Prospects for Public Interaction Between National Minority Civil Society Organizations and Territorial Communities in Ukraine

Marian TOKAR

Taras DATSO

Abstract: This article examines the prospects for public interaction between civil society organizations representing national minorities and territorial communities in Ukraine in the context of decentralization, democratic consolidation, and the transition toward a service-oriented state. The study aims to identify the institutional conditions, mechanisms, and risks that determine whether such organizations can act as intermediaries, service providers, and channels of minority participation in local governance. Methodologically, the research combines conceptual analysis of public policy and civil society, analysis of Ukrainian legislation and strategic documents, interpretation of statistical and institutional data, and a structural-functional approach to cooperation among public authorities, local self-government bodies, communities, and non-governmental organizations. The analysis proceeds from the premise that democratic public policy should not be limited to administrative control; it should create an enabling environment for civic participation, mutual accountability, and the representation of public interests. The article substantiates four interrelated dimensions of cooperation: motivational, human-resource, functional, and innovative. It also distinguishes locally rooted organizations from cross-sectoral organizations and identifies regional disparities, institutional distrust, weak coordination, grant dependence, and non-transparent selection practices as major constraints. Particular attention is paid to organizations of national minorities whose participation can strengthen social integration and local cohesion. The findings demonstrate that effective partnership requires predictable legal frameworks, transparent procedures, strategic planning, professional capacity, permanent communication platforms, and recognition of civic organizations as autonomous public actors. The article concludes that institutionalized cooperation between minority organizations and territorial communities can enhance the quality of local services, deepen participatory governance, and contribute to post-war recovery and civic consolidation in Ukraine.

Keywords: public governance, civil society organization, national minorities, territorial communities, decentralization.

Introduction

The relevance of this study stems from the need to modernize Ukraine’s public policy for promoting the de­velopment of civil society organiza­tions and to institutionalize their in­teraction with territorial communi­ties. In the context of decentraliza­tion, wartime challenges, and the transition toward a service-oriented model of the state, such interaction is particularly important for social con­solidation and the integration of citi­zens of diverse ethnonational back­grounds.

The purpose of the article is to identify promising directions for public interaction among the state, national minority civil society or­ganizations, and territorial communi­ties. The research hypothesis is that recognizing civil society organiza­tions as autonomous actors in public governance, and engaging them in intermediary, service-delivery, and communication activities, enhances community capacity and strengthens trust between public authorities and civil society.

To achieve this purpose, the study pursues the following objectives: to clarify the conceptual foundations of public policy in the field of civil so­ciety development; to characterize the territorial community as a space of public interaction; to identify the motivational, human-resource, func­tional, and innovative dimensions of cooperation; to systematize regional risks; and to substantiate directions for institutional modernization.

The methodological framework combines systems and structural-functional approaches with methods of analyzing legislation and strategic documents, comparison, generaliza­tion, and institutional modelling. These methods are used to identify the preconditions, functional dimen­sions, risks, and prospects of interac­tion among public authorities, territo­rial communities, and national mi­nority civil society organizations.

1. Theoretical and Methodological Foundations of the Study

1.1. State of Research on the Problem

The modernization of public pol­icy is a central issue in public gov­ernance and remains a major concern for scholars, practicing civil servants, politicians, legal professionals, and civic activists. The substantial body of relevant scholarship attests to the continuing significance of this prob­lem. Particularly important are the works of M. Piren³, V. Tertychka², and V. Andriiash⁴, which examine the general concept of policy and the specific nature of state (public) pol­icy. Ye. Shakhnenko demonstrates the complexity of the theoretical and methodological debate concerning public policy and the role of civil society institutions in its formation⁵. The evolution of contemporary civil society in Ukraine is traced and ana­lyzed by M. Kanavets⁶ and O. Korniievskyi⁷, who identify the cur­rent priorities of state support for the civic sector.

