What is the legacy of the Covid-19 pandemic, the invasion of Ukraine, and the war in Karabakh on civil rights? The answer is difficult to give. Who do you phone when you want to talk to "civil society" in the Eastern Partnership region?  

One answer may be found in the Eastern Partnership Index (EaP Index), produced by the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum (EaP CSF). This forum brings together civil society organizations from the EU and the Eastern Partnership countries, including Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. It brings together a "community of practice" and facilitates the exchange of know-how, regional projects and policy development. Published biannually since 2011, the EaP Index sets a baseline of civil rights standards. The 2021-2023 edition presents a unique set of challenges. Conflicts and pandemics are extraordinary events that presumably require extraordinary measures.

As a monitoring exercise, this edition of the EaP Index relies on the input of 65 experts from all six Eastern Partnership countries who track their countries' reform journeys towards sustainable democratic development and European integration. The monitoring covers 14 thematic areas, ranging from the fight against corruption to an independent judiciary and public administration reform. Of course, not all states accept the ultimate goal of European integration, but there is in theory a baseline of civil rights that permeates European political culture and is not necessarily linked to EU membership ambitions.

Expectedly, the Index Dows show that civic standards tend to be better observed in countries that aspire to EU integration, such as Moldova and Ukraine. Nevertheless, the risk of backsliding remains high. Compared to its score in the previous edition of the Index, published in 2021, Georgia's overall performance has declined in all fundamental areas, although it maintains its third place in the so-called "trio". Armenia's performance remains strong, although there are signs of potential democratic backsliding. Azerbaijan and Belarus occupy the bottom two places on the Scorecard, largely because of cases of harassment and intimidation of their judicial systems.

To discuss the state of play in the South Caucasus, we speak with the Index's Project Manager, Alexandra Sabou, and the Index's Executive Editor, Professor Kerry Longhurst. The manager oversees the implementation of a two-year research plan from start to finish: data collection, expert contracting, focus group scheduling, reporting, advocacy, and dissemination efforts. The Executive editor reviews, drafts, and edits the final publication.

Is the East Partnership Civil Society Forum Index relevant?

Alexandra Sabou: Over its 9 editions, our EaP Index has become a reference resource for the region: for policy makers in Brussels and in EU member states, national authorities in the EaP countries, media, academia, and civil society everywhere. 

Its practical recommendations addressed to EU Institutions, governments in the region, and civil society across the board. The EaP Index is an excellent tool that feeds right into ongoing discussions around the Eastern Partnership policy and EU enlargement process. 

With the works and consultations on the 2024 EU Enlargement Package starting in only a couple of months, we look forward to the results of the EaP Index being used again by the EU institutions in their assessment. 

Professor Longhurst: From an academic perspective, the Index is very much seen as a reliable resource for academics, students, and researchers engaged in the region. The information entails tend to fill a gap not covered by EU institutions or other policy documents. It reflects a bottom-up process of stakeholders’ outreach and has distinct value.1

The index aspires to be a civic evaluation of the state. So, I am wondering whether the refusal of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) to ratify the credentials of the Azerbaijani delegation this year was a positive step. In a sense, can you evaluate governance standards of a state you do not engage with? Can this Index endure the rupture of the normative baseline of what we understand as “European” civil rights? If there is no inclusion, can there be evaluation?

Professor Longhurst: As a civil society product the index has a human rights element to it. But it looks across so many different policy areas ranging from trade and transport to anti-corruption. Therefore, it goes beyond a more traditionally framed civic and human rights agenda. 

So, the fact that Azerbaijan’s credentials were not accepted at PACE is in keeping with our research findings. We could say the same of Belarus. It allows society to keep tabs on a government that does not recognize its own accountability. It makes the Index more important, not less, as it responds to the need to keep tubs on government and highlight their failure to carry with them their citizens’ views, no matter where they are heading. 

If you were to pick a positive development in terms of civic rights standards in the South Caucasus, what would you signal out as progress in year-on-year terms?

Professor Longhurst: It is far easier to point to lack of progress and delayed implementation. Social shifts always take time. But what I found from our focus groups is that despite the retreat of civic rights, civil awareness is advancing. I think this bodes very well for the future. Women's rights, gender equality, children's rights, a whole realm of areas where half a decade ago knowledge was sparse, we now see awareness and competence. This is something that hasn't really translated into policy change. We have to wait for that.

