In the course of the Maidan revolution: Nova Kraina

Nova Kraina is a think tank and a civil platform that was also founded during the Maidan revolution. After 2014, there were many groups who proposed reforms to the government. A lot of Ukrainians committed themselves to volunteer in these civil society action groups – otherwise it would be impossible to move on.

Nova Kraina aims to push forward and work on the reform process. They felt, in order to make real progress, impulses and control of the reform process from civil society are necessary. In contrast to other NGOs, Nova Kraina is not trying draw a clear line between them and the political institutions: It gathers professionals who work for commissions of the parliament. “We have experts who are actually involved in writing reforms”, says Oksana Belinska from Nova Kraina.

„Decentralisation is happening now, which is something really new.“ Therefore, as other NGOs, Nova Kraina tries to help building capacities of civil society activists in the regions and strenghten democratic competences that help them to engage in and influence politics.

Oksana Belinska says, the starting point for their platform was the understanding, that there is no vision for the country. In 2014 they gathered 600 people in strategic sessions in which they could articulate their vision on economics, administration, politics, health, education, and culture.

The visions presented in these sessions served as a draft for the strategic presidential document “Ukraine 2020”. According to Oksana Belinska, it was the first time that a governmental document was created based on the ideas of civil society engagement. Now, the challenge is to realize these strategies and monitor necessary reforms.

Therefore, Nova Kraina formed a working group that creates a kind of „alternative government“, which means they train and prepare members to high positions in the government. Some of the platform members are now minister advisers.

Nova Kraina also elaborates an alternative reform program, which they present to the European Parliament and other organizations and foundations who are interested in facilitating the reform process. Reciprocally, the platform’s members become more influential in Ukraine, gain more power, and become more visible. Unfortunately, says Oksana Belinska, to go to the European parliament often is the only way to push reforms in Ukraine.

The collaboration with the government is not linked to the particular cabinet. If the government changes, Nova Kraina would adjust it’s programme and prepare experts to work with the new government. The main goal is to keep the reform agenda on track and involve the civil society.

“Man muss im Schutzraum des Privaten seine Haltung finden”

Im Buch “Wie war das für Euch? Die Dritte Generation Ost im Gespräch mit ihren Eltern” erzählen die 1975 bis 1985 Geborenen, warum sie nicht aufhören können, sich mit der eigenen Herkunft und der Familiengeschichte auseinanderzusetzen. Die Interviews und Reflexionen im Buch zeigen aber auch, dass diese Auseinandersetzung über Transformationserfahrungen in der Familie auch eine wichtige gesellschaftliche Dimension hat. Judith Enders ist Mitherausgeberin des Buches und Mitglied des Transition Dialogue-Netwerks. Wir haben nachgefragt. 

Was wolltet ihr wissen?

Judith: Gibt es in eurer Familie Kommunikation über die Wendezeit? Wenn ja, wo und wie läuft diese ab, gibt es Tabuthemen oder Grenzen? Wenn nein, warum nicht? Was sind die Ursachen für das Schweigen?

Mit welchen Erwartungen bist Du an das Buch herangegangen?

Judith: Meine Vorannahme, dass sich ein differenziertes Bild ergibt, da es ja nicht den DDR-Bürger gab. Die AutorInnen sind zufällig zusammengestellt, aus unterschiedlichen Lebensumständen: Beruf, soziale Einbindung, Familiengeschichte. Zum Tewie-war-das-fur-euch_cover-2il haben wir Leute angesprochen, die wir kannten. Andere trafen wir einfach zufällig. Das Kriterium war Menschen zu finden, die Lust auf den Dialog mit den Eltern hatten. Aber auch einige, wo die Kommunikation mit der Elterngeneration Schwierigkeiten machte, weil diese eigentlich nicht wollten oder noch nicht darüber nachgedacht hatten – wo unserer Buchprojekt den Impuls gab, diesen Dialog zu beginnen. Das war zum Teil eine emotionale Herausforderung, hier mussten wir die Entstehung des Textes wohlwollend begleiten.

Was hat Euch bewegt, dieses Buch zu machen?

Judith: 2012 organisierten wir mit der Initiative „Dritte Generation Ostdeutschland“ eine Konferenz zum Thema „Die Dritte Generation Ost im Dialog mit der Zweiten Generation“. Hier haben wir gemerkt, dass sich unter den 100 Leuten eine interessante Dynamik entwickelte, eine große Verwunderung darüber, dass das Thema so wenig bearbeitet ist, dass es so wenig Gespräch zwischen den beiden Generationen über die DDR gibt. In den meisten Familien gibt es eine große Sprachlosigkeit, jenseits von Anekdoten oder Allgemeinplätzen über die Vergangenheit. Das hat uns motiviert, dieser Thematik Raum zu geben. Das Buch soll ein Anstoß für die Leserinnen und Leser sein, mit der eigenen Familie ins Gespräch zu kommen und im eigenen Umfeld weiter zu diskutieren.