1.2. Public Policy within the Sys­tem of State-Civil Society Interaction

Citizens, as recipients of services delivered for the public benefit, are increasingly demanding with regard to service quality and the develop­ment of a stable, socially equitable, and service-oriented public policy. The scholarly literature offers differ­ent approaches to conceptualizing this notion, reflecting the multidi­mensional character of state-building and the diversity of societal demands. Nevertheless, these approaches share a common semantic core: a set of both standard and context-specific actions undertaken by the state to meet the interests of its citizens⁸. M. Piren emphasizes the importance of public policy, describing it as in­creasingly attentive to the European context of administrative culture and progressively reforming public ad­ministration in accordance with EU standards⁹. The diversity of ap­proaches to defining public policy is also evident in the extensive work of both theorists and practitioners¹⁰.

As in the state’s broader approach to national minorities, it is essential to distinguish clearly between the substantive meanings assigned to public policy under different political regimes, since those meanings di­rectly affect both policy outcomes and citizens’ perceptions of public interaction. In a democratic society, public policy is oriented less toward controlling or influencing the partici­pants in public relations than toward facilitating, supporting, and advanc­ing the public interests of society and its institutions. By contrast, the poli­cies of non-democratic regimes pri­marily protect the interests of the state and dominant groups rather than those of society as a whole, funda­mentally altering the conditions for consensual interaction between gov­ernment and society. In Ukraine, therefore, changes in political leader­ship should not radically disrupt the course of democratic reforms, partic­ularly those approaching completion. This is especially relevant to decen­tralization, in which civil society or­ganizations can play an illustrative role in implementing the emerging tasks of public governance and de­fining their renewed public-benefit function in communication between public authorities and territorial communities, including communities with compactly settled national mi­norities.

Under contemporary conditions of democratic development, the grow­ing complexity of public-governance interaction, the increasing specializa­tion of administrative and functional processes, and the routine practice of state-building all require recognition that the public actions of state au­thorities are interdependent with those of other societal institutions and local self-government bodies. These actors are expected to contrib­ute, with greater commitment, com­petence, and responsibility, to ad­dressing the many dimensions of human activity and to represent citi­zens’ corresponding societal demands before the state. Despite the resources at its disposal, a democratic state cannot independently design and im­plement strategies or programmes for every sphere of social life without sustained engagement by the relevant societal stakeholders, who are them­selves the principal users of social and public services. The state can, however, support the demands of civil society and use its instruments and mechanisms to facilitate their implementation in public practice.

In this context, the public charac­ter of policy reflects the state’s ca­pacity to interact with civil society, respond appropriately to its demands, and remain focused on citizens’ pub­lic interests. Public policy in different sectors should therefore create con­ditions conducive to their develop­ment and sustain a reciprocal com­municative relationship between a service-oriented state and civil soci­ety. At the same time, the state pos­sesses legal, organizational, and fi­nancial instruments through which established priorities may be imple­mented within the regulatory frame­work¹¹.

Because public policy passes through several procedural stages, its substance must remain open to con­tinuous and dynamic improvement. Policy adaptability is a requirement of a rapidly changing democratic en­vironment in which interaction among public actors serves both as an instrument for fulfilling citizens’ demands and as a means of protect­ing their public interests. Accord­ingly, the contemporary toolkit of public policy is a key indicator of the willingness and capacity of a service-oriented state to meet the standards of public culture in a renewed civil so­ciety, where every citizen is treated as equal among equals.

Ukraine continues to face a range of internal and external problems that impede the development of an effec­tive public policy for civil society and the sustainable support of civil society organizations. In particular, there remains considerable ambiguity regarding the place and role of such organizations in defining the sub­stance and evaluating the effective­ness of policy across different spheres, including socioeconomic, environmental, civic, and political domains. The actions of the various participants are therefore insuffi­ciently coordinated not only during policy formation, but also during lo­cal implementation. This creates a need to improve the instruments and mechanisms of policymaking by fostering mutual trust and establish­ing public communication platforms whose primary purpose is coordina­tion rather than control. The public environment must be open and gen­uinely participatory, with broad citi­zen involvement in governance. The creation of amalgamated territorial communities as an outcome of Ukraine’s decentralization reform offers a constructive example of such a synergistic and goal-oriented public space. Within this arrangement, civil society organizations can serve as intermediary communicators and ser­vice providers between the principal actors of a service-oriented state and civil society.

