You are on page 1of 22

Topic 3: Working with government and policy makers

The Turkish Case Filiz Bikmen, TUSEV WINGS Peer Learning Event Ottawa, Canada 2005

Topic 3: Working with government and policy makers


How can the association seek to relate with government at different levels of policymaking? What are the strategic options available and examples of successful approaches? What are the indicators of a good relationship with government? What can the association do if efforts fail?

Agenda
Motivations for Giving and Philanthropy Overview of Civil Society Overview of Turkish Case Political Analysis and Strategy 3 Key Questions Maximizing Impact

Turkey
Population- 70 million Area- 814,578 sq. kilometres Borders:
Greece Bulgaria Georgia Armenia Iran Iraq Syria Type of GovernmentRepublic, Parliamentary Democracy AKP and CHP governments Legal System- Civil Law, Judicial review under certain conditions in the Constitutional Court Branches of GovernmentPres. Elected by Parliament, prime minister appointed by the president, Cabinet appointed by the president based on the nomination of the prime minister Parliament- Turkish Grand National Assembly of approx. 550 members

Turkey
Independent Judiciary Turkey is a member of:
UN NATO Council of Europe OSCE Accession Country to EU

Turkey
22nd Largest Economy in the World 30% living under 2USD a day 80.000 Associations, 25.000 in Istanbul 3.500 Private Foundations, 2.500 in Istanbul Foundations Directorate (Prime Ministry) and Dept. of Associations (Ministry of Interior) Taxation- Ministry of Finance (3 experts)

Motivations for Giving and Philanthropy in Turkey


Giving has much less of a religious motivation as one would expect. Basic expectations are to help the poor and contribute to development, no matter what the reason. 3,500 private foundations:
none of them grantmaking 90% of which have less than 250,000USD in annual income Larger foundations are holding/family foundations, which establish universities, museums, hospitals, etc.

No other organized mechanisms for philanthropy currently exist. NGOs do very limited mass fundraising, and although 18% of the public has been reported to make donations, they are one off and mainly to their own family or relatives (87%).

Overview of the State of Civil Society in Turkey


Based on the recent (2005) study on civil societys and CSOs:
Structure Environment Values Impact

Overall weak, but many of the factors are reported to have an upward trend: Things are IMPROVING!

Structure
Still relatively un-organized with a limited number of umbrella organizations (and mainly only economicoriented business associations and chambers are organized as such). Depth and breadth of civic participation via membership and leadership is low- especially so for disadvantaged groups Participation via donations and volunteering are low Self regulation mechanisms are not developed, and connections between NGOs both in Turkey, and with international organizations, is reported to be very low Capacity building is an increasingly prominent topic of discussion, but actions to promote capacity of CSOs is still quite limited
Source Civil Society Index Study, TUSEV, Unpublished, 2005

Environment
Laws governing CSOs are improving, but CSOs still sense some level of government interference (mainly those working in the area of rights). Government relations with CSOs are seen to be getting increasingly better, but areas of dialogue are limited. Government has only recently assigned specific provisions in law to support (fund) CSOsbut informally this has been happening for many years (e.g. donating land, buildings, etc.) Private sector relations with CSOs are limited. Although the number of companies seeking sponsor relations with CSO projects is increasing, they tend not to rely on corporate giving strategies or programmes to do so, and instead rely mainly on PR budgets. The EU accession process is seen to have created a positive effect on the development of the civil society sector in Turkey- not only through funding but through increasing CSOs activity in areas such as promoting democracy and building communities.
Source Civil Society Index Study, TUSEV, Unpublished, 2005

Values
Promoting values:
CSOs perceive themselves to be most active in promoting environmental sustainability, poverty eradiation and democracy CSOs are less active in promoting tolerance and encouraging the transparency of government and private sector

Practicing values:
CSOs are less active in practicing tolerance, democracy and transparency within the sphere of civil society and in their own organizations.
Source Civil Society Index Study, TUSEV, Unpublished, 2005

Impact of CSOs on Policy

CSOs are increasingly attempting to be active in influencing policy, but there are still very few organizations with this awareness and objective; CSOs suffer from the lack of skills and capacity to launch and pursue successful campaigns, especially in terms of influencing and informing public opinion; CSOs are ineffective in organizing coalitions for joint advocacy initiatives which weakens their ability to be effective; The State has not provided CSOs with the space or the opportunity to influence policy and as such, even successful attempts and campaigns have rarely had any impact. Challenges to CSO effectiveness in influencing policy and having societal impact on critical issues affecting citizens:
Overall lack of citizen respect and trust of CSOs, lack of civic participation; Existing culture not attuned to holding authorities accountable; CSOs inability (interest, skills, resources) to communicate their message through media; Medias lack of support and interest to promote CSO activities and messages; CSOs working on similar areas inability to form coalitions/joint campaigns.