Alexandra Sabou:I urge you to check the dynamic dashboard that accompanies the Index. Note that the “Good governance, democracy and rule of law” dimension for both Armenia, and Georgia dropped since 2021. Although Azerbaijan’s score increased by 0.02 points to 0.37/1.00, the change is rather insignificant and masks instances of “weaponized legalism” rather than positive change. 

Still, against this rather pessimistic background, it is important to acknowledge the silver linings of reform. The Index balances out negative trends by featuring case studies that look at positive developments in the region. For example, when it comes to equal opportunities and non-discrimination, we looked at the practice of creating equality bodies that provide equal treatment and assistance to victims of discrimination. Although Moldova is the only country among the six with an Equality Council, the prospect of EU membership incentivizes Georgia (and Ukraine) to align their legislation. 

Georgia was granted an EU candidate status. As the country consents to its evaluation by an EU normative yardstick, would you say that its civic rights regime is progressing or regressing?

Alexandra Sabou:The Index highlights the regression in the pace of reforms in Georgia compared to the 2021 EaP Index. However, the reactions after the publication of the Index only strengthened our assessment. 

The release of the EaP Index in the end of January 2024 made headlines both in Brussels and in the EaP countries. We are pleased to see widespread interest in the findings and recommendations but continue to be appalled with the smear campaign targeting our Georgian colleagues who contributed to the Index (taking place against an increased hostility against civil society in the country). 

Our EaP CSF Steering Committee and the Georgian National Platform stand in solidarity with the Georgian civil society and condemn the naming and shaming tactics targeting activists by members of the ruling coalition and pro-governmental media. Labelling the most critical voices within civil society as “traitors of the nation or of the motherland” speaks against the principles of civic dialogue in a healthy and mature democracy, particularly in a country with European aspirations. 

This delegitimization technique is an old and tested tactic used against representatives of the Georgian civil society now and in the past. We have seen it used regularly in other EaP countries and it is a phenomenon we all need to counter and call out for what it is: a tool to silence dissenting voices, to intimidate civil society, instill fear, and encourage self-censorship. This has been a particularly coward and vicious assault and, we know, that there is nothing patriotic or virtuous in sugar-coating the assessment of the reform process. It is only by welcoming constructive criticism, respecting critical opinion, and involving civil society in its entirety that democratic maturity is achieved. 

Professor Longhurst: I think that had we not been in this geopolitically volatile situation, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia would not have been granted an EU candidate status. We all knew that Georgia is backsliding, and the negative framing of the Georgian Dream government is not surprising. There was nothing outlandish about the reporting. If the country does want to meet EU accession criteria, this report should be regarded as a valuable tool.  

Georgia often performs very well in the technical areas of integration, such as trade, transport, energy, or the environment. When it comes to fundamental areas such as rule of law, political accountability, pluralism and civic freedoms, there is a sense the country has wondered off its path and needs to be pulled back. The Index takes note and calls this out. 

Taking countries one by one: the human rights agenda in Armenia now appears to be dominated by the issue of refugees that left Nagorno Karabakh in September 2023. Within Armenia, there seems to be a debate on weighing rights, civic versus collective-national rights or more broadly the rights of Armenians, as a nation or a Diaspora, versus the rights of Armenian citizens. Was this tension reflected in the Index? 

Professor Longhurst: Not really because of the reporting period. We had been concluding our work in the summer of 2023, just as these issues became more and more important. 

Alexandra Sabou: The reporting period of this Index covers the period from September 2021 to July 2023, with some references to concrete events until November 2023. The issue of Armenian refugees fleeing Nagorno Karabakh in September 2023 was not accounted for in this edition of the Index, as it unfolded beyond the data collection period (survey and focus groups).

Professor Longhurst: I expect these themes to emerge in the next iteration of the Index. Armenia is a high scorer in many categories but, as the country does not engage in the enlargement dynamic and pursues its own multi-vector foreign policy paradigm, there is less momentum. We have reason to expect renewed momentum. 