In recent years, official pro­gramme initiatives have strengthened the legal and regulatory framework of public policy intended to promote civil society organizations. The De­cree of the President of Ukraine of 24 March 2012, No. 212/2012, „On the Strategy of State Policy for Promot­ing the Development of Civil Society in Ukraine and Priority Measures for Its Implementation”¹², and the related regulatory instruments¹³ were not fully implemented. Nevertheless, their provisions enabled society and the state, following the Revolution of Dignity, to define more clearly and accelerate their orientation toward fundamental democratic values. The National Strategy for Promoting the Development of Civil Society in Ukraine for 2016-2020, approved by Presidential Decree No. 68/2016 of 26 February 2016, established a broad range of state responsibilities for advancing civil society¹⁴. Ac­cording to experts from the National Institute for Strategic Studies, im­plementation of the Strategy pro­duced substantial progress, particu­larly through the legal recognition of opportunities for civil society organi­zations to cooperate with public au­thorities and participate in joint pro­jects¹⁵.

The successful implementation of such strategies requires recognition that a state’s democratic development depends on forward-looking plans for relations between a service-oriented state and civil society, grounded ex­clusively in partnership. Regional imbalances in the implementation of nationwide programmes nevertheless remain significant. At the same time, we agree with the researchers’ con­clusion that the document „recog­nized the growing influence of civil society within the state and affirmed its status as a partner in dialogue with public authorities, including in the context of improving interaction with public-governance institutions”¹⁶. This position is fully consistent with our understanding of effective sup­port for civil society organizations in Ukraine and highlights the need for a focused public policy that stimulates their activities and cooperation with communities. Recognizing represent­atives of national minorities as equal participants in public-governance relations will further reinforce social cohesion in the implementation of such plans.

2. The Territorial Community as a Space of Public Interaction

2.1. Institutional Preconditions and Challenges of Decentralization

In what practical setting can the emerging role of a civil society or­ganization be most clearly ex­pressed? The discussion focuses on its interaction with a new form of civic self-organization – the territorial community – within a modernized relationship with the state. The crea­tion of a field of relations among newly empowered actors is only one component of Ukraine’s nationwide decentralization reform. Even so, it constitutes a practical test of the state’s democratic system: its capac­ity to achieve social consensus, de­velop an inclusive public policy, and advance the evolution of public gov­ernance. It remains premature to de­clare the process successful because its local implementation continues to encounter evident difficulties. Nev­ertheless, the potential for positive change is clear when territorial com­munity formation is understood both as a redistribution of public-govern­ance powers and as a channel of co­operation between civil society and a service-oriented state.

The difficulties affecting public interaction among institutional actors in the course of democratic transfor­mation include the psychological unwillingness of authorities at differ­ent levels to transfer part of their powers to new forms of local self-government. From the authors’ per­spective, the following additional problems of decentralization require particular attention:

– interference by regional authori­ties in, and obstruction of, mecha­nisms for expressing the popular will, thereby violating the fundamental principle that territorial communities must be formed voluntarily;

– delays in issuing formal conclu­sions and the obstruction by local autho­rities of procedures for their approval;

– citizens’ distrust of public aut­hor­ities and disbelief in the possi­bi­lity of equitable cooperation with them;

– limited understanding of the re­form and indifference toward it among some local residents¹⁷.

In this context, civic engagement – and, in particular, the public-benefit activities of civil society organiza­tions – should play an important pub­lic role. Functionally, such organiza­tions can both facilitate a smooth transition during this component of decentralization reform and subse­quently become key participants in the everyday life of territorial com­munities.