Source Civil Society Index Study, TUSEV, Unpublished, 2005

Overview of Turkish Case


Recent Developments: Context
Mandates of Reform, Context of EU accession Changing role and growth of the third sector

Current Issues: National Level, Third Sector Policy


Associations Law Foundations Law NGO-State Cooperation (Public Administration Reform Law, Municipality Law) and State/Public Funding Mechanisms Taxation and Public Benefit

Why Policy Reform?


Inspire: generate support for an issue or action; raise new ideas or question old ones; create new ways of framing an issue or 'policy narratives'; Inform: represent the views of others; share expertise and experience; put forward new approaches; Improve: add, correct or change policy issues; hold policymakers accountable; evaluate and improve own activities, particularly regarding service provision; learn from each other.

How Civil Society Organisations Use Evidence to Influence Policy Processes: A literature review, ODI

Tools and organizations on the cooperation/evidence axes


TUSEV

Tools for Policy Impact: A Handbook for Researchers, ODI

Political Analysis and Strategy


Tools for Policy Impact: A Handbook for Researchers, ODI

Targets Stakeholder Analysis/Mapping

Message Clear Specific Focused Consistent

Approach

Timing When Other policy reform partners which want the same thing

Values Style How you leverage

Key players/decision makers Constituents & objectives For Turkey? For EU? Targets: who, motivation, For people? position For democracy? For economic development? For employment?

Spokesperson Values and style Rewards Timeline What are other issues going on in the external environment which you can piggy back your message on?

How can the association seek to relate with government at different levels of policymaking?

Position of members vs. position of association Understanding of political culture Timing and agenda of government Experts/Informants

What are the strategic options available and examples of successful approaches?
Consultative vs. Adversarial Approach Policy Analysis vs. Policy Research Educational/Networking Activities
Site Visits Meetings/Conferences/Seminars Training

What are the indicators of a good relationship with government?


Depends how you define good!! Balancing your closeness and distance Credibility Timeliness/ Responsiveness Level of Detail

What can the association do if efforts fail?


Assessing Risks:
Donors Publicity Positioning between NGOs and Government without risking confidence of both

Alternative strategies
Revisit:
Target Approach Message Timing

Other Challenges
Moving Target Time No Mechanisms Lack of Expertise Other Agenda Items

How Civil Society Organizations Use Evidence to Influence Policy Processes: A literature review, ODI

Maximizing Impact to Improve Changes of Policy Influence


Legitimacy: Legitimacy matters for policy influence. Evidence can be used in particular to enhance the technical sources of CSO legitimacy, but also representative, moral or legal legitimacy. Making legitimacy explicit can help others make decisions as to whether they wish to endorse CSO work. A more general point linked in with this is that CSOs are more likely to have an impact if they work together. Effectiveness: Evidence can be used to make CSO work more effective. Gathering evidence can be a tool for CSOs to evaluate and improve the impact of their work, share lessons with others, and capture the institutional memory and knowledge held within organisations. Integration: There is often a disconnection between CSO work on implementation or service delivery and the rest of the policy process. CSOs can have greater influence if they find better ways to turn their practical knowledge and expertise into evidence that can be used to inform other parts of the policy process (agenda setting, formulation and evaluation). This could also help improve the learning which occurs across CSOs. Translation: Expert evidence should not be used to 'trump' the perspectives and experience of ordinary people. CSOs should find ways to turn people's understanding into legitimate evidence, and of combining community wisdom with expert evidence. Access: Access to policymaking processes is vital for CSOs. Examples in this paper indicate that the question of CSO influence is often one of whether they are included in policy processes and can respond accordingly. Evidence can help CSOs gain better access to policy arenas. Using high-quality and uncontested evidence can allow even politically radical CSOs be included fully in policy debate. Credibility: Evidence must be valid, reliable and convincing to its audience. CSOs may need to adapt for different groups the kind of evidence they use - the same evidence may be credible to some but not to others. Credibility can depend on factors such as the reputation of the source and whether there is other accepted evidence which substantiates it. Communication: Evidence must be presented in an accessible and meaningful way. The most effective communication is often two-way, interactive and ongoing.

You might also like