For the past 7 years, the Institute For Democracy in Eastern Europe (IDEE) has been organizing biannual meetings of East and East Central European non-governmental organizations (NGO) in the Centers for Pluralism (CfP) Network

In 1996, I first attended a CfP meeting in Poland as the director of the Inam Center for Pluralism, and then participated in following meetings held in Crimea, Bosnia, Belarus, Hungary, and Romania. The Inam Center for Pluralism even hosted one of these meetings in Baku, Azerbaijan. Through these meetings, I met hundreds of people and became acquainted with the activities of many organizations. Looking back at the results of these meetings I understand how important they have been for my own organization.

On September 24-26 1999, IDEE held the 14th CfP meeting of in Brasov, Romania. Having participated in 7 of the last 14 meetings, I would like to speak about what I believe to me the main benefits of such meetings. The meeting, called "Building Bridges," was faithful to our unofficially adopted slogan of "this meeting must be more useful and effective than the previous one." Participants gave presentations on the situation in Balkans, discussed the role of NGOs in the Balkans, and became acquainted with the work their counterparts in Romania and Croatia were doing to support democratic progress. The meeting included presentations by representatives from several countries on the role of NGOs in the formation of successful coalitions and the activities of NGOs in elections. Luminita Petrescu, the president of the Foundation for Pluralism and an advisor to the president of Romania on NGOs,  gave a speech on the relationship between NGOs and state institutions.

As a result of these meetings, Inam now closely cooperates with dozens of NGOs around the world and has a concrete goal and wide range of activities, and I believe that all of the representatives of organizations in the Centers for Pluralism Network would agree. Organizations that are weak and have no concrete solutions benefit greatly by becoming acquainted with the experience and new ideas of other NGOs, and they learn ways to solve  problems, and at times become a strong organization as a result of these meetings.

I believe that the CfP Network is successful one precisely because of its regional approach. By including NGOs from East European countries, i.e. organizations from post-communist countries, these organizations can compare their interests, problems, and difficulties in these countries, and find common elements of strategy and actions in spite of their different national traditions. We understand each others problems and experience, including such things as election falsification, censorship, registration issues, interference of state institutions, and regional conflicts.

In addition to NGO work, the CfP Network also opens discussions about ethnic conflicts and allows each side to bring its own unique perspective. At this meeting, representatives from the Balkans and the Caucasus were able to speak about their experience, and provided information that I have not seen from any other organization or new agency. These meetings provide knowledge that can’t be gained from academic or written materials on ethnic conflict.

The CfP Network provides conditions for organizations working in authoritarian countries to learn not only theoretical, but also practical experience of organizations that have worked under such regimes for the last decade, as well as those that work in states that have made a successful transition to democracy. One of the main issues for NGOs in Azerbaijan is democratic elections. This a central issue for NGOs in other countries as well, and there are organizations that have worked for many years in this field and have a great deal of experience. There are also people having run his/or hers candidacy in elections, but losing it because of falsifications, or wining the elections among us. There are specialists observing democratic or anti-democratic elections among us. The CfP meeting provides a useful forum to exchange opinions and experience with these people, as well as ways to establish cooperation among NGOs in the region.

When I was in Poland in 1998, I compared things with two years ago, and saw how many changes had taken place in the country since then. Reforms now show concrete results in the political, economic, legal, and social spheres. Hungary, Slovenia, and even the Baltic are also among those states that have experienced significant reforms. Why do these reforms face such difficulties in Romania and Bulgaria, and why don’t Belarus and Serbia want reforms? These countries are in different stages on the road to democracy and civil society. Some of them are in transitions, some are attempting reforms, and others are not. Yet, several years ago they were all in the same starting position.

I can say that over the past three years I learned not just what NGOs are, but also their role in society. I also learned how to express my opnion freely, start initiatives that I believe in, and then implement these ideas to solve different societal problems without the government’s direct participation (according to old communist thinking, all problems in society are solved by the state). At the same time, I have met colleagues, learned from their experience as citizens carrying out of these ideas and trying to implement them in practice.