2.2. Civic Participation and the Capacity of Territorial Communities

At the beginning of 2019, the of­ficial Decentralization website re­ported that 806 territorial communi­ties had been established in Ukraine¹⁸. At that time, 655 commu­nities with direct interbudgetary rela­tions with the state had already un­dergone an assessment of their per­formance indicators¹⁹. This was an important measure of the effective­ness of decentralization, confirming the reform’s strategic validity and underscoring the need to accelerate its full implementation. Citizens’ generally positive reception of the reform and their sense of meaningful participation in addressing socially significant tasks were also evident. This applied especially to social ser­vices, regional development and en­vironmental protection, local social infrastructure, and the national and cultural life of communities. In light of these developments, we agree with the view that „the distinctive charac­ter of the territorial community lies in the fact that the bearer of self-gov­erning functions is not merely the object of administrative decisions, but independently adopts and imple­ments them, thereby acting simulta­neously as both the object and the subject of governance”²⁰.

The first requirement in this situ­ation is citizens’ confidence in their own capacities and opportunities. A sense of being needed within civil society is an important attribute of democracy. Reform must place the individual, their worldview, and their public interests at its centre. Enabling citizens to participate in the exercise of state functions is, at the same time, a significant step in the development of public governance. Unfortunately, many citizens remain unprepared to express an active civic position indi­vidually, even though they are will­ing to articulate it collectively, par­ticularly when addressing public is­sues that affect their daily lives. Na­tional minorities should assert their participation in self-government. Na­tional minority civil society organi­zations should therefore strengthen the effective authority of civic asso­ciations as public instruments capable of representing citizens’ collective interests in relations between society and the state. Under the auspices of a service-oriented state, cooperation with territorial communities provides a promising mechanism through which civil society organizations can demonstrate their public-benefit po­tential. Encouragingly, such practices already operate successfully in sev­eral regions of Ukraine and have considerable potential for nationwide expansion²¹.

3. A Model of Cooperation between Civil Society Organizations and Territorial Communities

In view of the preceding analysis, we seek to substantiate the possibili­ties for public cooperation between a public-benefit civil society organiza­tion – including an organization rep­resenting a national minority – and a territorial community. We propose examining this cooperation across four dimensions: motivational (1), human-resource (2), functional (3), and innovative (4).

3.1. Motivational and Human-Re­source Dimensions

1. The motivational dimension consists in restoring citizens’ trust in public institutions and preventing local authorities from neglecting is­sues that directly affect community life. A civil society organization can encourage citizens to adopt an active civic position, promote self-organi­zation, and cultivate a culture of public participation in community affairs. Coordinated strategic plan­ning and the alignment of community development strategies through con­tinuous monitoring of specific de­mands and pressing local problems enable an organization to reconcile the interests of all stakeholders. Close attention must be paid to the many contextual factors on which commu­nity development depends, and problem-solving approaches should therefore be adapted to local circum­stances. Admittedly, there is still in­sufficient practical experience and an inadequate legal framework for reg­ulating public-governance relations between civil society organizations and territorial communities²². Nev­ertheless, such cooperation could re­duce the burden on state authorities, optimize their interaction with com­munities, enhance the effectiveness and public standing of all parties, and promote constructive dialogue.
2. The human-resource dimen­sion derives from the capacity of a civil society organization, as an inde­pendent institution, to engage spe­cialists and experts from different fields in assessing the realistic pro­spects for establishing an amalga­mated territorial community and sub­sequently determining its objective place in the territorial environment and in regional life more broadly. This involves not only monitoring and forecasting services designed to assess community conditions and capacity, but also other practical in­terventions. An organization may, for example, provide legal assistance during community formation, deliver informational and educational sup­port for its activities, and deploy its human and intellectual resources pragmatically for local development. Human-resource capacity can thus be mobilized in multiple ways, in ac­cordance with the community’s func­tional possibilities and aspirations. For a national minority, it also con­stitutes an important means of col­lective self-expression.

