copyrighted material 978 0 230 29289 5 · palgrave macmillan is the global academic ... civil...

Selection and editorial matter© Vesna Bojicic-Dzelilovic, James Ker-Lindsay and Denisa Kostovicova 2013All other chapters© their respective authors 2013

All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission.

No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmittedsave with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.

Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publicationmay be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

First published 2013 byPALGRAVE MACMILLAN

Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS.

Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010.

Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world.

Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.

ISBN 978–0–230–29289–5

This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fullymanaged and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 122 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13

Printed and bound in Great Britain byCPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne

Copyrighted material – 978–0–230–29289–5


v

List of Tables vii

Notes on Contributors viii

Acknowledgements xi

List of Acronyms xii

Introduction: Civil Society and Multiple Transitions – Meanings, Actors and Effects 1Denisa Kostovicova and Vesna Bojicic-Dzelilovic

Part I State-Building

1 The European Commission, Enlargement Policy and Civil Society in the Western Balkans 29

John O’Brennan

2 Civil Society and ‘Good Governance’ in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia: An Assessment of EU Assistance and Intervention 47

Adam Fagan

3 Contesting the Rule of Law: Civil Society and Legal Institutions 71

Iavor Rangelov

4 A Practitioner’s Perspective 85 Giulio Venneri

Part II Democratisation

5 Democratisation through Defiance? The Albanian Civil Organisation ‘Self-Determination’ and International Supervision in Kosovo 95

Stephanie Schwandner-Sievers

6 Nationalism and Civil Society Organisations in Post-Independence Kosovo 117

Francesco Strazzari and Ervjola Selenica

Contents



7 The Diaspora Dilemma: Croatian–American Civil Society Institutions and their Political Role in the Democratisation of the Homeland 135

Anita Brkanic

8 From Post-Communist to Uncivil Society in Macedonia 155 Nenad Markovic

9 A Practitioner’s Perspective: Post-Conflict Civil Society Development in the Balkans 170

Joanna Hanson

Part III Post-Conflict Reconstruction

10 Civil Society and the Bosnian Police Certification Process: Challenging ‘the Guardians’ 177

Gemma Collantes-Celador

11 The Paradox of Demobilising a Civil Protection Actor: Build-Up and Stand-Down of the KPC in Kosovo 196

Jens Narten

12 Serbian Civil Society as an Exclusionary Space: NGOs, the Public and ‘Coming to Terms with the Past’ 210

Jelena Obradovic-Wochnik

13 Facing the Past while Disregarding the Present? Human Rights NGOs and Truth-Telling in Post-Miloševic Serbia 230

Mladen Ostojic

14 A Practitioner’s Perspective 248 Florence Hartmann

Conclusion 257James Ker-Lindsay

Index 265

vi Contents



1

Introduction: Civil Society and Multiple Transitions – Meanings, Actors and EffectsDenisa Kostovicova and Vesna Bojicic-Dzelilovic

The overthrow of Communism by people’s revolutions in Eastern and Central Europe and the former Soviet Union in the late 1980s testified to the power of civil society against the totalitarian Communist state.1 The result of the demonstrable political power of the people was an intellectual rediscovery of the concept of civil society, alongside its escape from the constraints of national borders and its reconceptualisa-tion as a global civil society. At the same time, a triple transition from Communism, as Offe described it famously, constituted by political and economic liberalisation, alongside in many cases from the Balkans to the Caucasus, violent reconstitution of nation states,2 shed light on the complexity of political change, and, with it, on multiple functions of civil society. Furthermore, the process has been transnationalised both within the scope of progressive and regressive globalisation. Civil society actors, especially in post-conflict zones the world over, have been intertwined in multidimensional partnerships, including inter-national organisations, international NGOs (INGOs), international financial institutions, foreign governments as well as national and mul-tilateral development agencies, and so on. Meanwhile, other segments of local civil societies have also linked up with global networks, often either as purveyors of illiberal identities or as partners in global crimi-nal enterprise. Despite the complexity of transformation in states and communities emerging from the illiberal regime and conflict, the faith in civil society’s constructive contribution to political change was not dampened.

In the early scholarship on the subject, reflected in policy prescrip-tions focused on civil society building and promotion programmes, civil society was viewed as a necessary corrective, not just a complement,



2 Introduction

to the workings of an otherwise illiberal, fragmented and weak post-Communist and post-conflict state. Scholars pointed to the criti-cal role of civil society beyond initiating the democratic change, and its importance in consolidating and maintaining democracy.3 In the post-conflict stage marked by ethnification of the state and society, civil society was viewed as an alternative to an institutional route for building and restoring cross-ethnic trust and coexistence. The bottom-up perspective on external state-building as a critique of top-down, state-centred approaches to external intervention in post-conflict areas has been of a similar incline.4 Twenty-odd years on, the premise of the emancipatory role of non-state actors has come under scrutiny both in theory and practice. The re-examination of civil society itself along with its contribution to the political change has, in turn, reopened questions relevant for understanding dynamics of post-conflict democratisation, reconstruction and state-building, including their implication for out-side interventions in these processes.

The civil society perspective that this volume embraces encounters analytical complexity, stemming, above all, from definitional pluralism rooted in the intellectual history of the concept. Different definitions of the concept largely map onto different types of civil society actors, whose diversity has much too often been sacrificed for the sake of analytical parsimony. Secondly, the focus on understanding ‘civil’ in civil society has further diversified the picture of civil society actors as well as civil society effects along a normative axis. Thirdly, the existing scholarship has engaged with a diversity of civil society from struc-tural/organisational and normative perspectives. Critical insights were thus generated into the contribution of civil society to the processes of change, albeit largely constrained to a single aspect of an otherwise multifaceted transformation. This volume starts from the premise that the complexity and ambiguity of civil society’s contribution to political change ought to be understood in relation to the multiple nature of transition or, as we put it in the title of this volume, transitions. This is the case in the Western Balkans, where the transition unfolds along several tracks, including post-Communist and post-conflict democratisa-tion, state-building and reconstruction in the global context. Such per-spective reveals a range of, often unanticipated, effects that civil society in the Western Balkans has had, not only in a discrete area of change but also in other dimensions of multiple transition. Addressing the com-plexity of both civil society and the transitional context is the starting point in understanding and, arguably, reclaiming the emancipatory role of civil society.



Denisa Kostovicova and Vesna Bojicic-Dzelilovic 3

What is civil society and who are its actors?

As Chandhoke points out, ‘the narrative of civil society in contemporary discourse has become non thinker-specific or tradition-specific’ but, in essence, refers to ‘an entire tradition of political thought which has dealt with the issue of human emancipation’.5 Choosing a working definition of civil society is ultimately an arbitrary enterprise. Nonetheless, under-standing civil society’s contribution to political change is critically con-tingent upon the adopted or, put differently, prioritised, understanding of the concept amidst plurality of definitions. The clarity about the definitional choice or choices is critical because of the political project that each interpretation of civil society entails.

The rich history of theorising civil society, which informs and com-pounds its contemporary understanding, cannot be summarised easily. The concept of ‘civil society’ is ambiguous, notes Kaldor, due to the changing content of the term, its normative versus descriptive, idealistic versus empiricist, subjective versus objective implications, alongside the relative emphasis on the private and the public or the individual and the social.6 Furthermore, explanations of the emergence of civil society in its modern form continue to be debated by scholars, writing in the political theory and the political economy traditions. These are framed by their disparate, although not entirely unrelated, preoccupations with the evolution of freedoms and rights of an individual and with the material determinants of political change.7

The multiple transformation as a context in which this volume exam-ines the role of civil society in the Western Balkans warrants a closer examination of historical conceptualisation of the separation between the state and society. The autonomy of civil society from the state is one of its central features, retained in different variations and shifts in the meaning of civil society since the eighteenth century.8 Historically, the evolution of civil society has been linked to state formation, and therefore needs to be understood in terms of delineation and limitation of state power. The issue of the state–society relations is particularly relevant because scholars of contemporary conflict and post-conflict reconstruction have pointed to the blurring of the boundaries between the public and private as well as the state and society.9

Tracing state–society distinction

Initial conceptualisations of civil society in antiquity do not distinguish between the society and the state. For both ancient Greeks and Romans,



4 Introduction

civil society – as a translation of Aristotle’s koinonía politiké and Cicero’s societas civilis – was synonymous with the state or a ‘political society’. It was governed by law and ‘civility’ and marked by citizens’ active participation in public life (although not all were considered citizens).10 According to Taylor, such civil society lacked ‘a principle of resistance to the invasive force of sovereign political authority’.11 The crisis of the social order with the political authority vested in God or King, along-side the beginning of commercialisation of land, labour and capital, and the emergence of market economies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries brought a need for a new moral order based on the principle of rational self-interest.12 Nonetheless, the idea of civil society as ‘the only proper way … of constituting the state’13 persisted into the seven-teenth century, when Thomas Hobbes and John Locke contrasted civil society with the state of nature. It is the eighteenth century Scottish Enlightenment thinkers and political economists Adam Smith and Adam Ferguson who departed from the conceptualisation of civil society as political society by proposing that it is not a political but an economic society that is natural to man.14

Ultimately, Hegel, who was influenced by Smith and Ferguson, distin-guished civil society from the family and from the state, in his writings at the turn of the nineteenth century. Hegel was the first to elaborate modernity as a distinct sphere, thus initiating modern theories that separate civil society from the state.15 This distinction, according to Taylor, is important for differentiating civil society from the state, as well as for capturing the public nature of civil society, and ‘not just a congeries of private enclaves’.16 Hegel’s understanding of civil society as bürgerliche Gesellschaft or a bourgeois society is ‘a historically produced phenomenon’.17 It is linked to the emergence of capitalism and the pre-condition of private property on which the pursuit of private interest depends. However, the existence of Hegel’s civil society is distinct from the economy, even though it is constituted by the logic of capitalism and also reflects the ethos of the market.18

