Funding nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) to encourage democratisation features prominently on the EU's policy agenda for accession countries. The rationale for EU funding to NGOs communicated through policy documents suggests such interests are largely due to the salience of liberal democratic rhetoric, premised on supporting liberal individualism and respect for human rights. By looking at the situation in Turkey, this paper argues that the success of such an approach is contingent on how well it corresponds with the reality of civil society relations in the recipients' context. In cases where such a correlation between policy and context does not exist, donor funding may lead to further divisions between groups in civil society, and even fuel the differences that exist between various groups.
Bibliographical noteReference text: 1. Meltem Mu¨ftu¨ler-Bac¸, ‘Turkey’s Political Reforms and the Impact of the European Union’, South European Society and Politics 10, no. 1 (2005): 23.
2. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, trans. T.M. Knox (Oxford: Clarendon, 1952), section 182.
3. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, section 185.
4. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, section 289.
5. John Keane, Civil Society: Old Images, New Visions (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998).
6. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (London: Penguin, 1998), 206.
7. Robert Putnam, ‘Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital’, Journal of Democracy 6, no. 1 (1995): 65 –78; Robert Putnam, Robert Leonardi and Raffaella Nanetti, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994).
8. Robert Putnam,Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000).
9. Claire Mercer, ‘NGOs, Civil Society and Democratization: A Critical Review of the Literature’, Progress in Development Studies 2, no. 1 (2002): 5 –22.
10. Jude Howell and Jenny Pearce,Civil Society and Development: A Critical Exploration, ed. Jude Howell and Jenny Pearce (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001), 39 –40.
11. Marina Ottaway and Thomas Carothers, Funding Virtue (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2000).
12. Mercer, ‘NGOs, Civil Society and Democratization’, 7.
13. Iris Young, ‘Together in Difference: Transforming the Logic of Group Political Conﬂict’, in
Principled Positions: Postmodernism and the Rediscovery of Value, ed. Judith Squires (London: Lawrence & W., 1993), 121 –50.
14. Gunter Seufert, ‘The Impact of National Discourses on Civil Society’, in Civil Society in the Grip of Nationalism, ed. Stefan Yerasimos, Gunter Seufert and Karin Vorhoff (Istanbul:
Orient-Institut, 2000), 25–47.
15. Fuat Keyman, ‘On the Relation between Global Modernity and Nationalism: The Crisis of
Hegemony and Rise of (Islamic) Identity in Turkey’, New Perspectives on Turkey 13(1995):
16. Nilufer Go¨e, ‘Toward an Autonomization of Politics and Civil Society’, in Politics in the Third Turkish Republic, vol. 1, ed. Metin Heper and Ahmet Evin (Oxford: Westview Press, 1994), chap. 17, 213 –22.
17. Ibid., 215.
18. Fuat Keyman, ‘Global Modernity, Identity and Democracy: The Case of Turkey’, in Redeﬁning the Nation State and Citizen, ed. Gunay Goksu Ozdogan and Gu¨l Tokay (Istanbul: Eren, 2000), 69–89.
19. Keyman, ‘On the Relation between Global Modernity and Nationalism’, 71.
20. Necmi Erdog˘an, ‘Kemalist Non-Governmental Organizations: Troubled Elites in Defence of a Sacred Heritage’, in Civil Society in the Grip of Nationalism, ed. Stefan Yerasimos, Gunter Seufert and Karin Vorhoff (Istanbul: Orient-Institut, 2000), 251 –82.
21. Evren Celik Wiltse, ‘The Gordian Knot of Turkish Politics: Regulating Headscarf Use in
Public’, South European Society and Politics 13, no. 2 (2008): 195 –215.
- civil society
- EU accession