Warum sollte ich als Mitdreißigerin mit meinen Eltern über die DDR reden?

Judith: Das ist grundsätzlich für alle Menschen wichtig, da unausgesprochene Dinge in der nächsten Generation weiter wirken. Das Spezifische bezüglich der dritten Generation Ostdeutschlands ist, dass ihre Elterngeneration in einer Zeit, in der die Eltern sich normalerweise mit ihren Kindern über ihre Zukunft, Werte etc. auseinandersetzen, also in der Pubertät, dazu wenig Gelegenheit hatten, da sie zu sehr mit sich selbst und der Bewältigung der Umbruchszeit beschäftigt waren.

Eine weitere Dimension ist, dass man nach circa 20 bis 25 Jahren überhaupt erst gesellschaftliche Ereignisse so reflektieren kann, dass die Emotionen nicht überhand gewinnen und eine sachliche Auseinandersetzung erschweren.

In Eurem Buch spricht eine Autorin von der Erwartung eines „Ostdeutschen 68“. Das wäre jetzt zeitlich so weit. Hattet ihr erwartet, dass das käme?

Judith: Erwartet nicht, aber die Idee hat Charme. Ich denke, dass aufgrund des gesellschaftlichen Drucks dafür kein Raum da ist. Es gibt zu viele andere Probleme. Aber nötig wäre es, um eine Aufarbeitung des noch nicht Bearbeiteten anzustoßen. Die Auseinandersetzung mit der DDR erschöpft sich ja nicht im Auswerten der Stasi-Akten. Und in Westdeutschland gab es wenn überhaupt nur eine marginale Auseinandersetzung mit der DDR Alltagskultur und der Wendezeit. Ich glaube, da haben viele kein Gefühl dafür, wie schwierig die Umbruchzeit für viele im Osten war. Da fehlt das Verständnis, nicht nur Empathie sondern einfach das Verstehen, was passiert ist und was das mit den Menschen gemacht hat. Die Bürger aus Westdeutschland sollten auch erkennen, dass die Wende Teil ihrer eigenen Geschichte ist.

Wie wirkt diese verpasste Auseinandersetzung auf die Gesellschaft heute?

Judith: Es gibt immer noch strukturelle Unterschiede im Engagement, in der Bewertung und Wahrnehmung der Demokratie als Staatsform und den Möglichkeiten der Entfaltung, die sie dem Einzelnen bietet.

Es ist wichtig, die eigenen Rolle und das eigene Verhaltens in der DDR erst einmal in der Familie zu reflektieren. Das ist ein Schutzraum, wo das Gespräch weniger mit Schuld und Scham belastet ist und man einfacher darüber reden kann, wie es einem damals erging und wie es einem heute mit der Erfahrung geht. Dies öffnet dann Reflektionsräume dafür, auch öffentlich diese Debatte zu führen und sich auseinanderzusetzen. Man muss im Schutzraum des Privaten zunächst selbst seine Haltung finden, um sich der gesellschaftlichen Auseinandersetzung stellen zu können.

Wenn man die Vergangenheit persönlich nicht verarbeiten kann, dann blockiert das ganze gesellschaftliche Gruppen oder eine ganze Generation – die ja auch nur aus vielen Individuen besteht – neue Situationen und Erfahrungen anzunehmen. Die verpasste Auseinandersetzung im Privaten hindert eine ganze Generation sich mit der Gesellschaft heute, ihren Möglichkeiten aber auch ihren Problemen auseinanderzusetzen.

Das Interview führte Christine Wetzel

„Wie war das für Euch? Die dritte Genration Ostdeutschland im Gespräch mit ihren Eltern.“ Chr. Links Verlag, Berlin 2016

von Judith C. Enders (Hg.) (Autor), Mandy Schulze (Hg.) (Autor), Bianca Ely (Hg.) (Autor)

“Now people have responsibility for what they are doing”

In the course of the Maidan revolution, the Ministry of Culture was occupied by cultural activists in order to develop a more progressive cultural policy for Ukraine. Yaroslav Belinsky belonged to the group of artists who occupied the Ministry and later created the Congress of Cultural Activists. But it’s not just about culture, but the role culture plays for society. The Congress’ claim says “We build a new country”.

Dörte Grimm from the Transition Dialogue-Team interviewed Yaroslav Belinsky, Designer, Member of the Congress of Cultural Activists, in April 2016 in Kiev.

Dörte: Yaroslav, how and when did you come to occupy the Ministry?