By contrast, like Keane,19 Taylor, too, is opposed to the conventional ‘property-centred’ view,20 and prioritises political explanations of intel-lectual antecedents to Hegel, with particular references to John Locke and Montesquieu writing in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, respectively. Locke was a harbinger of a contrastive understanding of civil society, with his idea of society having its identity outside the politi-cal dimension, which ought to be respected by the political authority,21 while Montesquieu’s understanding of civil society as being constituted by non-political associations, in addition to it being a politically organised




society, reflects its diversity.22 The emphasis on associational life was, in turn, taken up by Alexis de Tocqueville in the first half of the nineteenth century, who observed American democracy and the role played by vol-untary associations in generating solidarity and overcoming isolation and atomisation of individuals, as well as preventing the tyranny of the majority over minorities, as a consequence of a democratic system.23 Writing in this tradition of thought in the twentieth century, in his works first on Italy and then on the US, Robert Putnam stressed trust, social capital and solidarity as a product of thick associational life.24

The political economy perspective illuminates Karl Marx’s under-standing of civil society in the nineteenth century, which, according to him, is ‘a Hobbesian nightmare of isolated and aggressive individuals, bound together precariously by a cash nexus’.25 Civil society is associ-ated with a class conflict that involves the state because it represents particular interests of the dominant class ‘masquerading as that of a society as a whole’.26 Therefore, considering the state as a part of the criticism of civil society, the Marxist resolution lies in the removal of the distinction between the public and the private, and reunification of state and society.27 It marked departure from the liberal claim that the distinction of the two spheres is a condition of freedom,28 while its enactment in practice was the totalitarianism of the twentieth cen-tury. Antonio Gramsci’s take on civil society in the 1920s and 1930s divorced the concept from economic interactions to include a range of social interactions, which in turn provided the basis for the contempo-rary understanding of civil society as between the individual, the state and the market.29 Not unlike Marx, Gramsci considered civil society as a site of struggle against hegemony, because it was used by dominant classes to subdue the working class.

While Hegel introduced the distinction between the society and the state, the distinction should not be conflated with their absolute separa-tion. Edwards describes the relationship between the state and society as that of interdependence: state provides the regulatory framework for democratic civil society to function, while civil society holds the state accountable for its actions.30 In other words, they are bound both by obligations and rights vis-à-vis each other.31 The consequence of their coexistence is ultimately the limitation both of the power of the state and of the civil society, despite the fact that the boundary between the state and civil society autonomy remains contested (e.g. by questions whether political parties or businesses are part of civil society).32 It does not have a ‘single correct or fixed position, but moves with contingencies of history, tradition, culture, and politics’; still, its position is nonetheless



6 Introduction

constrained, as Post and Rosenblum put it: ‘Push the boundary too far in the direction of government, and civil society will wither away. Push the boundary too far in the direction of civil society, and the government can collapse into anarchic disorder.’33

Using a post-Communist and post-conflict transition as a vantage point for the exploration of civil society in this volume, one of the key questions concerns civil society’s dependence on the state: ‘Must its independence rest simply upon the disinterested benevolence of the state – a most insecure basis,’34 asks Kumar in reference to the specific trajectory of the post-Communist transformation, and concludes that the institutions of the state and the reconstitution of functioning politi-cal society are a central problem, and not those of civil society.35 Such conclusions reflect the Hegelian perspective on the ethical role of the state to resolve the conflicts within civil society,36 or the Tocquevillean perspective of the state as a guarantor of associational life. Waltzer, too, assigns a critical role to the state and, specifically, to the liberal state to establish ‘a chief playing field’ for associational commitment.37

However, the transition from Communism and conflict entails a simul-taneous reconstruction: both of state and civil society, as well as re-establishing the boundary between the state and society. At the same time, a weak and fragmented, often along ethnic and sectarian lines, post-conflict state is ill-suited to act as a guarantor for the development of civil society. This, in turn, underscores a unique conceptual and prac-tical dilemma about the extent to which both the state and civil society can play a corrective role in respect of each other in the process of such a deep-reaching transition.

Civil society: Meanings, roles and actors

A cursory intellectual history of the term from the perspective of state–society distinction paves way for a multi-perspective view of the role of civil society in the processes of political, economic and social transition in the aftermath of totalitarian regime and armed conflict. Regardless of whether the resistance was conceptualised in terms of Havel’s ‘living with truth’ (1985),38 Michnik’s autonomy and self-organisation,39 Benda’s ‘parallel polis’ (1988)40 or Konrád’s ‘antipolitics’ (1984),41 common to all these approaches to civil society by the Communist-era thinkers is their opposition to the state. In this respect they are close to Gramsci’s think-ing on civil society as a space for (re)production and contestation of hegemonic as well as counter-hegemonic discourses. In turn, the onset of democratic transition brings into focus a Tocquevillean understanding




of civil society in terms of a vibrant sphere populated by a multitude of associations as a ‘bulwark against mild despotism’.42 The impact of the conflict on the fabric of society invokes the relevance of Putnam’s conceptualisation of social capital, and the importance of trust as a means to overcome ethnic and sectarian divisions. The reconstruction of post-conflict states by a plethora of external actors, in the context of global governance arrangements which are not directly accountable to beneficiaries of external state-building efforts, makes the discursive strategies in the Habermasian sense of civil society as a communica-tive sphere critical for their legitimation.43 Meanwhile, transnational involvement of human rights organisations in local settings marked by human rights violations invokes the Kantian notion of striving towards perpetual peace and the role of global civil society therein.44

The diversity of actors becomes more complex with European and global expansion of civil society.45 The Western tradition in theoris-ing civil society, through a particular trajectory of the emergence of the modern state and market, has proven ill-suited to capture complex political and cultural realities, as the concept of civil society travelled to non-Western contexts both historically, as Goody demonstrates,46 and contemporaneously. Local political and social organisations elude being slotted neatly into categorisation of civil society actors modelled on those in the West, despite their role in delineating a sphere of autonomy in relation to political authority. Parekh directs his criticism to ‘a built-in bias against non-voluntary organisations,’ such as those associations that rest on traditional allegiances, blood ties or dependent on birth – like castes, clans, tribes, ethnic and religious groups, etc.47 He points out that these organisations have performed critical functions to ‘good society’, such as encouraging social obligation, mutual commitment and spirit of sacrifice. Therefore, he argues they cannot be dismissed as all being inherently bad, just as not all voluntary associations are inher-ently good.48

In addition, the global context of multiple transitions in the Western Balkans has enabled inclusion of local groups into transnational and global networks and movements. The global context has also altered the strategies of traditional opposition to the state, the original ‘target’ of civil society activism via transnational networks.49 At the same time, by directing their activism toward the institutions of global governance, civil society groups have turned their attention away from the nation state, but with an expected ultimate local effect of more democratic global arrangements, as can be illustrated by the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC).



8 Introduction

In sum, diversity of civil society actors is underpinned by conceptual and empirical richness of civil society. It presents a methodological challenge to students of civil society in operationalising this diversity to capture comprehensively the many ways in which a range of non-state actors shape political change. Scholars have approached this chal-lenge by focusing on the functions of civil society rather than actors,50 transactional capacity of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) rather than NGOs themselves,51 or from the perspective of discourse and prac-tices.52 Still, the normative dimension of civil society further compounds its conceptual and empirical pluralism.

Civility versus civil society

Civil society is a normatively loaded concept. Its desirability rests on the understanding of civility as a norm and effect. According to Kumar, civil society ‘sounds good; it has a good feel to it; it has the look of a fine old wine, full of depth and complexity’.53 It is shorthand for ‘the kind of society in which we want to live’.54 Civility as a property of civil society, and as a consequence of its existence, requires closer analytical inspection since one of the goals of transition is precisely to produce civility and good life, which in many cases has remained elusive.

Associated with ‘politeness’ and ‘good manners’, Shils elaborates: ‘Civility works like a governor of civil society. It limits the intensity of conflict. It reduces the distance between conflicting demands: it is a curb on centrifugal tendencies. Civility, by the attachment of its individual bearers to the society as a whole, places a limit on the irrec-oncilability of the parochial ends pursued’.55 Historically, the emphasis on civility, both in terms of politeness and ‘the self-disciplining effects of living in society’, has to be understood in relation to the anxieties stemming from the wars across Europe of the seventeenth century.56 According to Anheier, civility made ‘more diverse societies with chang-ing interests and power relations possible’, by enabling the creation of violence-free zones, which allowed for political and economic develop-ment.57 Understanding civility as a possibility of mediation of conflict that may otherwise engulf the political and social order gives civil soci-ety its emancipatory quality. This view is of particular relevance in the context of post-totalitarian and post-conflict democratisation, at whose very heart lies the introduction of conflict owing to pluralisation of interests of all kinds, including political, economic and ethnic.

Keane has focused on the inner contradiction within civil society, as a ‘peaceful haven of incivility’, contending that ‘all known forms of civil




society are plagued by endogenous sources of incivility’.58 Civility, premised on the existence and tolerance of pluralism, raises the question of its limits. Shils accepts diversity in civil society, ‘but not by all and any means whatsoever’.59 The reinvigoration of the concept of civil society, accompanied by probing empirical evidence across political and cul-tural contexts in different historical periods, has led to debates whether uncivil, albeit non-state, groups or transnational networks can be con-sidered part of civil society, be it local, national or global civil society. In its most contentious form, the question of inclusion of uncivil actors in civil society concerns their normative outlook and ideas. Kopecký and Mudde made the case for the inclusion of uncivil society as a subset of civil society by questioning the civility of non-state actors considered civil, such as their internal workings or holding a moral high ground in their attitudes, including counter-intuitive consequences, such as civil outcomes of uncivil actors.60 However, civility is also understood as a by-product of civil society. In particular, civil effect of associational life, celebrated in the neo-Tocquevillean rendering of civil society’s contri-bution to democratisation, has also come under scrutiny.

Edwards points out that, on the one hand, the correlation between associations and the creation of trust and cooperation is weaker than supposed, and, on the other, that civil society alone cannot be depended on to produce just and effective policy.61 Even a vibrant civil society can contribute to political fragmentation and undermine democracy and state-building.62 Similarly, social capital produced by informal net-works as a response to a weak rule of law does not in itself result in the democratic state-building, as is the case in post-Communist Russia, for example.63 Furthermore, civil society, especially the one organised along ethnic and sectarian lines, can instigate and contribute critically to the outbreak of violence.64 Last but not least, massive expansion of NGOs as a result of the Western democracy promotion programmes, notably (but not only) in the post-Communist space, has at best had a dubious civil impact.

