteering;
• Cooperation between the Government, civil society and the private sector is at low levels, a fact reflected in the lack of sustainability of civic actions and hence, lack of interest by citizens to be included in “sporadic” (not sustainable) actions;
• Cooperation between CSOs and the media is more present on political issues while the politicization of concerns and debates is often counter-productive for citizens’ participation;
• Political bias is present among some CS organisations and representatives, which undermines their objectivity and hence public support;
• Despite some success on gender equality and women rights, civil society has not been able to deliver positive results on issues related to the fight against domestic violence, non-discrimination & integration of Roma or sexual minorities etc.;
• Civil society actors do not see the inter-linkages between certain negative phenomena and their consequences. Rather they tend to focus on the consequences and not with the root causes. The same approach can be identified among donors (who are more open to immediate results and not to actions that build ground for sustainable solutions by addressing the root causes). The inter-linkages between blood feuds and property issues, domestic violence, economic development and social inequities etc. are one example of this incorrect focus;
• CSOs are largely based on, and dependent on (foreign) donors’ funding and with the latter’s withdrawal the sustainability of civil society’s actions, as well as existence of portions of it, is threatened;
• Cases of interferences and/or unequal treatment of CSOs by state authorities at central and local level are still present;
• Human resource management also appears to be a weak point for CSOs despite the generally high quality of human capacities;
• The social context from where CSOs could draw resources, support and even capacities (at the local level) to implement their activities remains weak;
•  Accountability, transparency and democratic (internal governance among CSOs remain problematic);
• State – civil society dialogue and consultations are often treated as a pro-forma instrument by governmental actors;
• Civil society actors are still in the phase of “building capacities” for active involvement in the policy shaping processes in the area of socio-economic development, particularly in view of EU approaches and policies;
• CSOs still need to improve their capacities and understanding on proper mechanisms for policy impact, and how to use them;
• The fact that civil society is fully project-based and relies only on short term funding (up to a year) is often reflected in the lack of sustainability of impact;
• The lack of coordination among state institutions often negatively reflects in CSOs efforts to improve policies