3.2. Functional and Innovative Dimensions

3. The functional dimension con­cerns the organization’s capacity to provide a range of services to the community, particularly social, legal, economic, cultural, and educational services. A civil society organization can become a centre of public dia­logue and a focal point for coordi­nating interests in support of the pro­spective, dynamic, and sustainable development of an amalgamated ter­ritorial community. It may also mo­bilize other forms of capacity, in­cluding identifying benefactors, or­ganizing volunteer work, arranging informational, educational, and rec­reational activities, supporting spe­cific social groups, and cooperating with educational, cultural, and busi­ness institutions.
4. The innovative dimension of cooperation among public actors em­bodies a new vision of civic self-or­ganization. It brings contemporary ideas into public-governance rela­tions, including mobile social ser­vices and the development of elec­tronic and networked democracy. Public interac­tion between civil soci­ety organiz­ations and amalgamated territorial communities is manifested in:

– a fundamental transformation of the substantive functioning of the civil society organization as an insti­tution of civil society, ranging from institutional rebranding to the legis­lative recognition of new forms of public-benefit action and the intro­duction of managerial and techno­logical innovations;

– the establishment of close rela­tions between the civil society or­ganization and the territorial commu­nity, including the reorientation of public-interaction actors toward ser­vice provision.

Overall, the use of managerial and innovative approaches constitutes a mechanism for creating fundamen­tally new conditions for public rela­tions among institutional actors within the state.

Thus, in light of the preceding discussion and the experience already accumulated, we maintain that civil society organizations can and should assume public intermediary functions that facilitate the full implementation of social transformations and re­forms, including decentralization²³.

4. Regional Specificities and Risks of Public Interaction

Public interaction also displays regional specificities that affect the engagement of the civic sector in ad­dressing particular problems. These specificities are social in origin, in­cluding labour migration and incom­plete families, as well as political, including war and internal and exter­nal migration.

4.1. Regional Factors Affecting the Participation of National Minority Organizations

In economically disadvantaged regions of Ukraine and in areas with vulnerable social infrastructure, civil society organizations engaged in public-benefit activities encounter numerous problems arising from dis­trust on the part of the state and, at times, society itself. Although social and related regional problems reflect broader national conditions, civil so­ciety organizations in some regions nevertheless face particularly severe difficulties in motivating and mobi­lizing local participation.

For example, national minority associations, whose primary purpose is to safeguard the interests of a par­ticular ethnonational community and preserve its cultural and everyday traditions, experience considerable difficulty in articulating their collec­tive public rights to participate in governance and in the resolution of local issues within the territorial communities where their members reside. This concerns primarily non-Slavic groups, such as Roma and Jews, although comparable situations also arise in the daily lives of other ethnonational communities. The re­gional constellation of problems ad­versely affects the integration of many national minorities into Ukrainian society. It is therefore nec­essary to coordinate the plans and actions of state authorities, local self-government bodies, and civil society institutions, and to develop a bal­anced integration policy, particularly at the grassroots level of public gov­ernance, where it is most sensitive and vulnerable. Long-term plans for territorial community development should also incorporate public-gov­ernance considerations, especially those dependent on the active en­gagement of all segments of the local population in cooperation with civil society organizations. Such an ap­proach would help establish effective partnerships and encourage all actors to uphold equality and fairness in the conduct of public policy.

It is equally necessary for state authorities to keep pace with con­temporary developments, consist­ently harmonize national legislation with the requirements of global and European partners, and implement strategic plans for societal develop­ment responsibly across all priority areas. Society, in turn, must embrace a corresponding model of public co­existence and develop forward-look­ing relations among all members of civil society. At Ukraine’s present stage of development, however, the psychological transformation re­quired for citizens to accept parity in public governance remains a persis­tent challenge. This transformation depends largely on the motivational activity of all participants in state-building. Moreover, efforts to pro­mote civil society organizations through their interaction with all par­ticipants in public-governance rela­tions are exposed to both internal and external risks that may arise during cooperation.

4.2. Internal and External Risks

Internal risks. A significant risk is the instrumental use of grant funding by certain civil society organiza­tions²⁴. This occurs when an organi­zation is established primarily to se­cure funding for a topical social is­sue, while its mission and reporting do not correspond to the needs of the target groups. The risk also affects some national minority organiza­tions. In response, donor institutions, public authorities, and territorial communities are improving mecha­nisms for verification, monitoring, and competitive partner selection. Evaluating an organization’s institu­tional history, reputation, alignment of services with target-group needs, and team capacity helps minimize the participation of bad-faith or merely nominal entities in programmes serving the public benefit.