The expansion of civil societies is reducible to the boost in the NGO count, because, as Howell and Pearce put it, external donors operate with ‘a narrower slice of the civil society cake’.65 Consequently, a variety of traditional grass-roots institutions, networks, practices and actors, with a potentially more constructive input towards aims of post-conflict transition have been overlooked. The ‘projectisation’ of civil society,66 alongside its dependence on external funding, has directly affected its ability to hold the state to account.67 Seen as being in the ‘pockets of international donors’, NGOs have been dismissed as ‘peace-profiteers’,



10 Introduction

while their multi-ethnic activism has been attributed to financial motives rather than value orientation.68 To compound the picture, the flourish-ing of civil society in post-conflict contexts, as in Kosovo, has been eth-nically segmented.69 Ultimately, dependence of civil society on external funding has tended to result in the instrumentalisation of civil society. Howell and Pearce note civil society is ‘reduced to a technical exercise of coordination, cooperation and joint effort, depoliticised and neutral-ised’.70 It becomes a means to an end, which can be democratisation, economic growth and so on, rather than an end in itself.71 At the same time, donor funding can present opportunities for corruption and unac-countability in the NGO sector. The result is, as Ishkanian points out, a negative impact not only ‘on how NGOs are perceived, but also how the ideas they promote are received’.72

In sum, misplaced adulation of social groups derives from antistatist conceptualisation of civil society, says Hall, cautioning that powerful social self-organisation does not equate with civil society.73 Therefore, pluralism inherent in the concept of civil society, defined in terms of actors positioned between the state, the family and the market, can be turned on its head, and denote the presence of extreme, illiberal and exclusive ideas and interests by non-state actors. In other words, civil society too can be an obstacle to post-conflict reconstruction and democratisation.74 The space for such a potential ‘uncivil’ role of civil society opens up in the absence of a strong state that acts as an impar-tial arbiter and regulator. Noting that threats to civil society can come from many and often multiple sources, Whitehead says that it may face encroachments from above (the state) and from below (illiberal civil society),75 which precisely captures the fate of civil society in the Western Balkans.76

The historically enabling role played by the state and the market for the flourishing of civil society is absent, or at least, distorted, in this region. The Balkan states are persistently weak. They continue to suffer from the problem of ‘stateness’, which Linz and Stepan define as a lack of consensus on territorial boundaries of the state and entitlement to citizenship in that state,77 as is the case of Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and to an extent Macedonia. They also falter in terms of effective and equitable public goods provision owing to the enduring impact of the war economies in the region.78 Special interests have been entrenched through the privatisation process, which itself is shaped by the Communist legacy. The result is the distortion in the market’s role to provide the basis for unimpeded diversification of interests, free of political and/or ethnic interference. Therefore, the key question is




whether civil society in the Western Balkans and, specifically, its liberal segments can ‘produce civility in spite of the state and the market’,79 and, it should be added, in spite of ‘uncivil’ society. Contributors to this volume address the challenge of civil society to navigate the political and economic context that constrains rather than supports its activism and contribution to ‘good life’, while at the same time engaging the weaknesses, structural and normative, of civil society from within.

Table 0.1 maps dimensions of multiple transition onto multiple con-ceptualisation of civil society, in order to capture the salient role of civil society actors by type in relation to a specific aspect of transformation, alongside civil and ‘uncivil’ effects of civil society. None of the boxes should be understood as either exclusive or comprehensive; their sepa-ration in the table is to allow analytical disaggregation of complexities related both to civil society and ongoing transitions, while providing a template for understanding diversity in the ways that civil society shapes the transformation of states, societies and economies in the Western Balkans.

The challenge of multiple transitions

A critique of the assumed emancipatory role of civil society to advance a democratic change finds firm conceptual and empirical ground in recent scholarship on civil society in a range of country contexts. This scholar-ship tackles this assumption in two ways. On the one hand, it begins by problematising the concept of civil society from the perspective of its internal constraints that may be organisational and normative.80 On the other hand, it examines the role of civil society in relation to a discrete form of political change, such as democratisation, transitional justice, post-conflict transformation and so on.81 While these may be compre-hensive accounts of the role of civil society, they nonetheless restrict their purview to a single and, arguably, incomplete snapshot of change, and the role of civil society therein. By contrast, this volume is prem-ised on the inseparability of transitional processes in societies emerging from illiberal rule and conflict in a globalised context.

The legacy of violent conflicts which dissolved the former Yugoslavia is central to understanding the profile, the predisposition and the role of contemporary civil society in the Western Balkans. Wars leave behind spare space in terms of many elements which are commonly ascribed to the notion of vibrant civil society, namely trust, tolerance, social capi-tal, a sense of citizenship, and participation and engagement in associa-tional life. Furthermore, they entail a profound shift in individual and



Tabl

e 0.

1 C

ivil

soc

iety

in

mu

ltip

le t

ran

siti

ons

Tran

siti

on

Res

ista

nce

Dem

ocr

atis

atio

nM

ark

etis

atio

nR

eco

nci

liat

ion

Stat

e-b

uil

din

gP

ost

-co

nfl

ict

reco

nst

ruct

ion

Con

cep

tion

of

civ

il

soci

ety

Ideo

logy

(e.g

. G

ram

sci)

Plu

rali

sm(e

.g.

Tocq

uev

ille

)M

arke

t(e

.g.

Heg

el)

Soci

al c

apit

al(e

.g.

Putn

am)

Publ

ic s

ph

ere

(e.g

. H

aber

mas

)R

ealm

of

cosm

opol

itan

ri

ghts

(e.g

. K

ant)

Typ

e of

ac

tors

Cit

izen

s,

wor

kers

Ass

ocia

tion

s,

NG

Os

Com

pan

ies,

co

rpor

atio

ns

Com

mu

nit

y gr

oup

s an

d

net

wor

ks

Med

ia a

nd

co

mm

un

icat

ion

Peac

e an

d

hu

man

rig

hts

or

gan

isat

ion

s,

hu

man

itar

ian

N

GO

s an

d

ING

Os

Civ

il e

ffec

ts

Ove

rth

row

of

illi

bera

l re

gim

eW

atch

dog

ad

voca

cy,

mon

itor

ing

Bas

is f

or

div

ersi

fica

tion

of

inte

rest

s, g

ood

go

vern

ance

Con

fid

ence

- bu

ild

ing,

m

edia

tion

Acc

oun

tabi

lity

, d

ebat

e,

legi

tim

acy

Res

pec

t fo

r h

um

an r

igh

ts,

emp

ower

men

t

‘Un

civi

l’ ef

fect

sD

emob

ilis

atio

n,

dis

enga

gem

ent,

d

isin

clin

atio

n

to j

oin

vo

lun

tary

or

gan

isat

ion

s

‘Pro

ject

isat

ion

’, in

stru

men

tali

sati

onO

rgan

ised

cr

imin

al g

rou

ps,

sp

ecia

l in

tere

st

grou

ps

Ris

e of

gro

up

s w

ith

exc

lusi

ve

ideo

logi

es,

eth

nic

/se

ctar

ian

se

gmen

tati

on,

corr

up

tion

Subs

titu

te f

or

loca

l ow

ner

ship

, ex

pre

ssio

n o

f sp

ecia

l p

olit

ical

/ec

onom

ic/

sect

aria

n

inte

rest

s

Fun

ctio

ns

as a

su

rrog

ate

stat

e,

mar

gin

alis

atio

n

of l

ocal

cu

ltu

ral

valu

es

12




social values against which civil society grows, reconfigures and sustains itself. And, in somewhat more mundane but nevertheless equally rel-evant aspects, physical destruction of war such as that of infrastructure stunts opportunities for communication and contact among people and organisations, and deprives individuals of economic self-sufficiency without which necessary autonomy of civil society actors from the state is unattainable. In that sense the armed conflicts in the Western Balkans which gave rise to seven new states (Kosovo included) against the com-peting nationalist projects, and in some cases accompanied by mass atrocities and economic devastation, have turned post-conflict recovery into a uniquely complex and complicated process of transforming pol-ity, economy, society, culture and institutions across the region.

Post-conflict transition subsumes several overlapping processes through which stabilisation of the Western Balkans has been pursued. Peace-building, state-building and post-war reconstruction each to a various degree concerns individual, society and the state, and operates on mul-tiple scales – from the local, to national and regional, involving numer-ous actors and institutions, both domestic and foreign. At the core of those three inter-related trajectories of post-conflict transition is strife towards institutionalisation of democracy and development as a way to achieve stable peace, and arguably as its condition, in line with the liberal peace paradigm framing the external engagement in the paci-fication of the region.82 Unlike in most former Communist countries where transition from one party polity and centrally planned economy of Communism progressed in the absence of armed violence, giving rise to a distinct set of concerns, issues and considerations, and hence determining the particular role of civil society in that context, post-Communist and post-conflict transitions in the Western Balkans have unfolded simultaneously. As a result of the twin and deeply intertwined dynamics of post-Communist and post-conflict transition, an extraordi-narily challenging environment with many contradictions, tensions but also opportunities for civil society activism has emerged, accommodat-ing its various arenas and their diverse range of actors and interests.

Insofar as a degree of analytical distinction among various elements of multiple transitions in the Western Balkans holds, each in itself denotes complex and often contradictory processes in terms of actors, timing/sequencing and the coherence of the purported goals, and poses a number of dilemmas both conceptually and practically.83 Although the agency of civil society is most strongly associated with democratisation,84 civil society is attributed an important role in all elements of post-conflict transition. The relations between civil society in its various meanings



14 Introduction

as a social value, a space for contestation and dialogue, a historical moment, an anti-state and anti-hegemony force,85 on the one hand; and peace-building, state-building and post-conflict reconstruction, respec-tively, on the other (and not unlike in the case of democratisation)86 are far from straightforward. A further level of complexity characteristic of those ambiguous relations stems from inherent tensions between and among various aspects of transition, with far-reaching implications for the evolution in civil society and the nature of its engagement.