We came to occupy the Ministry right after Maidan: The shooting [when 100 protesters where killed] was on 18th, 20th Februar, we occupied the Ministry on the 24th, 25th. We went there for a month of hard and chaotic discussion on how to reform the ministry, how to work there. We were designers, musicians, sculptors – just art people who didn’t know how the ministry works.

So, we created separated groups for cinema, theatre, design, music… 15 groups all together. The main groups was for coordination. But after a month realised that it is not useful just to discuss, we wanted acting, we wanted to understand how culture works. So we left the Ministry and went out to the country, we gathered culture people from all over Ukraine. That was when the Congress of Cultural Activists was created.

Dörte: How did you become active during Maidan?

Yaroslav: I did not make Molotov Cocktails. I went there when it started, when it became a manifestation with million of people on Maidan just in a few weekends. Everyone was there. It was like a big family. Unknown people, but it felt like you knew them for years. That feeling was absolutely amazing. Something really, really new. It was a great impression. We try to cultivate this feeling and try to make it grow in the future.

Dörte: What has changed since the Maidan Revolution?

Yaroslav: The main difference is that now people have responsibility for what they are doing. That is new option for Ukraine. Before, we had the post soviet generation who was just responsible for nothing. As part of Congress we are present in all parts of Ukraine and talk to all kinds of people, not just from culture. And we understand, that they really want to be part of the change. We discuss with them cultural matters and why it is so important. What happened in the East of Ukraine and Crimea is also a reason of a lack of culture and of bad education. It wouldn’t have happened if the situation would have been a different one there.

Dörte: A day before, on a tour through the city, our guide said to us, the time before was unacceptable and unbearable, just years of frustration and total deadlock How did you experience the time before Maidan?

Yaroslav: For me, it was like you do something – but there is a concrete wall between you and what you want, between you and the environment you want to be part of.

Dörte: Because you couldn’t talk, your voice wasn’t heard?

Yaroslav: No, it was not like in the Soviet Union, not that something was restricted. Now it was just absolutely frozen, no development. Just as it is. You try to change something, but the authorities don’t want to. It was comfortable for them: they were just trying to get money from government budget. For instance, the Minister of Culture just kept on doing the same Soviet style events with the same people all the time. We call it Scharavaschena, old fashioned clothes from 400 years ago: That’s what they showed every year, the same costumes with the same dancing. That’s what they called culture. But some kind of new contemporary dance, visual arts – they didn’t understand that this could be part of culture. For them it was not culture, just non-understandable things.

Dörte: How will your next steps look like?

Yaroslav: We have a lot of cooperation with different NGO from Europe. I’m very optimistic for the development of the organisation. We want to found an Open Ukraine Design Center to support and discuss why and how design matters. To work in social, youth, business and government projects. We want to show that design can have a value for everything. And it can be a good packing for all kind of things developed in Ukraine. We have many good products, but they usually have a bad cover.

Dörte: What does transition mean to you?

Yaroslav: I was 11, 12 when the Soviet Union collapsed. It was not as hard for me as for my parents. My parents where in the military and I saw the Soviet Union that was absolutely bad equipped with a low level of support for the members and families. I remember packages with food from the Bundeswehr Army. It was a support from German to Ukraine Army. There was a time we survived just from those packages.

Dörte: But there is still transition going on…

Yaroslav: Yes, sure, we’re young, we have a flexible mind and can change our visions. But older people can’t. Partly it is very hard to speak to them. I can give you the example of a young girl and her grand mother. The young girl said to her grandmother, “how can you be sad that the Soviet time is gone? They killed millions of people in camps”. She answered, “yes, but we had ice cream for 3 Kopeks”. For our generation that is absolutely inappropriate. But for them it is o.k. Every second family I know in my environment has relatives who where shot in the 30s in the Soviet time, for instance my great grand parents. They were from Poland and lived in Ukraine, an intellectual family of teachers. They were shot not for their opinion or acting, just because they were Polish and educated. So Soviet time is nothing romantic for my generation.

Dörte: Do you think Ukraine is on a good way?

Yaroslav: Very slow, but I hope faster in the next year. And I hope that we as part of the change can help to make it better and be useful.

Dörte: Where do you get your motivation and energy from?

Yaroslav: We feel like a big family, the Congress team. When someone is depressed and loosing energy – which keeps happening – we do see that and support each other. It is very helpful to be part of that team.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asIz0gqAXX0&feature=youtu.be

What motivates people to become a driver of change in a time of transition?

Results from a Workshop at the 2015 NECE Conference in Thessaloniki, 22nd October 2015

Why we are asking this question

“Transition ends when we have disenchantment,” we learned in our first meeting in Sofia. But when transition ends due to disenchantment, it does not mean, that everything is ‘done’. Rather, people have become frustrated about the transition process, they do not believe in their possibility to bring about change. As activists, teachers, researchers in the wide field of civil society and citizenship education one of our main concerns is how to empower people. How to encourage them to be the change the want to see happen? In this brief workshop we presented best practice and learnings from our own work and asked participants to share their experience.