External risks are associated with the non-transparent lobbying of pri­vate interests by individual represent­atives of state authorities and local self-government bodies. These risks manifest themselves in perfunctory partner searches, non-public compe­titions, undemocratic selection pro­cedures, conflicts of interest, and support for affiliated organizations. Such practices reduce the effective­ness of service programmes, under­mine the authority of public institu­tions, and weaken trust between part­ners. Their prevention requires trans­parent criteria, open competitive se­lection, and independent monitoring.

5. Institutional Typology and Directions for Public Policy Modernization

5.1. A Typology of Civil Society Organizations

Civil society organizations them­selves have an interest in public in­teraction with all participants in pub­lic-governance relations. Their ap­proach to resolving the social prob­lems of territorial communities should be considered in terms of their capacity to position themselves as organizations serving the public ben­efit. In the authors’ view, the territo­rial community’s demand for system­atic services provided by institutions independent of the state creates an opportunity to modernize the state-building potential of civil society. Organizations of this kind may be divided into two broad groups.

The first group comprises civil society organizations established di­rectly by the bearers of decentraliza­tion values – members of the com­munity – and formally constituted on the basis of their public-benefit work within the local social environment. Their purpose is to resolve problems and protect the public interests of members of a particular amalgamated territorial community. In practice, the community initiates the establish­ment of an organization that is func­tionally empowered to defend its members’ public interests. The activ­ities of such organizations generally focus exclusively on issues affecting community life. They cooperate closely with comparable organiza­tions, may form organizational coali­tions, civic corporations, or unions, and often become permanent partners of donors that prioritize territorial community development.

The second group consists of cross-sectoral civil society organiza­tions. Their activities address a wide variety of democratic-development tasks, while the everyday needs of territorial communities are not their primary concern. A community be­comes the focus of such an organiza­tion only situationally, for example when a service programme must be implemented, a relevant thematic or social commission is received, or the organization is engaged as a tempo­rary partner. This practice is wide­spread because grant providers seek to broaden their public and civic au­diences and identify committed part­ners, as well as proactive and creative actors.

5.2. Directions for Institutional Modernization

In Ukraine, interaction among the state, amalgamated territorial com­munities, and civil society organiza­tions is therefore a pressing contem­porary issue, as demonstrated by the priority accorded to their public-ben­efit activity within public-governance relations. Such interaction can be ad­vanced through established service mechanisms, including public educa­tion and civic learning, managerial and technological innovation, media literacy, creative industries, and so­cial-service support. The motiva­tional dimension of civil society or­ganizations is primarily expressed through public-benefit cooperation with state authorities, local self-gov­ernment bodies, and territorial com­munities. In our view, their social-service orientation is mutually bene­ficial for the emergence of a new model of relations between the state and civil society. Public policy, as an instrument of this synergistic interac­tion, contributes to embedding demo­cratic values and fostering a civic culture of mutual respect, equality, and justice.

The potential for cooperation between a civil society organization, local self-government bodies, and territorial communities highlights the need to modify public policy in­tended to promote such organiza­tions. To acquire a practical and gen­uinely public character, this policy must clearly define their status as actors distinct from other civil soci­ety entities, including unions, associ­ations, foundations, and other bodies of citizen self-organization²⁴. Two principal factors support this posi­tion: one quantitative and the other qualitative.

The quantitative factor is demon­strated by the growth in the number of civil society organizations in Ukraine: as of 1 January 2018, 80,461 such organizations were reg­istered²⁵. This figure indicates the substantial institutional potential of the civic sector, although the quality and effectiveness of these organiza­tions’ activities must also be assessed. Positive indicators include increased citizen and organizational participa­tion in service delivery, particularly in the social sphere, as well as the willingness of public in­stitutions to support civic self-orga­nization. At the national level, greater attention has been devoted to trans­parency, openness, and co­operation with civil society institu­tions²⁶.