Alexandra Sabou: Exactly. In the conclusions of the Council of October 2023, the Commission was instructed to explore a new format of EU-Armenia relations that would be different than the DCFTA-Association Agreement type and will most probably be tailored to Armenia’s needs. During the last annual assembly of the East Partnership Civic Society Forum, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia {Ararat Mirzoyan} articulated, explicitly and for the first time, the country’s European aspirations. 

Do you feel the Index has a tangible impact on instances of political oppression? From our earlier discussion, I understand some of the experts are being signaled out as traitors. As an advocacy tool, it certainly comes at a cost for the people involved. Does it worth it?

Alexandra Sabou: For the elaboration of this edition of the Index, we worked with 65 experts from the EaP region. Yes, the engagement of experts does entail a cost. But there are two sides of this coin: 

On the one hand, their engagement as experts in the EaP Index is a recognition of their knowledge and affirmative of their status among their civil society peers. They are placed in a space of international prominence and visibility, channeling their input and engaging in a range of advocacy events. 

On the other hand, as you probably noticed, Belarusian experts and one expert from Azerbaijan preferred to stay anonymous in this publication (as in some of the previous editions). Given their work and criticism directed against their governments, the repercussions for their actions and words can quickly become very real.  For example, one of the most long-lasting contributors to the EaP Index, Dr. Gubad Ibadoghlu was arrested in Azerbaijan last summer on bogus charges and remains behind bars in a critical condition despite having the whole international community calling for his immediate release and access to healthcare. In this context, my advice to all those who read us is to stand in solidarity with civil society across the EaP region, call for the release of political prisoners in Belarus and Azerbaijan and never succumb to fear. 

Professor Longhurst: I agree. All the experts engaged are impressively informed, experienced, and previously consulted by international bodies and organizations. What has happened in Georgia has not happened in Ukraine or Moldova, where there is a slightly wider civic space, and our experts are at liberty to give their opinions on the record. It's not that we have these problems routinely. 

A lot of the value of expert involvement stems from their commitment to building a community of practice, with similar experts across all six countries who have an interest in holding their governments to account, presenting fresh perspectives, creating links between issues and themes that governments won’t. So, despite what occurred in Georgia, anonymity in Belarus and a comparable situation in Azerbaijan, I think our experts are still committed to this community of practice that revolves around the index. 

You know, this is one of the very few active collaborations across these six countries, where this community of experts listens to each other and they enact their influence on society, learning from each other. This learning element that we definitely noticed throughout the nine editions. There's lots of spin off publications, but I think if you look at the evolution of the Eastern Partnership Index since 2009, there are few cooperation initiatives as resilient across these six countries. That is something to be prized and celebrated. 

Alexandra Sabou: Absolutely. In fact, the idea of replicating this EaP Index model in the Western Balkans has been often vehiculated, recognizing the successful people-to-people dimension of the Index, its robust methodology, and the emergence of this community of practice. 

The war in Ukraine brought a different political urgency in engaging Ukraine and Georgia. The war also created some positive economic momentum for the region, with double digit growth. In this contradiction, what is the state of civic rights? We tend to think democracies do better when they are well off. What is the war doing to the South Caucasus? Do you see a distinct pattern? 

Professor Longhurst: One of the things that really stands out is how the South Caucasus has become this kind of interconnection hub. There is a desire to sidestep Russia as an energy provider and transport conduit and there is new commitment to mega infrastructure investment in the region – energy, ports, etc. – primarily in Azerbaijan and Georgia and less so Armenia. 

Overall, I find it hard to speak of “war benefits.” Clearly, wartime is not a good period to improve civic rights. We've seen this not just in the war in Ukraine also Nagorno Karabakh, as governments see an opportunity to frame and emergency mandate and reduce civic rights. War and rights go against each other: reducing access to information, clamping down freedom of assembly and association. So, you might have economic benefits – trade, energy, logistics – but you don't at all see an improvement in human rights standards. 

These countries are still coming out of COVID restrictions that have barely been removed. Azerbaijan's land borders are still completely closed. It's a kind of handy hangover for the government to keep those restrictions in place. Armenia also used war and conflict to reduce the public's access to information. There are a lot of nuances here but that is my overall remark.

Contributed by Ilya Roubanis