The workshop was held by Many Schulze (Perspektive³, Berlin), Olena Pravilo (Congress of Cultural Activists, Kiev) and Christine Wetzel (German-Russian-Exchange, Berlin). Documented on film by Dörte Grimm (Perspective³).

The workshops participants joined us from Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Armenia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Croatia and Germany.

Olena’s Case on DIMG_20151022_150044riving Change: Establishing a Cultural Management in the community of Zaporizhzhya (Ukraine)

It all started with the occupation of the Ukraine Ministry of Education. The idea was spread on Facebook by artists and cultural managers after the end of the Janukovich government. It was not to destroy anything symbolically, but actually to do better, and to run the ministry with a lot more passion and expertise.

The problems of Ukraine’s cultural administration were, according to Olena, lacking concepts for cultural development, overall bad administration of policies, and no openness towards other sectors as education or economy. The idea of self-made cultural policy spread to other cities, Assemblies of Culture were set up and registered as NGOs – as in the community of Zaporizhzhya.

Olena explained, what drove the activists to take this great challenge was not to accept excuses: “We in Ukraine can always look at other countries and find reasons why things can not be changed here: Because we have less money than Germany, because we are not so small like Estonia, and so on. But we said, we can do it. We just start, see what works elsewhere and try to do it here.”

Therefore, the activists in Zaporizhzhya invited experts from all over the Ukraine to share their experiences and best practice from other communities. There was no big funding for this event, everybody traveled on her or his own expanses, local activists all provided their bit to make the event happen. It was a kick-off for cultural self-management in the Zaporizhzhya. By now, the activities have resulted in the initiating of a cultural strategy for the community, and the developing of a cooperation with the Economic University. A book fair was established and diverse cultural projects created.

“We need examples, we need to repeat them, spread them, show others what works,” Olena stressed, and, as simple as crucial: “Ask people to do something! Encourage them, give them examples of what they can actually achieve. Do you have a telescope, do you know something about the space? Why don’t you show children the starts and the universe?”

Mandy’s Case on Driving Change: How young people looking for place to live accidentally opened a social space and investigated local history (Germany)

Mandy’s story of change had to starting points. One was a typical ‘lost place’, like you can find plenty of it all over the former communist countries in every community: empty town halls, factories, schools, hotels ect.

One the other side there were five young people looking for a place to live and work. They found an empty, run down public house in the town of Niederoderwitz to settle.

“The five had nothing in mind with community issues or civic empowerment,” says Mandy. “But From the moment they had started to work ob the house, they got confronted with locals who stopped by and asked to come in and have look. They became aware of the enormous meaning the house has for the people in the village.” For decades all festivities had been celebrated here; birth, birthdays, carnival, thanksgiving… With closure off the hotel the village had lost it’s social heart, the place were people would meet.

So, they opened the house for a first garden party – and 800 out of 1.500 villagers came. Consequently, the house was opened regular and became the new community center. The group of 5 people grew to 25. They were confronted with new issues of management; dealing with the administration, finding supporters and funding, investigating the local history. They invited chronologists and historians. They established themselves in the village, got children and had to deal with related issues, like Infrastructure for young families.

Essentially, the hotel hall was not just a place to celebrate. A public space like this is simply crucial for the development of a sense of community in the first place. Without a place to gather, community life is disintegrating, emptying and frustration growing that there is ‘nothing here anymore’. The five young people had realized the potential of that place. How it matters to people, that they perceived it as an open wound in their village – and they are willing to change something about it, to give it new sense. By accident, they, just seeking affordable housing, became community activists, bringing public space and local citizen-driven self-organization (back) to live.

Thus, in terms of the workshop question, the case shows three things: Firstly, start small and local, the ‘home’ is a place everyone can emotionally connect to – and this is crucial.

Secondly, the people can create a political awareness starting from concerns for issues that are considered to be not political at all, like housing, some questions asked on the past.

And finally – despite all praise to the possibilities of virtual communication – the necessity to provide a physical space, a laboratory and hub for encounters and those who are willing to be drivers of change.

see more of this case on Facebook: www.facebook.com/KretschamNiederoderwitzEv/

In 2013 a network was founded supporting initiatives like that in Niederoderwitz reclaiming the public space. They are analysing and providing knowledge and support on issues like: What are triggers for civic engagement?
What are the challanges for those who want to engage? How can they be supported?  www.zukunft-oberlausitz.com

Open Discussion Results

We asked everyone to note down her and his answer to the workshop question and later share it with us. Here are insights the that were given by the participants from their experience:

