Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Turkish Case Filiz Bikmen, TUSEV WINGS Peer Learning Event Ottawa, Canada 2005
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)
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%).
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Source Civil Society Index Study, TUSEV, Unpublished, 2005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
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.
How Civil Society Organisations Use Evidence to Influence Policy Processes: A literature review, ODI
Approach
Timing When Other policy reform partners which want the same thing
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
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