The Euromaidan's Effect on Civil Society: Why and How Ukrainian Social Capital Increased After the Revolution of Dignity by Sophie Falsini

Author:Sophie Falsini [Falsini, Sophie]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Social Policy, Public Policy, Political Science
ISBN: 9783838211312
Google: LDb7swEACAAJ
Goodreads: 36928400
Publisher: Ibidem Press
Published: 2018-01-15T08:41:19+00:00

4.2.2 Disappointment and/or mistrust

Disappointment and mistrust were two of the most important features which Howard saw as main impediment to the growth of civil society (2003, 26–29, 164–165) and which I subsequently reinterpreted as driving factors for the low development of social capital in Soviet and post-Soviet Ukraine. A rise of social capital in today’s Ukraine would therefore profit from more positive relationships between CSOs and the government, and from higher trust and satisfaction between both sides. Yet, when confronted with the assessment of their relations with the government today, CSOs’ positions are quite different to each other. This could derive from the fact that one cannot refer to the government as such, because different ministries and ministers seem to make the difference.

Out of eleven CSOs answering this question, six of them responded positively, of which three strongly agreed and three agreed, to whether they would say that the government showed interest in their work. Conversely, the remaining five CSOs disagreed to this statement. However, a few CSOs had difficulties in defining their position, since being interested could be interpreted both as “genuinely” or “formally” interested: “[i]t is very difficult for me to say what the government is interested about”, said a member of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (Interview with Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, min. 06:47–06:50, own translation). Because of the different interpretation of the word, many CSOs delivered different answers ranging from “strongly agree” to “disagree”, despite providing similar justifications for their choice.

Out of ten respondents, three of them strongly agreed, six agreed, and one disagreed that the government helps CSOs occasionally, and only in order to improve its image. In most cases, says Station Kharkiv, the government shows interest only to be able to delegate its tasks to CSOs. In general, Crimea SOS, the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, Power of the Future, and The Salvation Army say that even when the government seems to listen, outcomes are poor. The Salvation Army adds that the government inactivity may also be caused by its incapacity to act, while Station Kharkiv comments that the government shows unwillingness to adapt to emergencies, because its main aim is only to protect its structure and internal rules. According to some of the CSOs, what the government is really concerned about are international organizations and donors. Therefore, it would be common for the government to try to improve its image by publicly showing only positive reforms and achieved goals, thereby often “forgetting” to recognize the vital role of CSOs for this change.

The majority of the organizations agreed in recognizing that the main barrier to Ukraine’s success nowadays lies in the absence of a concrete strategy during emergencies. State employees have been left in a vacuum and have received neither financial support nor concrete guidelines as for how to take effective steps in providing help to IDPs during recent emergency situations. Authorities are often incompetent according to Power of the Future, and as a matter of fact, CSOs are overwhelmed with work,

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.