  • Do not work on a group, you want to do something for, but work with them. Listen and develop approaches with them, that build on their needs, ideas and capacity.
  • Show people ‘the better live’ that is possible and provide them with examples how to get there.
  • You need a common issue if you want to keep people on board. This seems obvious, but often it is not the case when you look closer.
  • Education is an extremely powerful tool!
  • Ask people questions that make them start thinking.
  • Talk, talk, talk to people! Support encounters between different groups to share experience and examples, then develop programs to implement knowledge in practice.
  • We need to make ourselves visible, we need public spaces to unfold, grow and spread ideas.
  • Perform the best examples of your own, be the example, be the change – start local, then grow up the levels.
  • Support the people, who are willing to do something; empower them, build their confidence, if possible provide financial support.
  • Show them the consequences of their actions, show them what happens when the make changes – and what if not.
  • Networking and team-building: Make people feel that they are not alone!
  • You need to organize and structure the ideas, provide the ground to make ideas work
  • Lower administration burden!

The workshop holders suggest, that the examples given by the participant apply to all kind of civic engagement in different circumstances. We further suggest, all the points given link into each other and form a ‘Circle of Motivation‘:

The chart point to motivation and incentive structures on different levels; the individual (1) (2), but also organizational (3) (6) and institutional (4, also including funding) level, that are all relevant for people to drive change processes – though one can partly make up for the other. Bottom up activity should ideally meet a top down structure that facilitates engagement, e.g. with funding, providing spaces for meeting, give access to key actors. But this are not opposites: The Ukraine example shows the attempt of changing this very environment for activity.

The six elements build on each other and are linked, but they are not solely linear: E.g., sure, it helps to talk about and spread your cause at every stage of the circle. And, obviously, listen to those you want to address with your activity before you start is always a good idea! As it was stressed by a participant from Georgia early in the discussion, our attitude towards those who we want to work with is important. We should be facilitator, not the instructor who always knows better. For there is nothing less encouraging if you do not get the chance to follow your own ideas.

And finally: Do never forget about the social experience of engagement! Whatever you do; provide space for getting together also with agenda, celebrate results, tell others, honor activity and – say thanks.

Circle of Motivation

Driving Change Diagram

Thank you to all of you who joined this workshop and shared their experience!

by Christine Wetzel

see the workshop video and read more about what we did at the conference http://www.transition-dialogue.org/workshop-at-the-2015-nece-conference-in-thessaloniki-22nd-october

Workshop NECE conference 2015: “Otherness” through the eyes of the generation of transition

The workshop explores the way the generation of transition understands the notion of “otherness” and how their current perception has been influenced by the process of transition towards democracy in the post-communist space. The participants present the results of a small scale study on the topic, conducted in several countries from Eastern and Central Europe.

Olena Pravylo, Congress of Cultural Activists (Ukraine)

Rafaela Tripalo, “Stiftung Wissen am Werk” (Knowledge at Work Foundation, Croatia)

Iva Kopraleva, Sofia Platform (Bulgaria)

Moderator:
Louisa Slavkova, European Council on Foreign Relations/ Sofia Platform (Bulgaria)

@NECE Congress – “Us” and “them” – Citizenship education in an interdependent world, Thessaloniki, Greece, October 22-24 2015

Workshop NECE conference 2015: How to motivate people to become a driver of change

“Transition ends when we have disenchantment,” we learned in our first meeting in Sofia. But when transition ends due to disenchantment, it does not mean, that everything is ‘done’. Rather, people have become frustrated about the transition process, they do not believe in their possibility to bring about change. As activists, teachers, researchers in the wide field of civil society and citizenship education one of our main concerns is how to empower people. How to encourage them to be the change the want to see happen? In this brief workshop we presented best practice and learnings from our own work and asked participants to share their experience.

The workshop was held by Many Schulze (Perspektive³, Berlin), Olena Pravilo (Congress of Cultural Activists, Kiev) and Christine Wetzel (German-Russian-Exchange, Berlin). Documented on film by Dörte Grimm (Perspective³, Berlin).

The workshops participants joined us from Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Armenia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Croatia and Germany.

Thinking about transition

In all the states of the former Eastern Bloc, the so called 3rd Generation – those born between 1975 and 1985 – has made transformation experiences in an age of adolescence. In-between breakdown and new beginnings, impoverishment and unknown abundance of goods, new role models and lasting confusion and insecurity. With the promise, that all boarders are now gone and the sticky feeling, that a lot of them are still there, just elsewhere and reshaped.

But how are these issues beeing debated in the different countries of Middle and Eastern Europe, how are they reflected in media and society – or maybe rather not reflected? The background setting and conditions in the single countries are rather different: Some became independent, some saw the rise of ethnic conflicts, some had an early perspective of getting into the EU, others not, other states even ceased to exist and their societies merged into others. There are cultural and religious differences and so on. Similar problems habe appeared in very different size (as economic decay, unemployment and poverty).