Burnell,87 among others, commenting on the relation between peace-building and democratisation, has argued that democratisation in a post-conflict context permeated by fear, mistrust and economic vulner-ability may in fact rekindle divisiveness that led to the war in the first place. Against the conflict background, democratic elections can reaf-firm the parties and individuals active in war-time violence as observed most explicitly in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. Peace-building in turn, particularly in its short-term outlook, tends to reinforce elite poli-tics at the expense of democratisation as essentially a long-term process, which is attested across the region despite some country variation. Post-conflict reconstruction in its economic domain can strengthen vested interests of particular groups that benefited from the war economy, fuel corruption and enfeeble economic recovery. It can produce socially polarising growth characterised by social exclusion and poverty,88 and consequently aggravate poor participation in democratic process despite constitutional guarantees of political rights put in place as one of the pri-orities in democratic transition. Again, regional evidence in this respect is abundant. The goals of peace and democracy are likely to be under-mined as a result.

At the same time, all those dynamics can combine to erode state-building efforts. State-building can be strained further when, for exam-ple, incentives to seek access to public office for personal gain prevail as in the context when economic reconstruction fails to generate adequate livelihoods and secure social welfare, where peace-building and post-war reconstruction do not lead to significant improvement in the mate-rial base of the state given the neoliberal flavour of policies supported through international aid, and where peace- and democracy-building agendas are unsuccessful in their quest to forge a sense of allegiance to the new state. In turn, weak state institutions in terms of quality, scope and access to public services provision, from security, health, education to social protection, not only stifle peace-building outcomes but equally also affect democratisation and post-conflict reconstruction. The chan-nels through which this happens are many: through increasing citizens’




susceptibility to extremist politics in the face of insecurity in its various manifestations as the ‘peace dividend’ fails to permeate throughout society, through reinforcing ‘social autism’ and withdrawal from public life at the individual and community level, through cementing com-munal divisions established in the course of war, through an individu-al’s distancing from the state and its institutions and so on, ultimately leading to increased animosity towards and the resentment of participa-tion and the forms of associational life supportive of democratic peace. At the same time, as much as the incoherence and the contradictory nature of multiple transitions work to suppress and distort many a precondition deemed key for civil society to unleash its agency, those dynamics, and in particular the importance attached to civil society development by the international donors, open a range of opportuni-ties for civil society to assert its role. How then is civil society situated in such a context and what role does it play? What role should it play and how given the existing constraints? The aim of this volume is to capture the ambiguity of civil society, while accepting plural definitions of civil society, as an agent in multiple transitions as well as a variety of outcomes of its agency.

Book outline

The book is divided into three parts organised around three dimensions of transformation in the Western Balkans: state-building, democratisa-tion and post-conflict reconstruction. Each section contains academic contributions and concludes with a practitioner’s perspective, both as a reflection and a perspective in its own right, albeit from practice, on chal-lenges attendant in vesting civil society with the emancipatory role in the context of a simultaneous post-Communist and post-conflict trans-formation. The first section examines the way in which civil society has played an integral role in the process of state-building in the Western Balkans. In Chapter 1, John O’Brennan examines the relationship between the European Commission (the EU’s principal actor within the enlarge-ment process) and civil society in the Western Balkans region. He does so with the aim of understanding how the Commission engages with civil society and what, if any, role civil society has played within the unfolding Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP) and EU enlarge-ment. He argues that the EU’s engagement with the Western Balkans replicates the earlier patterns of the eastern enlargement process. Torn between the often mutually exclusive objectives of advancing the ‘qual-ity’ of enlargement and SAP-rooted local reforms versus encouraging



16 Introduction

a meaningful and substantive civil society participation in those reforms, the Commission has all too often favoured an elite-oriented, narrow, technocratic approach. Legitimisation of the EU integration process in the Western Balkans thus remains partial and incomplete.

Following on from this, Adam Fagan, in Chapter 2, examines the way in which the European Union has played a role in developing civil society in the region, specifically exploring the impact donor assist-ance has had in terms of environmental NGOs in post-conflict Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia. The chapter argues that donor funding seems to be exerting a positive longer-term impact on the transactional capacities of a small core of environmental NGOs in both locations. While this does not necessarily prove a positive relationship between donor funding and transactional capacity, it nevertheless challenges some of the more negative assessments that have been put forward about donor funding in existing literature, which have tended to take the view that many new NGOs were disconnected from indigenous networks, lacked sustainable resources and capacity, and were accountable to donors rather than citi-zens and governments. It is also suggested that much depends on the type of assistance delivered by donors: block grants and the combina-tion of various sources of donor revenue, rather than short-term funding tied to a specific project, enable NGOs to develop networks and facilitate interaction between state, non-state and economic actors.

Chapter 3, by Iavor Rangelov, explores the relationship between civil society and the rule of law in the Western Balkans in the new century. In particular, it investigates how civil society has shaped a range of legal institutions that tackle some of the most difficult issues inherited from the 1990s, such as citizenship, human rights protection and account-ability for war crimes committed in the course of the conflicts. The analysis focuses on a series of civil society contestations and interactions with the legal domain in Slovenia, Serbia and Croatia, and suggests that civil society has served both to undermine and reinforce the rule of law in the region. It concludes by highlighting the ambivalent normative and substantive contribution of civil society to the rule of law, as well as the role of civil society as an arena where the legitimacy of legal institu-tions is produced and contested.

The section concludes with an essay by Giulio Venneri, in which he examines and defends the European Union’s engagement with civil soci-ety. Arguing that it is more extensive than previous enlargement efforts, he notes that there has in fact been a high degree of emphasis placed on lessons learned. In addition, civil society is given a major role in the assessment process that all accession countries undergo.




The second part of the book examines the role of civil society in democ-ratisation. Chapter 5, by Stephanie Schwandner-Sievers, examines the controversial youth movement, VETËVENDOSJE! (‘Self-Determination’), and its charismatic leader, Albin Kurti. In 2010 charged with crimi-nal actions for a demonstration that turned violent in 2007, they have always defined themselves in terms of non-violence and as promoters of human rights and democracy in Kosovo. They have also rejected formal registration as an NGO but have turned into a political party. This con-tribution seeks to trace the varied ideological inspirations, mobilisation strategies and aims of the group as well as to identify the roots and lim-its of both its domestic appeal and its wider contestations. While both political and philosophical ideas from the far right and left are found to underpin the group’s ideology, it is argued that the movement’s appeal cannot be understood without paying attention to shared Albanian expe-riences of subjective disempowerment before, during and after the 1999 war. Most significantly, the contribution debates the implications and perspectives of the group’s ‘defiance’ strategy (identified as inspired by Gene Sharp’s methodological guidance for non-violent warfare against dictators). It concludes by querying the causes of the international agen-cies’ discomfort with the movement and outlining the structural basis of their vulnerability to accusations of being a new form of dictatorship, ‘anti-democratic’ and ‘neo-colonialist’.

Chapter 6 continues on this theme by asking what civil society means in Kosovo after years of underground socio-economic and political mobili-sation, and after almost a decade of international assistance and moni-toring. Francesco Strazzari and Ervjola Selenica delve into the ambivalence that characterises civic society and civic activism in post-independence Kosovo, noting that, on the one hand, it is a self-portrayed and avant-garde ‘progressive’ movement. However, it is also a thriving non-transparent phenomenon that has developed and evolves in proximity with existing interest groups, political clienteles and parties. While wholeheartedly embracing Western-liberal principles of participation, citizenship, individual and minority rights, even radical expressions of civic activism do not appear to distance themselves from the broader nationalist discourse that permeates Kosovo’s political life, and that has important consequences for the sustainability of regional geopolitical processes and for the European perspective of Kosovo.

In Chapter 7, Anita Brkanic explores whether diasporic organisations serve as catalysts or impediments to democratisation processes in their home countries. As is shown, Croatian NGOs, associations and chari-ties in the Diaspora generally pride themselves in working to promote



18 Introduction

democratic values and principles in the homeland, believing that they are fulfilling their goal of serving the best interests of both Croatians at home and their compatriots abroad. Nevertheless, the chapter high-lights some of the conflicting interests of these organisations, shedding light on the many controversies associated with the Croatian Diaspora, including the violation of one of the key principles of democracy – fair elections and voting rights. It also touches upon the role of the Diaspora in some current issues and debates regarding human rights, justice and accountability in the context of Croatia’s EU accession path.

As far as civil society is concerned, the Republic of Macedonia is not an exception when it comes to the general development of post-Communist societies. As Nenad Markovic shows in Chapter 8, despite facing a number of formal and substantial weaknesses, civil society organisations in Macedonia started flourishing after the improvement of the legal framework, and in the aftermath of the Kosovo crisis in 1999, and the ethnic conflict in the country in 2001. However, the develop-ment of civil society in the last five years has taken a turn for the worse. Besides the formal problems present in all post-Communist societies, civil society in Macedonia has displayed forms of incivility in the last half decade, gradually shifting towards ‘uncivil society’. Although sud-den, this occurrence has its roots in the general political attitudes of civil society, the attitudes towards marginalised groups of society (especially sexual minorities), as well as the ethnic and religious barriers and stereo-types rooted in the social order. Thus, phenomena such as the politi-cal instrumentalisation of civil society, inadequate activism as well as ethnic/religious agency occur, changing the nature of the Macedonian civil society from post-Communist to uncivil, for the most part. Moreover, violence, the ultimate form of incivility, has also emerged.

The second section concludes with an essay by Joanna Hanson. As she argues, the process of transition in the Western Balkans follows on from the process of transition that occurred in Central and Eastern Europe following the fall of Communism. There is therefore a considerable wealth of experience open to policymakers as they seek to engage with, and lead, civil society actors – even if the process is complicated by the legacy of conflict in the region and the lack of what can be termed ‘transition brokers’.

The third section examines the role of civil society in post-conflict reconstruction. In Chapter 10, Gemma Collantes-Celador presents a case study of the UN certification process, which aimed at downsizing and ‘cleaning’ the Bosnian police forces of war criminals and others guilty of illegal or criminal activities. Officially concluded at the end of 2002, this




process has been kept alive in recent years by the activities of certain associations, such as the Federation Association of Decertified Policemen and the RS Association of Decertified Policemen, which have contested the outcome of the process on the grounds that it was conducted in an undemocratic manner. These two associations have successfully waged both legal and political battles to change the policy and the legislation. This episode is remarkable for what it teaches us about the process of democratising police forces in a post-conflict setting, but also the capacity of civil society to question the legitimacy of this process and ask for accountability from the international community for their wrongdoings.

