“Civil Society’s Mission is not Doing Good, but Creating an Impact!”

In the webinar titled 'Civil Society and Doing Good', organized jointly by the Platform "Reflections on Doing Good" and Civil Pages, the co-founder of the YADA Foundation Mehmet Ali Çalışkan remarked, "The civil society's mission is not doing good, but creating an impact".

The second webinar in this series was organized in collaboration with Civil Pages on February 7, 2021, under the title ‘Civil Society and Doing Good’. Ahu Özyurt was the moderator in the discussion, and the panelists included YADA Foundation’s Co-Founder Mehmet Ali Çalışkan, Director of Bosphorus Europe School of Politics Hakan Altınay, Emine Uçak of Civil Pages, and Ashoka Country Director Zeynep Meydanoğlu. The panelists shared different perspectives on the place of doing good in civil society.

Ayla Göksel, who edited the volume titled Reflections on Doing Good together with Zülfü Livaneli delivered the inaugural speech of the event, explaining why, on the basis of her experiences in civil society and her reflections, she considered that concepts such as compassion and goodness are not among her criteria of success for the civil society. According to Göksel, under the current conditions, it is necessary to initiate a debate around basic concepts such as goodness which are now considered as “naive efforts”, since civil society actors are key to building a “good” society.

“Civil Society’s Mission is not Doing Good, but Creating an Impact!”

In his article titled “The Good, the Bad and the Dirty: The Story of Civil Society” in the aforementioned volume, Mehmet Ali Çalışkan criticizes the idea that civil society is the place for “the good.” In the panel, Çalışkan indicated that such a perspective would turn civil society organizations into a ‘safe haven’ for those fleeing the other industries considered to be “dirty”. Noting that this approach grants civil society a claim to moral superiority, Çalışkan argued that portraying the private sector and political field, which have decision-making powers, as the realm of “the bad”, makes it difficult for civil society actors to establish dialogue and cooperation with these, thus limiting civil society’s impact. He indicated that civil society actors try to shape the opinions of citizens, while at the same time attempting to influence and transform decisions in the political arena.

According to Çalışkan, instead of positioning civil society as the “realm of the good” and thus rendering it comfortable yet inefficient, one must conceive of civil society as an area of possibilities which can influence decision-making, and explore, render visible, and negotiate social problems. In other words, civil society is an actor which fulfills its mission by exploring the grievances created by the decisions of politicians and the private sector, by virtue of being the actor closest to the field, hence rendering the problems visible and ultimately entering into negotiations with the actors who take the decisions.

In summary, Mehmet Ali Çalışkan argued that the mission of civil society is not to do good but to influence decision-making. Through such an approach, it would be more correct to not position civil society somewhere among the realms of the good, the bad and the dirty, but rather focus on civil society’s competence in formulating policy proposals.

“Doing Good Exists, and is Widespread and Important!” 

Director of Bosphorus Europe School of Politics, Hakan Altınay, who contributed to the volume titled Reflections on Doing Good with his article “Civilization – Commons – Conversation”, emphasized that “doing good exists, and is widespread and important”, arguing that in fact people can survive only through solidarity. Indicating that it is surprising to be obliged to remind this obvious reality, Altınay pointed out that talking about basic human values ​​such as goodness is seen as a naive effort, and that the current system makes people who want to make virtuous choices lonely despite the fact that they are indeed the majority. Setting off from these observations, Altınay stated that the book Reflections on Doing Good is a valuable means for recontextualizing goodness, and shared his hope that similar efforts may follow suit.

Stating that evil exists alongside goodness, and that both can be found in civil society as in every other field, Altınay stated that “civil society” should be viewed as a very broad category, and that a vast array of actors are active in this field alongside institutional structures.