But what united the representatives of the 3rd Generation is having to grow up and find their way in a time when the most of the so far common social norms, ways of beeing und orientation marks became invalid and useless basically overnight. Thereby also devaluating the role of the parent generation as guides to live in society. Let alone the relationships of power, that all had to be and were often painfully rethought.

So, what were the impacts of those experiences? How do people between 30 and 40 do position themselves towards their recent history, what narratives have been developed by them and their societies about it? What are their private and social concepts for the future? How do they position themselves as individuals in society, in their role as “Citoyen” – do they appeal to this role at all? And what does this mean for civil engagement, how did they themselves use their opportunities of actively reshaping society?

Reanimation Package of Reforms: From Maidan to Policy Making

In 2014 the Maidan Revolution overthrew the government of president Yanukovich. Unlike after the Orange Revolution years before, many of the protesters decided that this time they would not go home and hope that things will change for the better – just because there is a new government. They had come to stay and help building a new country.

One of them is Artem Myrgorodskyi. After he had helped to evacuate wounded people in the Maidan Revolution, he founded REANIMATION PACKAGE OF REFORMS, an NGO that is working out a policy agenda for Ukraine. Since its establishment, the RPR was engaged in the adoption of 80 laws in Ukraine, says Mr. Myrgorodskyi.

Find Reanimation Package of Reform’s website here

Previous to working in the civic sector, Mr. Myrgorodskyi explained, he was a marketing manager in three different companies. His career changed when he participated at the Maidan1 movement, and helped evacuate 230 wounded people. In the chaos of the movement, he was the head of the initiative to help the wounded people, and soon after he formed an NGO which is still a functioning and prominent Ukrainian NGO. He decided to move on from marketing and work in the civic society because he found it to be necessary and required by the country that has to be changed in the nearest future.

The RPR is a coalition of 56 NGOs, mainly participants of the movement Maidan. While some of the Maidan participants went to practice politics, others decided to extend their activities to the civic sector and aim to coordinate activities and initiatives, tP1000920 (800x797)hus supporting the politicians, rather than taking part in the politics personally. That was why the Platform first started. The RPR was established in March 2013(???). It started with 30 people, and subsequently many more members joined later, growing to the number of 56 NGOs, in this way becoming the biggest Ukrainian organization of this type in the last 25 years. The main goal of the RPR is to influence and impact the politicians through many diverse activities :they discuss the agenda in the Government Office, advocate for different reforms, collaborating with over 70 MEPs from the Ukrainian Government. They have collaborated with the more progressive MEPs, the ones that are proactive, that are willing to cooperate, the ones that understand the reforms and its importance, and don’t only push the buttons, that are conscious (20%). Since its establishment, the RPR was engaged in the adoption of 80 laws in Ukraine.

The RPR does not communicate with the political parties, but rather finds personal contacts, mostly in the politicians who can impact the group from the inside. As for the Yanukovich, the opposition, the RPR’s attitude towards them is that they cannot cooperate with them because “they robbed the nation and killed the people”. However, they communicate with them, inform them about the agendas, but they are not invited to vote. It is important not to develop relationships with either parties or individual whose values do not match with the Maidan values. The RPR’s firm opinion is, that if they start developing the relationship with the enemies, the system could collapse.

The RPR’s governance model is a horizontal structure of various experts working in 23 groups concerning different civil society fields. The members are either the employees of the 56 NGOs or individual experts, presenting a core of top experts from the respective fields. They operate in a very well structured way. There is a procedure how to join the RPR, whose executive body is a council of 12 people that are yearly elected, mainly from the biggest NGOs. The Council appoints the managers and heads of departments; it makes decisions about accepting new members (the priorities are well-known organizations, especially from the fields the RPR lacks experts from). They proactively look for the partners and strive to build relationships with big companies and keep them informed. For example, when discussing an issue, the experts from within the RPR are called first. Consequently, after their draft proposal is approved, and if it’s a top priority, the second stage consists of open discussions with the different opponents of the reform, together with the MEPs. The expert groups work with the expert initiatives, white and green books, or policies. They work with hundreds of journalists, place news every day, communicate with the authorities, and write analytical notes that justify their efforts in pushing the reforms in a particular way. In their efforts, they communicate directly to around 70 more progressive MEPs. The same work happens on two different levels: at the organizations’ headquarters and at the cabinets of ministers. The RPR has an international communication department that was encouraged by the Brussels, Berlin and Washington institutions. They have good relationships with the three ambassadors, and pride in their good relations with some other influential institutions that easily and promptly get informed about any news, and are quick to react and help them if needed. They expanded to the Ukrainian regions where the civic sector is still somewhat underdeveloped. On this mission, the RPR visited 26 towns and promoted the idea of uniting efforts.