The next contribution also examines the role of civil society in secu-rity sector reform. In Chapter 11, Jens Narten scrutinises the process by which the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC) came into being and was later dissolved after a period of ten years of international peace-building in Kosovo. Although the KPC was widely understood to be the demo-bilised successor organisation to the former Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), and therefore as an army in waiting, it was officially established as a civil society actor tasked with humanitarian disaster relief and emergency response. Following on from this, after Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia, the KPC was itself demobilised through a special socio-economic reintegration programme that was implemented by a local NGO. What is of special interest about this case from a civil society perspective is the process whereby a civil protection actor is developed in order to demobilise an armed group, and then this actor is forced to demobilise and resettle its members once again. Aside from the security implications of this process, as will be seen, this programme also highlights the ambiguous role and impact of a civil protection actor in the post-conflict environment in Kosovo.

The last two chapters explore issues relating to transitional justice and the role of civil society. In Chapter 12, Jelena Obradovic-Wochnik exam-ines the claim that Serbia has been unsuccessful in confronting its past with regard to war crimes committed in the 1990s in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. As is shown, civil society groups have come to the fore by these efforts, setting the benchmarks for the process. The problem is that the approach adopted by these groups assumes that individuals and groups not replicating the NGO-led discourse about the past are also failing to confront it. As this chapter argues, though, confronting the past does take place in private spheres. However, these voices were largely excluded from the general dialogue in the past, because they often reject civil society initiatives and external transitional justice mechanisms such



20 Introduction

as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Thus ‘coming to terms with the past’ in Serbia is not quite an open dia-logue as yet. Rather, it remains an elite, NGO-led project.

In Chapter 13, Mladen Ostojic also examines the role of domestic human rights groups in promoting truth-telling in Serbia since 2000. It considers transitional justice as a policy that seeks to enforce interna-tional standards of accountability in post-authoritarian and post-conflict states. The imposition of this policy on reluctant states through inter-national judicial intervention renders transitional justice potentially at odds with domestic political arrangements. In situations where it faces opposition from domestic political elites, the international community often has to rely on civil society organisations in order to advance the transitional justice agenda at the national level. In the case of Serbia specifically, human rights organisations have been a domestic vector for transitional justice policy implemented through The Hague tribu-nal (ICTY). This contribution looks at these organisations’ attempts to advance transitional justice on the domestic political agenda. It focuses, in particular, on the strategies deployed by human rights groups to pro-mote the process of ‘coming to terms with the past’ and their repercus-sions on truth-telling in Serbia.

Finally, the third section concludes with an essay by Florence Hartmann. She argues that the failures of civil society to play a full part in post-conflict reconstruction must be weighed against the failures of a range of domestic, regional and international actors. Civil society is just one part of the equation, albeit a part that must necessarily play a crucial role in holding these other actors to account for their actions – or for lack of action.

In the conclusion, James Ker-Lindsay summarises contradictory impacts of civil society in the Western Balkans in disparate national contexts underpinned, nonetheless, by a common multiple transition in each case. He reflects on constraints located in the civil society as well as those located in the fragile and fragmented post-conflict state as the enabling framework for civil society’s development and impact on the course of transition.

Notes

1. The authors thank Sabine Selchow and Mary Kaldor for useful comments on an earlier draft of this chapter.

2. C. Offe (1991) ‘Capitalism by Democratic Design? Democratic Theory Facing the Triple Transition in East Central Europe’, Social Research, 58(4), pp. 865–982.




3. L. Diamond (1994) ‘Toward Democratic Consolidation’, Journal of Democracy, 5(2), pp. 4–17.

4. P. M. Pickering (2007) Peacebuilding in the Balkans: The View from the Ground Floor (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press); R. Belloni (2007) Statebuilding and International Intervention in Bosnia (London and New York: Routledge).

5. N. Chandhoke (1995) State and Civil Society: Explorations in Political Theory (New Delhi/Thousand Oaks/London: Sage Publications), p. 33.

6. M. Kaldor (2003) Global Civil Society: An Answer to War (Cambridge: Polity), p. 16.

7. J. Keane (1988) ‘Despotism and Democracy: The Origins and Development of the Distinction between Civil Society and the State 1750–1850’, in J. Keane (ed.) Civil Society and the State: New European Perspective (London: The University of Westminster Press), pp. 35–71.

8. E. Shils (1991) ‘The Virtue of Civil Society’, Government and Opposition, 26(1), pp. 3–20, see pp. 6–7.

9. D. Kostovicova and V. Bojicic-Dzelilovic (2009) ‘Conclusion: Persistent State Weakness and Issues for Research, Methodology and Policy’, in D. Kostovicova and V. Bojicic-Dzelilovic (eds) Persistent State Weakness in the Global Age (Aldershot: Ashgate), pp. 197–205; H. Zinecker (2009) ‘Regime-Hybridity in Developing Countries: Achievements and Limitations of New Research on Transitions’, International Studies Review, 11(2), pp. 301–31.

10. K. Kumar (1993) ‘Civil Society: An Inquiry into the Usefulness of an Historical Term’, The British Journal of Sociology, 44(3), pp. 336–67, pp. 375–95; P. Hallberg and B. Wittrock (2006) ‘From Koinonía Politiké to Societas Civilis: Birth, Disapperance and First Renaissance of the Concept’, in P. Wagner (ed.) The Languages of Civil Society (Berghahn Books: New York and Oxford), pp. 28–51.

11. C. Taylor (1990) ‘Modes of Civil Society’, Public Culture, 3(1), pp. 95–118, see p. 102.

12. A. B. Seligman (2002) ‘Civil Society as Idea and Ideal’, in S. Chambers and W. Kymlicka (eds) Alternative Conceptions of Civil Society (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press), pp. 16–17.

13. B. Parekh (2004) ‘Putting Civil Society in its Place’, in M. Glasius, D. Lewis and H. Seckinelgin (eds) Exploring Civil Society: Political and Cultural Contexts (London and New York: Routledge), pp. 15–25, see p. 16.

14. Chandhoke (1995), op. cit., p. 92.15. J. Ehrenberg (1999) Civil Society: The Critical History of an Idea (New York and

London: New York University Press), p. 124.16. Taylor (1990), op. cit., p. 111.17. Kaldor (2003), op. cit., p. 8.18. Chandhoke (1995), op. cit., p. 117.19. Keane (1988), op. cit.20. Kumar (1993), op. cit., p. 337.21. Taylor (1990), op. cit., p. 107.22. Taylor (1990), op. cit., p. 114.23. N. Deakin (2001) In Search of Civil Society (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan),

p. 86–9.24. R. D. Putnam (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy

(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press); R. D. Putnam (2000) Bowling



22 Introduction

Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster).

25. J. Femia (2001) ‘Civil Society and the Marxist Tradition’, in S. Kaviraj and S. Khilnani (eds) Civil Society: History and Possibilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 131–46, see p. 135.

26. Parekh (2004), op. cit., p. 18.27. Chandhoke (1995), op. cit., p. 138.28. Ehrenberg (1999), op. cit., p. 143.29. H. Anheier, M. Glasius and M. Kaldor (2001) ‘Introducing Global Civil

Society’, in Global Civil Society Yearbook 2001 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 3–21, see p. 13.

30. M. Edwards (2009) Civil Society (Cambridge: Polity Press), pp. 24–5.31. Shils (1991), op. cit.32. Edwards (2009), op. cit., pp. 24–30.33. R. C. Post and N. L. Rosenblum (2002) ‘Introduction’, in N. L. Rosenblum

and R. C. Post (eds) Civil Society and Government (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press), pp. 1–25, see p. 11.

34. Kumar (1993), op. cit., p. 386.35. Kumar (1993), op. cit., p. 391. For an overview of a distinction between

civil and political society and its implications, see J. L. Cohen and A. Arato (1994) Civil Society and Political Theory (Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press), pp. 77–82.

36. Ehrenberg (1999), op. cit., pp. 124–32.37. M. Waltzer (2002) ‘Equality and Civil Society’, in S. Chambers and W. Kymlicka

(eds) Alternative Conceptions of Civil Society (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press), pp. 34–49,37; cf. Parekh (2004), op. cit., p. 23.

38. V. Havel (1985) ‘The Power of the Powerless’, in J. Keane (ed.) The Power of the Powerless: Citizens against the State in Central-Eastern Europe (London: Hutchinson).

39. A. Michnik (1985) Letters from Prison and Other Essays (Berkeley: University of California Press).

40. V. Benda, Milan Šimecka, Ivan M. Jirous, Jirí Dienstbier, Václav Havel, Ladislav Hejdánek, Jan Šimsa and Paul Wilson (1988) ‘Parallel Polis, or an Independent Society in Central and Eastern Europe: An Inquiry’, Social Research, 55(1–2), pp. 211–46.

41. G. Konrád (1984) Antipolitics: An Essay (San Diego/New York/London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovic).

42. Taylor (1990), op. cit., p. 115.43. J. Steffek (2003) ‘The Legitimation of International Governance: A Discourse

Approach’, European Journal of International Relations, 9(2), pp. 249–75.44. M. Kaldor (2003) Global Civil Society: An Answer to War (Cambridge: Polity),

pp. 36–8.45. J. A. Hall and F. Trentmann (2005) ‘Contests over Civil Society: Introductory

Perspectives’, in J. A. Hall and F. Trentmann (eds) Civil Society: A Reader in History, Theory and Global Politics (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 1–25, see p. 3; J. Keane (1998) Civil Society: Old Images, New Visions (Cambridge: Polity Press), p. 37.

46. J. Goody (2001) ‘Civil Society in an Extra-European Perspective’, in S. Kaviraj and S. Khilnani (eds) Civil Society: History and Possibilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 149–64.




47. Parekh (2004), op. cit., p. 22.48. Parekh (2004), op. cit., p. 23.49. M. E. Keck and K. Sikkink (1998) Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks

in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).50. C. Spurk (2010) ‘Understanding Civil Society’, in T. Paffenholz (ed.) Civil

Society and Peacebuilding (Boulder, CO/London: Lynne Rienner Publishers), pp. 3–27, see pp. 20–6.

