Years of authoritarian control and the accompanying perception of illegitimate rule have prevented Kosovars from creating a sense of shared ownership and self governance. After June 1999, a new system of governance was established, with UNMIK placed in the central role of decision making. However, the new situation was not best placed to change this attitude.
Kosovo’s political structure and status have provided few incentives for NGOs and citizens to directly shape policy. Kosovo’s most sensitive political and security issues were handled by UNMIK and KFOR. UNMIK did not establish sufficient formal and informal channels through which civic groups could channel their concerns and advice on such issues.
In addition to this, civil society lacked capacities and support to directly represent the needs of its constituencies, mostly because of its donor driven activities which were not based on the needs of the groups they represented. Few people (only 13%) felt they could influence decision-making in their municipality – only 1% more than those who felt they can influence decision- making at the central level.
The Constitutional Framework and laws in power guaranteed the right to participate, but no concrete mechanisms were developed to transform this right into a real action. Even though there were a number of successful initiatives, they were limited to specific cases and were neither institutionalized, nor had any serious impact. National Action Plan for Gender Equality was developed by a multiethnic group of women’s CSOs and women politicians who worked together for 10 months in 2003. A good example of this is also the 2004 campaign on changing the electoral system in Kosovo. “Reform 2004”, a broad citizen coalition, has advocated for open electoral lists in seven multi-member districts, in place of one-district, closed-list proportional representation approach. In total, more than 250 leading citizen groups endorsed the Reform 2004 electoral reform agenda. Although this citizens’ initiative did not succeed in overhauling the current electoral system (which was modified years after), it strengthened Kosovo’s nascent democracy by helping to generate debate on sensitive political matters that were previously unchallenged in the public domain.
The situation started to change during the last years and in particular after 2008 Declaration of Independence. As the newly independent Government strives to gain power and responsibility, it is expected that opportunities for increased advocacy focused civil society actors will emerge. With (almost) all competences in the hands of domestic institutions, civil society started to play a more active role on contributing towards policy and decision making, while the Government and the Parliament had no more excuses of lack of competences for specific issues of concern.
A number of cases of either NGO participation or pressure toward the government initiatives were noted recently. The participation of numerous NGOs in drafting the NGO Law in 2008/09 is one of the best cases of the civil dialogue between sectors. Some NGOs are also participation in governmental working groups for the Transparency Law, Environmental laws and strategies, Youth related legislation etc. Still, the trend of transforming these cases into regular practice does not yet exist. When it comes to more “important” issues like rule of law, anti-corruption and economic development the doors are not open and civil society has to push hard to make its voice heard.
With regards to listening civil society on the preparation of its documents, EC didn’t manage to include civil society at necessary level. The EC has invited local CSOs for a consultation meeting for the EC Progress Report in May 2009. The inputs from CSOs were ad hoc and not based on produced reports and analysis in their respective fields of work. There were no structured consultations organized with regard to the neither 2009 Enlargement Strategy, nor on study on Kosovo. However, each year there is improvement in developing a partnership between ECLO and CSOs. Hence, Kosovo wide NGOs need to be more proactive in order to benefit from the EC partnership and contribute in written in order to be able to represent the community interests and advocate for their concerns. Over the time, the ECLO has improved in access to documents and filling the information gaps. In general, ECLO continues to have commitment and stronger willingness to seriously consult and involve Kosovo civil society in the design, preparation and implementation of key strategies and documents governing EU – Kosovo relations.
The Kosovo Constitution provides four possibilities for a legislative initiative. The initiative to propose laws may be taken by the President of the Republic of Kosovo from his/her scope of authority, the Government, deputies of the Assembly or at least ten thousand citizens as provided by law (Article 79 of the Constitution). However, the laws fall short on specifying clear mechanisms on how can citizens (and CSOs) can exercise this right. The Law on Legislative Initiatives, which is being drafted by the government, is a chance to improve the legal situation on this issue. In the meantime, CSOs are not entitled to initiate any policy or law, except through lobbying and advocating to the government/assembly officials for any policy/law initiative.
The current legal framework presents an “open door” for CSOs participation in drafting policies developed by state institutions: based on legislation such as the Law on Access to Official Documents, Rules of Procedures of the Government and Law of Local Self-governance, it is possible for NGOs today to have access to key information and participate in the legislative process at a basic level. However, there are major challenges in making this theoretical possibility a reality: (1) The law stops short of presenting any obligations in relation to consultation mechanisms (except at the local level); (2) The Administrative Instructions fail to give best practice guidance on how to actually implement the participation procedures; in some cases even represent a “step back” compared to the law, hindering its effective implementation; (3) There is a lack of culture and routine of participation especially in the central government. In general, participation is more encouraged by the legal framework and also happening more frequently at the local level.
A policy and institutional framework for civil society involvement in decision making processes currently does not exist. The formal communication channels between the government and civil society remain weak. Much is dependent on individuals and personal connections. There are ad hoc meetings between the government and the NGOs. These happen on invitation by both sides, but usually the cooperation is superficial and pro forma and lacks elements of genuine cooperation. In general, there is a limited input to government decision making and NGOs are not always prepared to take advantage of existing mechanisms. Some models for partnership, e.g. the Independent Media Commission are in place but not yet fully functional. In 2009, the Economic and Social Committee was officially launched, after years of being legally established. However, due to representation quotas disagreements, it still remains not functional.
The Rules of Procedures of the Assembly allow Parliamentary Commissions and working groups to invite civil society representatives in their meetings, as well as organize public hearings for laws in the process. Both are optional, i.e. legislators may choose to utilize or not to utilize these instruments as part of the legislative process. According to an ECNL report on this issue, it appears that while the opportunity for participation in the work of the Assembly exists, the culture of doing this has not yet developed. There is no routine of engaging NGOs or other civil society representatives; it is not part of the thinking process especially in the early stages of developing legislation. In addition, plenary sessions and Commissions meetings are open for public, and NGOs regularly monitor their work. In general, the Assembly is more open towards civil society, even though in a number of cases a limited number of Members of the Parliament have not expressed readiness to cooperate with civil society.
The cooperation between political parties and civil society is similar to the one with public institutions, mostly because all of the bigger political parties during the last years have been in the government and have transferred their relations with civil society from that level – and vice versa. Nevertheless, political parties’ officials take part in most of the civil society activities and the cooperation can be considered as constructive, even though not substantial.
The Law on Local Self-Government recognizes the right of citizens of the municipality to participate in the activities of the municipality (Article 4.5), it requires giving notice to the public on the dates of a meeting as well as adoption of rules to allow participation of the public in the meetings (Article 45), as well as ensures access to information on the municipal level (Article 68.5). Furthermore, the Law guarantees the right to petition, citizen initiative and local referendum. In practice, the situation does not look that positive. However, comparing to the central level, municipalities are generally open to inputs from NGOs and more often than not, the lack of such input is due to the inaction by NGOs rather than resistance from the municipalities.