The RPR understood the need of a fixed structure and donations, so they made efforts to find donors and partners throughout the national and international structures in Ukraine. They found agreements with the EU Commission office, USAID, Swedish and German Embassy, Soros, SIDA, etc. Since they were successful, they got the contract for the next 2 years (about 1 mil euros).

As for sustainability, the RPR invests in the youth potential of their members. What is more, they see as the source of the future politicians – they support the young people informally and formally, through an initiative called the University of Reforms. The initiative relies on lectures held by some of the top experts which share their knowledge on different spheres, mostly concerning the reforms. This initiative is an addition to the formal University, and is supported by the Swedish SIDA. The RPR sees this initiative as good grounds for forming the future unbiased and capable politicians. On the other hand, when it comes to any sort of bias, the RPR has a strict policy against it, and therefore it is forbidden for the politicians to be in the RPR. Furthermore, concerning the youth initiatives, there are many praiseworthy efforts of the RPR to include the youth in the reform process, one of them being a group that is reforming youth policies, presenting the Eastern Partnership Working Group Forum. The Forum aims to use culture to prevent and resolve conflicts, and works on youth immigration from the Eastern Partnership. One of the main issues they deal with is how to keep the youth in their countries of origin and, more importantly, how to help them develop the respective countries.

The secret of RPR’s success lies primarily in rules and values. Their main policy is assessment of how the values link to priorities. Moreover, there are 7 priorities chosen by the main RPR body, the Assembly of the NGOs, each year. However, this does not mean that the other sectors are being deprived of any sort of development, but their issues are addressed only after the priorities have been dealt with. The RPR strategy changes once a year, together with the priorities. 85% of the resources are always used to fight corruption, and to reform the Prosecutors’ Office (that is still heavily on the basis of the previous Yanukovich government, with most professional and skilled people, but very corrupt). However, whatever the priorities are, they always try to accentuate that in the core of the State problems there is a cultural problem (values, what is wrong, what is permitted), and thus they highly support the cultural activists.

Looking back, one of the biggest lessons that the RPR activists have learned is that the people who work free of charge (300 people) can be more proactive than the paid ones. They have realized the importance of synergy, and see immense potential in mutual support. The RPR is highly aware of the fact that the reanimation should be done fast, but they see the great importance that is put on the balance of opinions and general inclusion. With that, the biggest aim of the RPR platform is to change the way of forming the legislative initiatives: right now, 80% of the executive power still belongs to the Parliament, and the RPR’s goal is to change it and share the agenda of starting from scratch in each policy making, including all sorts of experts, and only after the thorough investigation and discussion, drafting the law.

The way of functioning that the RPR has is convenient. There is a clear obligation to act on the demand of the society. The RPR is understood as a face of the society, and are contacted mainly when the politicians what to communicate with the society. It’s a very well placed position. The politicians understand that the society is very different and demanding, and it is of extreme importance not to be dismissed by it. It is for this reason that the RPR has the positive response from the side of the authorities. To change the country, the patriotism is not enough, but it is certainly a good starting point.

Author’s note: The members of the “Generation in Transition” met with Mr. Artem Myrgorodskyi, the Head of Secretariat of the Reanimation Package of Reforms (RPR) in Kyiv, Ukraine, on April 18th 2016 to hear more about the RPR and to present their organizations. Article by Rafaela Tripalo.

1 A wave of demonstrations and civil unrest in Ukraine, which began on the night of 21 November 2013 with public protests in Maidan Nezalezhnosti (“Independence Square”) in Kiev, demanding closer European integration. The scope of the protests expanded, with many calls for the resignation of President Viktor Yanukovych and his government. The protests led to the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. Many protesters joined because of the violent dispersal of protesters on 30 November and “a will to change life in Ukraine.”By 25 January 2014, the protests had been fueled by the perception of “widespread government corruption,” “abuse of power,” and “violation of human rights in Ukraine.” Protests climaxed in mid-February. Police and protesters fired live and rubber ammunition across multiple locations in Kiev. Riot police advanced towards Maidan and clashed with protesters but did not fully occupy it. Fighting continued the following days which saw the vast majority of casualties. In connection with the events of February 18–20, Yanukovych was forced to make concessions to the opposition to end the bloodshed in Kiev and end the crisis. The Agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine was signed by Vitaly Klitschko, Arseny Yatsenyuk, Oleh Tyahnybok. The signing was witnessed by the Foreign Ministers of Germany and Poland, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Radosław Sikorski, respectively, and the Director of the Continental Europe Department of the French Foreign Ministry, Eric Fournier. Vladimir Lukin, representing Russia, refused to sign the agreement. In late February 2014, Yanukovych and many other high government officials fled the country. Protesters gained control of the presidential administration and Yanukovych’s private estate. Subsequently, the parliament removed Yanukovych from office, replaced the government with a pro-European one, and ordered that former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko be released from prison.