51. A. Fagan (2010) Europe’s Balkan Dilemma: Paths to Civil Society or State-Building? (London: I. B. Taurus).

52. M. van Leeuwen (2009) Partners in Peace: Discourses and Practices of Peacebuilding (Farnham: Ashgate).

53. Kumar (1993), op. cit., p. 376.54. Edwards (2009), op. cit., p. 46.55. Shils (1991), op. cit., p. 15.56. Hall and Trentmann (2005), op. cit., pp. 3–4.57. H. K. Anheier (2011) ‘Civility in Global Civil Society: The Missing Link’, in

D. Kostovicova and M. Glasius (eds) Bottom-Up Politics: Agency-Centred Approach to Globalisation (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 50–60, see p. 55.

58. Keane (1998), op. cit., p. 135.59. Shils (1991), op. cit., p. 10.60. P. Kopecký and C. Mudde (2003) ‘Rethinking Civil Society’, Democratisation,

10(3), pp. 1–14; cf. Per Mouritsen, ‘What’s the Civil in Civil Society? Robert Putnam, Italy and the Republican Tradition’, Political Studies, 51(4), pp. 650–68, see pp. 658–61.

61. Edwards (2009), op. cit., pp. 48–9.62. S. Berman (1997) ‘Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic’,

World Politics, 49(3), pp. 401–29; A. Ikelegbe (2001) ‘The Perverse Manifestation of Civil Society: Evidence from Nigeria’, The Journal of Modern African Studies, 39(1), pp. 1–24; K. M. Dowley and B. D. Silver (2002) ‘Social Capital, Ethnicity and Support for Democracy in the Post-Communist States’, Europe–Asia Studies, 54(4), pp. 505–27.

63. R. Rose (2001) ‘When Government Fails: Social Capital in an Antimodern Russia’, in B. Edwards, M. W. Foley and M. Diani (eds) Beyond Tocqueville: Civil Society and the Social Capital Debate in Comparative Perspective (Hanover/London: Tufts University), pp. 56–69; M. Lagerspetz (2001) ‘From “Parallel Polis” to “The Time of the Tribes”: Post-Socialism, Social Self-Organisation and Post-Modernity’, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 17(2), pp. 1–18.

64. Edwards (2009), op. cit., pp. 52–4; M. Kaldor, D. Kostovicova and Y. Said (2006) ‘War and Peace: The Role of Global Civil Society’, in M. Kaldor, H. K. Anheier and M. Glasius (eds) Global Civil Society 2006/7 (London: Sage), pp. 94–119.

65. J. Howell and J. Pearce (2001) Civil Society and Development: A Critical Exploration (Boulder, CO/London: Lynne Rienner Publishers), p. 114.

66. S. Sampson (1996) ‘The Social Life of Projects: Importing Civil Society to Albania’, in C. Hann and E. Dunn (eds) Civil Society: Challenging Western Models (London: Routledge), pp. 121–42.

67. P. Jones Luong and E. Weinthal (1999) ‘The NGO Paradox: Democratic Goals and Non-Democratic Outcomes in Kazakhstan’, Europe–Asia Studies, 51(7), pp. 1267–84.



24 Introduction

68. Kaldor, Kostovicova and Said (2006), op. cit., p. 111.69. A. Devic (2008) ‘Civil Society in the Focus of Foreign Aid in Kosovo: Exports

of Peace and Multiculturalism to Nation-Building Sites’, in D. Kostovicova and V. Bojicic-Dzelilovic (eds) Transnationalism in the Balkans (London/New York: Routledge).

70. Howell and Pearce (2001), op. cit., p. 117.71. Howell and Pearce (2001), op. cit., p. 118.72. A. Ishkanian (2007) ‘Democracy Promotion and Civil Society’, in M. Albrow,

M. Glasius, H. K. Anheier and M. Kaldor (eds) Global Civil Society 2007/8: Communicative Power and Democracy (London: Sage), p. 72.

73. J. A. Hall (2003) ‘Reflections on the Making of Civility in Society’, in F. Trentmann (ed.) Paradoxes of Civil Society: New Perspectives on Modern German and British History (New York and Oxford: Berghan Books, 2nd edition), p. 51; cf. Kumar (1993), op. cit., p. 388.

74. B. Pouligny (2006) Peace Operations Seen from Below: UN Missions and Local People (Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press).

75. L. Whitehead (2004) ‘Bowling in the Bronx: The Uncivil Interstices between Civil and Political Society’, in P. Burnell and P. Calvert (eds) Civil Society in Democratisation (London/Portland, OR: Frank Cass), p. 32.

76. D. Kostovicova (2006) ‘Civil Society and Post-Communist Democratisation: Facing a Double Challenge in Post-Miloševic Serbia’, Journal of Civil Society, 2(1), pp. 21–37.

77. J. J. Linz and A. Stepan (1996) Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe (Baltimore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press), p. 16.

78. D. Kostovicova and V. Bojicic-Dzelilovic (eds) (2011) Persistent State Weakness in the Global Age (Aldershot: Ashgate).

79. Alvarez makes this point in relation to the Andean region in Latin America. L. Alvarez (2004) ‘Civil Society in Latin America: Uncivil, Liberal and Participatory Models’, in M. Glasius, D. Lewis and H. Seckinelgin (eds) Exploring Civil Society: Political and Cultural Contexts (London/New York: Routledge), p. 58.

80. M. Abdelrahman (2008) Civil Society Exposed: The Politics of NGOs in Egypt (London/NewYork: Routledge); A. Oluwakayode Adekson (2004) The ‘Civil Society’ Problematique: Deconstructing Civility and Southern Nigeria’s Ethnic Radicalisation (London/New York: Routledge); M. Morje Howard (2003) The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); D. N. Gellner (ed.) (2009) Ethnic Activism and Civil Society in South Asia (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage); J. Shefner (2008) The Illusion of Civil Society: Democratisation and Community Mobilisation in Low-Income Mexico (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University); A. Ogawa (2009) The Failure of Civil Society? The Third Sector and the State in Contemporary Japan (Albany, NY: SUNY Press); V. Beittinger-Lee (2009) Civil Society and Political Change in Indonesia: Dangerous Diversity (London: Routledge).

81. van Leeuwen (2009), op. cit.; Burnell and Calvert (2004), op. cit.; T. Paffenholz (ed.) (2010) Civil Society and Peacebuilding (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers); W. Benedeck (ed.) (2006) Civil Society and Good Governance in Societies in Transition (Belgrade: Belgrade Centre for Human Rights); A. Uhlin (2006) Post-Soviet Civil Society: Democratisation in Russia and Baltic States




(London: Routledge); P. Baert, K. Sokratis, G. Procacci and C. Ruzza (eds) (2010) Conflict, Citizenship and Civil Society (Abingdon/New York: Routledge); H. Strang and J. Braithwaite (eds) (2001) Restorative Justice and Civil Society (New York: Cambridge University Press).

82. For the most recent debates on liberal peace and the role of civil society, see for example S. Tadjbakhsh (ed.) (2011) Rethinking the Liberal Peace (Abingdon/New York: Routledge) and O. Richmond (2011) A Post-Liberal Peace (Abingdon/New York: Routledge).

83. See R. Paris and T. Sisk (eds) (2009) The Dilemmas of Statebuilding: Confronting the Contradictions of Postwar Peace Operations (Abingdon/New York: Routledge); T. Paffenholz (ed.) (2010) Civil Society and Peacebuilding: A Critical Assessment (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers); E. Chenoweth and A. Lawrence (eds) (2010) Rethinking Violence: States and Non-State Actors in Conflict (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press); van Leeuwen (2009), op. cit.; C. T. Call with V. Wyeth (eds) (2008) Building States to Build Peace (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers); V. Bojicic-Dzelilovic (2002) ‘The World Bank, NGOs and Private Sector in Post-War Reconstruction’, International Peacekeeping, 9(2), pp. 81–98.

84. A. Clayton (ed.) (1996) NGOs, Civil Society and the State: Building Democracy in Transitional Societies (Oxford: Intrac).

85. This overview of the various meanings in which the literature uses the notion of civil society is provided in A. van Rooy (ed.) (1998) Civil Society and the Aid Industry (London: Earthscan).

86. J. Snyder (2000) From Voting to Violence: Democratisation and Nationalist Conflict (New York/London: W. W. Norton and Co.).

87. P. Burnell (2009) ‘The Coherence of Democratic Peacebuilding’, in T. Addison and T. Bruck (eds) Making Peace Work: The Challenges of Social and Economic Reconstruction (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).

88. V. Bojicic-Dzelilovic (2009) ‘Peacebuilding in Bosnia: Reflections on the Development-Democracy Link’, in R. Paris, O. Richmond and D. Newman (eds) New Perspectives on Liberal Peace (New York: WIDER).



265

Index

AAcademy for Educational

Development (AED), 138Accession Treaty, 87active citizens, 213actors, civil society, 3, 6–8Affair, Rywin, 173Ahtisaariane (‘Ahtisaarian’), 98Albania, 170Albanian society

democratisation through defiance, 95–110. See also Self-determination Movement (Lëvizje VETËVENDOSJE!), Kosovo

Albert Einstein Institution, 104America

and Croatia civil society institutions, political role in. See Diaspora dilemma

‘anti-corruption,’ 125‘apartheid,’ Kosovo and, 120Aristotle, 4Article 81 of the Aliens Act, 74, 75Association of Decertified Policemen,

177, 178. See also policemen, in Bosnia-Herzegovia

Associations, NGOs and, 132

BThe Balkan Civil Society Development

Network, 39Balkan Insight, 36‘Ban Ki-Moon’s six-point plan,’ 126B92 broadcasting network, 221,

223–4Bekaj, A., 121Belgrade, nationalism in, 120, 121Belgrade Centre for Human Rights,

210–11besa, 103, 104Bieber, Florian, 180Biserko, Sonja, 240

Bonn Powers, 189Boraine, Alex, 231–2Bosnia-Herzegovina, 14, 38

EU assistance to, NGOs/CSOs and, 47–8. See also institutionalisation

Bosnia-Herzegovina, 14, 38, 177–90civil society in, 179–82Constitutional Court, 189decertified policemen, 185–90EU assistance to, NGOs/CSOs

and, 47–8, 53–64. See also institutionalisation

NGOs in, 179–82overview, 177–9police certification process, 182–5population, 179

Bosnian Genocide case, 240Burmali mosque, 164

CCAA. See Croatian American

Association (CAA)Canton, Tuzla, 181‘capacity-building,’ 42Caparini, Marina, 177–8CARDS. See Community Assistance

for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation (CARDS)

Catholic Association Mother Teresa (MTA), 121–2

CEE. See Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)

Çeku, 199Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), 29,

33, 36, 51Central Europe, 171certification process, of police, 182–5Chelikowski, J., 118Church, 173Cicero, 4citizenship

and human rights in Slovenia, 73–6Civic Alliance of Serbia, 232



266 Index

‘civic resistance,’ 118civility, civil society vs., 8–11civil society

actors, 3, 6–8in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 179–82building and promotion

programmes, 1–2celebratory approach, 214challenge of multiple transitions,

11, 13–15civility vs., 8–11concept of, 3, 9in Croatia, 136–9defined, 3European Commission and,

35–6. See also European Commission, enlargement policy and civil society in Western Balkans

European integration and, 30–2globalisation, 1history, 3–5in Kosovo, 197–8legal institutions and, 71–81meanings, 6–8, 13–14in multiple transitions, 11, 12overview, 1–2post-conflict transition, 13promotion in Western Balkans,

85–92roles, 6–8state–society distinction, tracing,

3–6transition from Communism, 1

Civil Society Facility (CSF), 38–9civil society organisations (CSO),

30–1, 39, 47, 85, 91in Croatia, diaspora and, 136–9.

