Over the last couple of years, Romanians’
\nsense of civic responsibility, long suppressed by the memory of communist
\noppression, has given rise to more and more informal organizations. These are
\ngrassroots groups of people who share a common affiliation or are concerned
\nwith a specific issue. For instance, Iasi loves linden trees is a group in
\nIasi, northern Romania, which emerged as a form of protest against the City
\nHall’s decision to cut down the city’s famous linden trees, and managed to
\ndevelop a project to replant linden tree saplings. Similarly, many districts in
\nBucharest are represented by one or several informal groups. The Favorit Initiative, Save the Drumul
\nTaberei Park, Save the IOR Park are but a few names of organizations
\nmilitating for various causes. According to data included in the project titled
\nStrengthening the Capacity of NGOs and Informal Organizations carried out by
\nthe Foundation for an Open Society, there are a total of 513 informal
\norganizations in Romania, of which 48 emerged spontaneously, while 465 were
\nestablished with state support or with private funds owned by umbrella
\ncorporations. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Romania’s civic awareness needs a boost, says the coordinator of
\nthe project Marinela Andrei: <\/p>\n
The ratio of
\ninformal groups who are financed as against groups that emerged spontaneously
\nis 10 to 1. Our main conclusion is that the spontaneous activity of citizens
\nand their civic awareness is quite limited, although it has begun to gain
\nmomentum and to become visible in the public sphere. Most financed groups have
\nactivities that usually regard the resolution of a local issue, pertaining to
\ninfrastructure, whether we’re talking about roads, bridges or buildings
\n(kindergartens or schools).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
These organizations sign petitions and
\ndemand consultations. Some gain in reputation, succeeding in reaching out to
\nlocal authorities. But their status as a partner of the administration is hard
\nto get, partly also due to the fact that these informal groups don’t have a
\nwell regulated legal capacity. However, their members don’t see this fact as a
\npriority. Here is sociologist Valentin Burada, who co-authored the report on
\nThe Activity of Informal Civic Groups in Romania. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
Valentin Burada: The main
\nissue is not related to the formal or judicial registration of these groups,
\nbut to their need of being recognized, including by public authorities. The
\nfeedback coming from these informal groups suggests that the real problem is
\nworking with public authorities. Their status can be sometimes hard to
\nacknowledge, and might lead to creating problems rather than solutions.
\nBesides, their recognition by the authorities is often done based on a long
\nhistory of common action of its members, their participation in meetings of the
\nlocal councils, on their involvement in public actions, sometimes even street
\ndemonstrations, by means of which their status can be recognized. <\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The
\nResource Center for Public Participation, whose acronym in Romanian is CERE, is
\none of the associations that have supported the setting up of a great many
\ncivic initiative groups. CERE does not share the opinion whereby additional
\nregulations are needed, like, for instance, putting one’s name on an open list
\ncreated by municipalities or local councils. Why? <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Here is CERE Program
\nCoordinator Sanziana Dobre with an
\nanswer:<\/p>\n
One of the conclusions of the survey that we
\ndo not agree with is the idea of
\nsetting up a registration procedure with the public institution targeted by the
\ninformal groups. Such a procedure would be similar to the idea of being
\naccredited with that institution. Prior to initiating the steps they need to
\ntake to be received in audience or to get an appointment for various meetings,
\npeople should therefore register. We do not think this is necessary. We believe
\nthat would dishearten civic groups from starting their action, since their
\nexperience begins with the first
\nhearing sessions. Imposing on those groups to take an extra step prior to that,
\nis not at all helpful.. Besides, that would bring more red-tape to the process
\nof negotiation with the authorities, which is still in its infancy and which
\nshould be allowed to grow at its own pace. <\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
However, there are suggestions that are
\nquite welcome, focusing on increasing the informal groups’ efficiency. Here
\nis Sanziana Dobre again:<\/p>\n
Most
\nwelcome is the other set of conclusions, supporting the idea that groups may
\nalso be entitled to asking for public debates within the legal framework of the
\nlaw regarding the transparency of the decision-making process. Such a law
\nstipulates that local authorities should have consultations with the NGOs,
\nprior to taking certain decisions. It would be better if informal groups
\nparticipated in those consultations as
\nwell. One thing that can be achieved is to set up meeting areas, because a
\ngreat challenge for all those who are a part of such a group is something like
\nwhere shall we meet? They cannot meet in cafes all the time. For some, it may
\nbe too expensive. Besides, there’s too much noise in there and it may not be
\nthe perfect place for talks and planning. So setting up meeting or public areas
\nfor such talks would be most welcome.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
However, the conclusion everyone has drawn
\nis that encouraging civic initiative mainly has to do with an increase in the
\ncivic education level: people will find the courage to approach and talk to the authorities as soon as they learn what
\ntheir rights are. With details on that, here is Valentin Burada. <\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
Problems arise rather
\nfrom the low level of civic education and Romanians’ participatory tradition
\nand less from the lack of legislation or the legal instruments that might
\nsupport that civic involvement. There are flaws as regards the enforcement of
\nthe legislation on citizens’ access to public information and citizens’
\nparticipation in the decision-making process. Informal groups have their role
\nin that. It was suggested that acting as encouragement mechanisms for civic
\ninvolvement are the increase in the level of civic education, but also putting
\npressure on the authorities, so that they can comply with the legislation in
\nforce and create mechanisms for the citizens’ real involvement in the
\ndecision-making process. <\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Despite all the aforementioned flaws, civic
\ninitiative activities are growing in number and intensity, and the trend is
\ndefinitely upward in that respect. <\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Over the last couple of years, Romanians’ sense of civic responsibility has given rise to a growing number of informal organisations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":136,"featured_media":141642,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42997],"tags":[43506,43505],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-141641","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-society-today","tag-civic-awareness","tag-informal-groups"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n