How painting a door may change peoples mind on community

The activists of „Dyvovyzhni“ use small tools to change the attitude of people. Like painting the entrance of an average apartment block. Sounds like no big deal? It is!

There are many stories on how people change their society or community for the Maria Nasiedkina (600x800)better. However, most initiatives rely on people who made the first step to active citizenship themselves. Maria Nasiedkina’s NGO „Dyvovyzhni“ is a wonderful example of a different kind.

Find Dyvovyzhni on Facebook or visit the Website

The typical entrance of an five-storage apartment block looks rather neglected. The stairs have started to crumble. The initial painting has faded, doors and walls are covered with the scraps of advertisement and graffiti. There is litter around. Inside, the corridor is usually no better…

„The typical attitude of the inhabitants is, that always someone else should do something about it. The the administration, the mayor…”, says Maria. She and her fellow activists want to engage the people in the particular house to take action themselves, and – by doing this – to develop an attitude of involvement and responsibility towards their very community. To understand, that they actually can make change.

“People are at first usually suspicious. They wonder, ‘Who are you?’, ‘Why would you want to spend money on this?’, ‘Are you political?’” Dyvovyzhni’s approach is to find a person in or outside the house who is connected to the inhabitants. This person does the first step to the people and helps building trust. “We only work with people who have sympathy for our idea.” So, sometimes it is a long way until the inhabitants meet and paint the walls of the entrance in a common effort.

What motivates people – some lessons learned

After such a project is finished Dyvovyzhni provides a kind of toolbox for the people involved to keep on working in that spirit of community and engagement they have just developed.

“There is no red button to activate community”, says Maria. But she has a few tips and learnings for those who want to:

  • The first very important: Don’t enter a space like you’re all knowing and everyone should just do what you say to be fine. Be passionate – but be humble.

  • Engage all people in every stage of your initiative.

  • Ask for feedback and show that you consider it.

  • Look for local leaders who have the trust of the community. Otherwise you’re just a stranger from outside.

  • Demonstrate you’re prepared to take action yourself. Be the good example. Do not just preach.

The power of small

There’s another reason why Maria favours small scale projects to change peoples mind about their role as citizens of a community. That is to be able to make an impact from the start, which is of big importance when you try activate people. “People can tell you about a lot of problems. You need to identify one or two specific and you need to have the capacity to do something about it.” That is also important for word-of-mouth-communication: The need to show something concrete.

Common believe goes that people would get involved when a problem is presented as particular big as it creates more urgency. But in fact, too big problems often rather frustrate and lead to apathy as ‘I can not do anything about this anyway’. “What motivates people is the feeling that ‘I could do that too!’. But therefore, someone needs to do the first step.”

Dyvovyzhni also does clean up activities with children. Always the aim is to draw people in: it is your park, your yard! “We try to make them think and talk about their community and develop a different view.”

Author’s note: Christine met Maria at the Congress of Cultural Activists’ Networking Weekend in Kiev, Ukraine, April 2016.

Kiev Networking Congress – Workshop Impressions

The partners of the Transition Dialogie Network took part at the Congress of Cultural Activists’ Networking Weekend in April 2016 in Kiev/Ukraine. The Networking Weekend “Communities&Advocacy” brought together professionals and experts from all over Ukraine and Europe. The participants worked on building field cooperation and finding solutions to develop their joint action pro-gramme focused on their specific projects and interests in order to support the Ukraine transformation process  and the development of civil society with cultural strategies. We presented the Transition Dialogue project and different approaches for involving citizens in civic engagement in the local community. Further, Louisa Slavkova (Sofia Platform), Dörte Grimm (Perspektive3) and Christine Wetzel (DRA e.V.) participated in a Panel on how to Advocate Civil Society Strategies for Change. The role of culture in the development of the society and how it may drive changes is often overlooked. The need to advocate for culture as a driver of development is identified by many stakeholders.

DSCN2746

Meeting of the Congress of Cultural Activists with the new Ukrainien Minister of Culture Iugen Nischuk on Ukrainian Culture Strategy.

conference (1) (225x300)Olena Pravilo

P1000717 (300x225)Polina Filipova, Madalina Amza, Rafaela Tripalo, Christine Wetzel

P1000715 (300x225)

P1000721 (300x225)Polina Filipova

P1000755 (300x225)

P1000789 (300x225)

P1000790 (300x225)Louisa Slavkova and Rafaela Tripalo

P1000792 (300x225)

P1000793 (300x225)

P1000794 (300x225)Supporting Partners

P1000797 (300x225)

P1000795 (225x300)The Network Meeting Agenda