See also Diaspora dilemmadiaspora, 140–4EU and civil society promotion in

Western Balkans, 88, 91civil society organisations (CSO),

in post-independence Kosovo, 117–32

after state independence, 125–9after war, towards independence,

122–5defined, 118–19

IGOs. See international governmental organisations (IGO)

INGOs. See international NGOs (INGO)

NGOs. See non-governmental organizations (NGO)

from ‘parallel force’ to base for liberal democracy, 119–22

‘cognitive dissonance,’ 36Commission Delegations, 87–8Communism, 1Community Assistance for

Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation (CARDS), 47, 53

Council for the Defence of Human Rights and Freedoms (KMDLNJ), 119, 121

Council of Europe (CoE), 72, 190, 232‘coupling,’ 52credibility gap, 180Croatia

and America civil society institutions, political role in. See Diaspora dilemma

breakdown of rule of law, 77civil society in, 136–9CSO, diaspora and, 136–9current human rights record,

diaspora on, 146–9diaspora’s political role in 1990s,

139–40EU’s enlargement policy, 38overview, 135–6war crimes trials in, 76–81

Croatian American Association (CAA), 147

Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), 142, 144, 145, 146

Croatian Diaspora, 135–6. See also Croatia

Croatian National Bank, 143Croatian World Congress (CWC), 139,

143, 148Croatian Worldwide Association

(CWA), 147–8CSF. See Civil Society Facility (CSF)CSO. See Civil society organisations

(CSO)



Index 267

CTVMost, 57CWA. See Croatian Worldwide

Association (CWA)

DDayton Agreement in 1995, 29, 38Dayton Peace Accords, 170, 183decision-making, 30, 31, 36, 42, 49,

50, 51Demaçi, Adem, 106democracy

key principles of, diaspora and, 144–9

democratic deficit, 35, 44Democratic League of Kosovo (LDK),

120–1Democratic Party (DS), 239democratisation

peace-building and, 14through defiance, Albanian society,

95–110democratisation, in homeland

Croatian–American civil society institutions, political role. See Diaspora dilemma

Denica, 165de Tocqueville, Alexis, 5Diaspora dilemma, Croatia, 135–51

CSOs in, 136–9current human rights record and,

146–9diaspora CSO, 140–4key principles of democracy and,

144–9political role in 1990s, 139–40voting rights and fair elections, 144–6

Dimitrijevic, Nenad, 219Dimitrijevic, Vojin, 232–3Directorate General for Enlargement,

89, 90DUGA, 63

EEAR. See European Agency for

Reconstruction (EAR)Early Warning Report, 160EIDHR. See European Instrument for

Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)

Ekotim, 64Electricity Production and

Distribution Company (ESM), 162emotional dysfunction, 212Employment Promotion Agency in

Kosovo (APPK), 204Enlargement Package documents, 85enlargement policy

European Union’s, and civil society in Western Balkans, 29–44

Enlargement Strategy in 2007, 382010 Enlargement Strategy Paper, 37ESI. See European Stability Initiative

(ESI)ESM. See Electricity Production and

Distribution Company (ESM)‘ethno-territorial rights,’ 118EU. See European Union (EU)EU Delegations, 87–8, 89EULEX, 127European Agency for Reconstruction

(EAR), 53European Commission, enlargement

policy and civil society in Western Balkans, 29–44

‘customary enlargement practice,’ 33

eastern enlargement, 34goals of Commission, 35–6PHARE democracy programme,

34–5roles, 32–5sources, 33

European Convention of Human Rights, 189

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 72

European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), 38, 47, 53

European Parliament, 33, 34European Stability Initiative (ESI), 183European Union (EU), 71, 173

acquis, 87assistance to Bosnia, Herzegovina

and Serbia, 47–8, 53–64. See also institutionalisation

enlargement policy and civil society in Western Balkans, 29–44



268 Index

European Union (EU) – continuedintegration and civil society, 30–2NGOs, 31performative and representative

functions, 31political influence, 32promotion in Western Balkans,

85–92EU Stabilisation and Association

Process, 170external institutionalisation, 55–6

Ffacing the past, 212Faculty of Architecture in Skopje,

165–6Fagan, Adam, 179fair elections, diaspora and, 144–6Ferguson, Adam, 4, 213Ferraj, Hysamedin, 128FeR (‘the new spirit’), 128–9flag day, 103Fondacija lokalne demokratije, 58,

63–4FOSIM. See Foundation Open Society

Institute – Macedonia (FOSIM)Foundation Open Society Institute –

Macedonia (FOSIM), 156foundations, NGOs and, 132n12Free Ante Gotovina, 148Freedom House, 124–5, 163From Dictatorship to Democracy:

A Conceptual Framework for Liberation, 104

GGazeta Wyborcza, 173GDR. See German Democratic

Republic (GDR)Genocide, Srebrenica, 238–43. See also

SrebrenicaGeorge Soros, 36German Democratic Republic (GDR),

173Glavaš, Branimir, 148–9Gotovina, Ante, 147–8governance

concept of, 48government vs., 48–9

hierarchies, 49–50new modes of, 49–50power, 49–50relations between actors, 49state–non-state nexus in post-

socialist states, 50–3‘governance beyond the state’

analysis, 50government

governance vs., 48–9Gramsci, Antonio, 5, 6Gregorian, Raffi, 189Gusia, Linda, 123

HHDZ. See Croatian Democratic Union

(HDZ)Hegel, 4, 5, 6Helsinki Committee for Human

Rights, 164, 213Herzegovina. See Bosnia-Herzegovinahierarchies

governance, 49–50HLC. See Humanitarian Law Centre

(HLC)Hobbes, Thomas, 4Hockenos, Paul, 142Homeland War, 77, 78Hoxha, Elvis, 128Hucheson, Francis, 213Humanitarian Law Centre (HLC), 79,

238human rights

record of Croatia, diaspora on, 146–9

in Slovenia, 73–6human rights abuses, 230Human Rights Ombudsman, 74, 76human rights violations, 121Huntington, Samuel, 43, 141Hysa, Armanda, 98

IICJ. See International Court of Justice

(ICJ)ICO. See International Civilian Office

(ICO)ICRS. See Information Counselling

and Referral Service (ICRS)



Index 269

ICTY. See International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

IDPs. See internally displaced persons (IDPs)

IFIs. See international financial institutions (IFI)

Information Counselling and Referral Service (ICRS), 200

In Search of Truth and Responsibility – Towards a Democratic Future, 233

institutionalisationcentralisation and, 55defined, 55engagement in governance networks

(hypotheses 2 and 3), 61–4external, 55–6internal, 55professionalisation and

sustainability of recipient NGOs (hypotheses 1 and 4), 56–9

professionalism and, 55focus on policy, 59–61

Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), 38, 86

interethnic conflict in Macedonia, 161interethnic relations in Macedonia,

160–1Interim Administrative Council, 124internal institutionalisation, 55internally displaced persons (IDPs), 54International Civilian Office (ICO),

203international community, 126, 170–1,

230International Court of Justice (ICJ), 240International Criminal Tribunal for

Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 72, 147, 148, 210–11, 230–1

international financial institutions (IFI), 48

international governmental organisations (IGO)

in Kosovo, 123international NGOs (INGO)

in Kosovo, 123International Organisation for

Migration (IOM), 200

International Police Task Force (IPTF), 177, 182–5

‘intifada,’ Kosovo and, 120IOM. See International Organisation

for Migration (IOM)IPA. See Instrument for Pre-Accession

Assistance (IPA)IPTF. See International Police Task

Force (IPTF)

JJanus-faced approach, 41JIAS. See Joint Interim Administrative

Structure ( JIAS), 197

KKAN. See Kosovo Action Network

(KAN)Kandic, Nataša, 223, 239–40Keane, John, 161KLA. See Kosovo Liberation Army

(KLA)Klan TV, 128KMDLNJ. See Council for the Defence

of Human Rights and Freedoms (KMDLNJ)

Koha Ditore, 129Kohler Koch, Beate, 30–1Koinonía politiké, 4Kosovo, 14, 38

civil society in, 197–8KPC. See Kosovo Protection Corps

(KPC)Lëvizje VETËVENDOSJE! (‘Self-

determination Movement’), 96–110. See also Self-determination Movement (Lëvizje VETËVENDOSJE!), Kosovo