Emphasizing that every social actor, including civil society actors, is dependent on the goodness and support of other people and that in fact, everyone progresses through life thanks to such goodness, Altınay argued that exchange of such “goodness” continues relentlessly among social actors, and that one must not worry about becoming indebted. He noted, “We need each other’s goodwill and virtue. If we care about goodness, then we must perceive it through a social and systemic lens, and our level of analysis should not be the individual level. Through such an approach, one can see the continuous and mutual interaction across society; both the party doing good and the one receiving good gain from it, and this should not be seen through an accounting or balance sheet perspective at the end of the day. Instead, everyone should have an ‘open account,’ because these accounts are passed on from generation to generation, and cannot be closed in a single generation.”

In his intervention, Altınay also underlined that although studies show that goodness is widespread, there are very few stories on goodness, and that it is necessary to multiply such stories. Altınay stated that we should think about strengthening solidarity, and that despite everything, Turkish society continues to believe in conversation.

“Goodness Must Include Considering the Other as Equal”

The editor-in-chief of Civil Pages, Emine Uçak stated in her intervention that she considered Fuat Keyman’s definition of civil society as “citizenship in solidarity” to be much broader and more inclusive than simply seeing civil society as a cluster of institutional structures, and indicated that there is much civil society work conducted in an informal manner as well. Uçak said that the starting point of civil society is “making change happen”.

In response to the question, “Is civil society the arena of the good?”, Uçak said that the civic space is not different from other industries, and that all social problems exist in the civic space as well. According to Uçak, openly discussing such issues within civil society, which suffers increased political pressure and is also beset by internal problems, can contribute to collective action through a critical perspective.

Stating that the polarization found across society exists in the civic space as well, Uçak noted that every actor prefers to act together with institutions that are of a similar perspective, while considering the others to be in opposition. As such, goodness must encompass equality in the civic space, and that positioning oneself as the owner of goodness would result in considering the receivers of that goodness as unequal. Uçak stated that across Turkey, actors have a hard time in considering other actors as “equal” rather than identical. In this approach, the other is not positioned as a “problem”, but neither is it seen as an “equal”. Giving an example, she said that many individuals do not object to distributing aid to refugees, but are against the granting of citizenship to them, as no egalitarian relationship is established between the two parties.

In her speech, Uçak also drew attention to the fact that one must be ready to pay a price for being active in civil society in Turkey. As a result, some actors who do not want to pay such a price prefer to choose not to step into the civic space and not to share the problems, but rather do good from a distance. Uçak argued that some sections of the civil society are being criminalized, resulting in the emergence of “a desirable civil society” and “an undesirable civil society”, from the perspective of the government. Another issue emphasized by Emine Uçak as regards goodness in civil society was the “goodness” of civil society professionals. She argued that, at a time when working in civil society is so challenging, NGOs should not overlook the well-being of their employees.

“Civil Society is the Only Space Where Differences Are in Dialogue”

Ashoka Turkey Director Zeynep Medyanoğlu touched upon civil society experiences in her intervention, stating that when the employee, employer and governance dimensions are analyzed, all industries in Turkey are beset by similar problems, and therefore the civil society should not be idealized. Meydanoğlu indicated that, despite this, “as civil society is the only place where differences are in a dialogue, we can seek goodness in civil society”, and added, “The civic space itself, rather than individual institutions, is very valuable, even beyond rendering problems visible or influencing decision makers,” arguing that this space needs to be preserved.

Meydanoğlu argued that seeing civil society as “the arena of those who do good for others” creates the “privilege of goodness”. Meydanoğlu indicated that this privileged position is translated into civil society jargon with condescending terms such as “target audience” or “beneficiaries”. Indicating that this “privilege of goodness” can create a disconnect between civic space and society at large, Meydanoğlu cited as examples NGOs which carry out campaigns that do not correspond to social problems or needs, or various activities that do not have a social impact.

Meydanoğlu said that civil society actors must ask themselves, “Are we ready to question our own knowledge? Are we open to criticism?” Meydanoğlu pointed out that in large Turkish NGOs, directors are mostly appointed from outside of the civic space and largely from the private sector, whereas in smaller NGOs, the managers are quite old and that the younger generation is not given enough opportunities.