Kosovo, post-independencenationalism and civil society

organisations in. See civil society organisations (CSO); Nationalism

Kosovo Action Network (KAN), 104

Kosovo Albanians, 197–8Kosovo Army, 199Kosovo Force (KFOR), 198



270 Index

Kosovo Internal Security Sectors Review (KISSR), 202–3

Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), 96, 196

Kosovo Police Service (KPS), 199Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC), 196–7

formation, 198–201renegotiating deal, 201–3stand-down of, 203–4

Kosovo Protection Corps Training Programme (KPCTP), 200

Kosovo Security Force (KSF), 203KPC. See Kosovo Protection Corps

(KPC)KPC Resettlement Programme

(KPCRP), 204KPCRP. See KPC Resettlement

Programme (KPCRP)KPCTP. See Kosovo Protection Corps

Training Programme (KPCTP)KPS. See Kosovo Police Service (KPS)Krstic, Radoslav, 240Kuric and Others v. Slovenia, 76Kuron, Jacek, 213Kurti, Albin, 97, 106, 126

Llanguage users, 222LDK. See Democratic League of

Kosovo (LDK)League of Prizren, 103, 121Lëvizje VETËVENDOSJE! (‘Self-

determination Movement’). See Self-determination Movement (Lëvizje VETËVENDOSJE!), Kosovo

Llamazares, M., 120–1Locke, John, 4Love is Love, 163

MMacedonia, 155–67

interethnic conflict in, 161interethnic relations in, 160–1language, 165March of Tolerance, 163–4NGOs, 162–3overview, 155–6political orientations, 158–9

post-Communist syndrome, 156–8religious agency, 164–5sexual orientation, 164uncivil society, 161–3violence, 165–7vulnerable and marginalised social

groups in, 159young population in, 159–60

Macedonian Association for Free Sexual Orientation (MASSO), 164

Macedonian conflict (2001), 173Macedonian Orthodox Church, 166Makolli, Ibrahim, 121March of Tolerance, 163–4marginalised social groups in

Macedonia. See vulnerable social groups in Macedonia

Marx, Karl, 5Massacre, Srebrenica. See SrebrenicaMASSO. See Macedonian Association

for Free Sexual Orientation (MASSO)

memory-making process, 222Mesic, Stipe, 78Michnik, Adam, 213Mill, John Stuart, 1442.0 modus interagendi, 88, 89–92MTA. See Catholic Association Mother

Teresa (MTA)multiple transitions, in civil society,

11, 12challenge of, 11, 13–15

Municipality of Centar, 164

NNakarada, Radmila, 235narratives, in facing the past, 218–24

contradiction, 221–2National Endowment for Democracy,

145National Federation of Croatian

Americans (NFCA), 139, 146National Foundation for Civil Society

Development (NFCSD), 138nationalism, in post-independence

Kosovo, 117–32. See also civil society organisations (CSO)

from ‘parallel force’ to base for liberal democracy, 119–22



Index 271

NATO Membership Action Plans, 170Network of Albanian Organisations,

127The New York Times, 98NFCA. See National Federation of

Croatian Americans (NFCA)NFCSD. See National Foundation

for Civil Society Development (NFCSD)

NGO. See non-governmental organisations (NGO)

‘NGO-isation,’ 41non-governmental organisations

(NGO), 210–14in Bosnia, 179–82EU, 31EU and civil society promotion in

Western Balkans, 88, 91EU assistance to Bosnia-Herzegovina

and Serbia, 47–8as key actors, 214–18in Macedonia, 162–3

non-governmental organisations (NGO), in Kosovo, 123–5

associations and, 132n12CSO and, 118–19foundations and, 132n12

OO’Brennan, John, 90oda, 105, 106Office of the High Representative

(OHR) Bonn Powers, 182, 183, 185, 187, 188, 189

Ohrid Agreement, 170Open Society, 36Open Society Institute (OSI), 231ORA, 128–9, 133n35ordinary citizens, 219Organization for Security and

Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), 72, 124, 145

OSCE. See Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)

PPaine, Thomas, 162peace-building

democratisation and, 14

‘peace dividend,’ 15People-Centred Analysis, 160People to People (P2P)

Programme, 90objectives, 90

Perovic, Latinka, 232PHARE democracy programme, 34

objectives, 34–5Ploštad Sloboda (Freedom Square),

166pluralism, 10, 31Podujevo case, 79, 80Poland, 172police abuse, 121policemen, in Bosnia and Herzegovia

certification process, 182–5decertified policemen, 185–90

Police Restructuring process (2004–8), 181–2

political opportunity structure (POS), 30

Political Order in Changing Societies, 43

Politika, 220Ponte, Carla Del, 148POS. See political opportunity

structure (POS)post-conflict reconstruction, 170–4post-conflict transition, 13post-socialist states

state–non-state nexus in, 50–3power

governance, 49–50P2P. See People to People (P2P)

Programmeprofessionalism, institutionalisation

and, 55focus on policy, 59–61sustainability of recipient NGOs,

56–9Progress Reports, EU, 88–9‘project culture,’ 95Protestant Church, 173Prva arhibrigada, 166publications

Self-determination Movement (Lëvizje VETËVENDOSJE!), 97, 100–1

public discursive spaces, 211–12



272 Index

public opinion polls, 242–3Pula, Besnik, 118, 119, 122–3Pupavac, Vanessa, 180, 212Putnam, Robert D., 5, 213

RRabushka, A., 144Rada, 223Rehn, Olli, 33Republika e Kosovës, 120Republika Srpska Association of

Decertified Policemen, 177Revolutionary Movement for

Albanian Unity (RMAU), 104Reynolds Levy, L., 120–1RMAU. See Revolutionary Movement

for Albanian Unity (RMAU)Rrjeti i Organizatave Shqiptare

(RrOSh), 127, 128RrOSh. See Rrjeti i Organizatave

Shqiptare (RrOSh)Rugova, Ibrahim, 120, 121rule of law

citizenship and human rights in Slovenia, 73–6

formal vs. substantive concepts, 72overview, 71–3war crimes trials in Croatia and

Serbia, 76–81in Western Balkans, civil society

and, 72–3Rupel, Dmitrij, 73

SSampson, Steven, 95, 179Sanader, Ivo, 146SAP. See Stabilisation and Association

Process (SAP)Scorpions, 239Self-determination Movement (Lëvizje

VETËVENDOSJE!), Kosovo, 96–110agenda, 99cultural and historical significance,

105–6graffiti and, 99, 101–2inspirations and trajectories of

defiance, 104–6international attitudes towards, 106–8nationalism, 98

publications, 97, 100–1student demonstrations, 105symbolic actions and performances,

99, 101–4world view, 97–9, 100–1

Serbia, 118, 119–20, 126, 127, 230EU assistance to, NGOs/CSOs

and, 47–8, 53–64. See also institutionalisation

war crimes trials in, 76–81Serbian Helsinki Committee for

Human Rights, 240Šešelj, Vojislav, 237sexual minorities, 163SFRY. See Socialist Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia (SFRY)‘shadow of hierarchy,’ 51, 52Sharp, Gene, 104Shepsle, K., 144Simmons, Cynthia, 181Skendaj, Elton, 124Slovenia

citizenship and human rights in, 73–6

Smith, Adam, 4, 213‘social autism,’ 15Social Democratic Union of

Macedonia, 162Socialist Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia (SFRY), 73Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS), 237societas civilis, 4Šoljak, Niko, 143Sorensen, Jens Stilhoff, 117South Africa, 173SPS. See Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS)Srebrenica, 220–2, 238–43

ICJ and, 241–2nationalist mobilisation, 241official acknowledgement, 242parliamentary resolution, 242

Srebrenica Declaration, 214Stabilisation and Association Process

(SAP), 15, 29, 38, 41, 71–2Stability Pact, 170state-building, 14Statement of Good Intent, 73state–non-state nexus, in post-socialist

states, 50–3



Index 273

state–society distinction, tracing, 3–6Strategy for Cooperation of the

Government and the Civil Sector, 157Study on Transparency, Accountability

and the Democratic Capacity of the Civil Sector in the Republic of Macedonia, 157

Sullivan, Stacy, 142Sulstarova, Enis, 128Surroi, Veton, 128–9Svilanovic, Goran, 232

TTACSO. See Technical Assistance to

Civil Society (TACSO)Tadic, Boris, 239Technical Assistance to Civil Society

(TACSO), 91Thaçi, Hashim, 104Thessaloniki Summit, 85‘tight coupling,’ 50Top Channel, 128transitional justice, 230TRC. See Truth and Reconciliation

Commission (TRC)tribune, 105Trupat Mbrojtëse Të Kosovës. See

Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC)Truth and Reconciliation Commission

(TRC)South African, 231–2Yugoslav, 233–6

tubime, 105Tudman, Franjo, 140, 142, 145Turkey

EU’s enlargement policy, 38

UUncivil society, in Macedonia, 161–3‘United Croatian front,’ 139United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP), 138United Nations Interim

Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), 118, 123–4, 197

United States Agency for International Development (USAID), 180–1

UNMIBH. See UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH)

UNMIBH/IPTF, 182–5UNMIK. See United Nations Interim

Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK)

UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH), 177, 182–5

UNSCR 1244, 170UN Security Council, 189USAID NGO Sustainability Index, 181

VVerheugen, Günter, 33VETËVENDOSJE! movement, 126–7,

128, 171‘vibrant civic society,’ 33violence, in Macedonia, 165–7Visoka, Gëzim, 98VMRO-DPMNE, 162voting rights, diaspora and, 144–6Vreme, 236vulnerable social groups in

Macedonia, 159

Wwar crimes trials

in Croatia and Serbia, 76–81Werbner, P., 141Western Balkans, 2, 11, 13

EU assistance to Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia, 47–8, 53–64

European Union’s enlargement policy and civil society in, 29–44

post-Communist and post-conflict transitions in, 13

rule of law. See rule of lawWestern Balkans, EU and civil society

promotion in, 85–92financial support for NGOs and

CSOs, 912.0 modus interagendi, 88, 89–92P2P Programme, 90Progress Reports and, 88–9

Whitehead, L., 141Women in Black, 212

YYIHR. See Youth Initiative for Human

Rights (YIHR)



274 Index

young population in Macedonia, 159–60

Youth Aspiration Survey, 159Youth Initiative for Human Rights

(YIHR), 212Yugoslav Commission for Truth and

Reconciliation, 233–6credibility, 232–3

human rights NGOs, 233internal normalisation, 235moral catharsis, 234–5

Yugoslavia, 71, 117, 120

ZZagreb, 142Zunzer, W., 141



copyrighted material 978 0 230 29289 5 · palgrave macmillan is the global academic ... civil...

Documents