With regard to qualitative indica­tors, despite the development of civil society and the intensification of civic participation in public pro­cesses, functional understandings of civil society organizations remain insufficiently defined at the lower, regional and local levels of govern­ance. In our observation, this unjusti­fiably diminishes assessments of their role in developing both civil society and a service-oriented state. It also weakens the self-confidence, initiative, and activity of civil society representatives themselves. Local authorities often exploit the underes­timation of organizational capacity by ignoring requests and initiatives aimed at resolving numerous local and regional problems. In some cases, communication is openly dis­missive: owing to entrenched dis­trust, representatives of public au­thorities portray cooperation with civil society organizations as futile and retain exclusive control even over matters that could, under appro­priate conditions, fall within the competence of such institutions.

It would therefore be appropriate to distinguish, without separating them from the broader civil society system, the particular development challenges faced by civil society or­ganizations, including national mi­nority organizations, and to grant them specific functional opportuni­ties within public governance, the democratization of state-society rela­tions, and decentralization. This would contribute to optimizing pub­lic policy support for civil society orga­nizations at every level in Ukraine and stimulate the develop­ment of multi­level public govern­ance.

At the legislative level, in partic­ular, there is a growing need for a dedicated law that specifies the legal agency and functional orientation of civil society organizations and de­fines instruments of public support for achieving synergistic state-build­ing objectives. In practice, these or­ganizations give substantive effect to public governance and consciously orient citizens toward the positive consequences of decentralizing power relations. At territorial levels ranging from the national to the re­gional and local, they perform infor­mational and educational, social-in­tegration, and service-intermediation functions. In doing so, they consoli­date Ukrainian society and help ad­dress a substantial range of regional and local problems. Under these con­ditions, trust in civil society organi­zations becomes especially im­portant, although their societal po­tential remains insufficiently studied, particularly in the formation and op­eration of amalgamated territorial communities²⁷.

In light of the preceding analysis and the available statistical evidence, state authorities and local self-gov­ernment bodies must fundamentally reconsider their approach to this cat­egory of civil society institution. A well-founded account of the place and role of civil society organizations encourages the development of part­nerships, supported by appropriate legal recognition of their status, functions, and societal relevance. This issue warrants particular atten­tion in areas where different ethnonational communities live in compact settlements, especially when those communities are represented by dedicated civil society organizations.

This also brings the moderniza­tion of public policy for promoting civil society organizations to the forefront. In the authors’ view, such modernization requires a favourable democratic environment, an im­proved legislative framework, strate­gic planning of institutional needs, encouragement of the civic sector’s public visibility, and effective plat­forms for practical interaction and public communication. Ukraine’s cur­rent trajectory, particularly amid the Russian-Ukrainian war and in the anticipated post-war period, demands a systematic and comprehensive ap­proach, together with accountability on the part of all socially oriented state and civil society actors com­mitted to progress.

Conclusions

The analysis confirms the re­search hypothesis: institutionalized cooperation between national minor­ity civil society organizations, local self-government bodies, and territo­rial communities can improve the quality of public services, strengthen citizen participation in decision-making, and advance social consoli­dation. The decisive conditions for such cooperation are legal predicta­bility, transparent procedures, or­ganizational professionalism, perma­nent communication platforms, and mutual accountability.

The proposed model encompasses the motivational, human-resource, functional, and innovative dimen­sions of interaction. Its practical ap­plication makes it possible to regard civil society organizations not as auxiliary elements, but as autono­mous partners in public governance capable of representing the interests of ethnonational communities, deliv­ering services for the public benefit, and supporting integration at the lo­cal level. At the same time, reducing regional disparities, non-transparent lobbying, and the instrumental use of grant resources requires appropriate public and civic oversight.

The study is limited by its pre­dominant reliance on normative and analytical sources and on statistical data reflecting the early stages of de­centralization reform. Further re­search should undertake comparative empirical assessments of cooperation practices across different regions of Ukraine, especially in communities with compactly settled national mi­norities, and should examine the role of such partnerships in post-war re­covery.

Notes

• I. Piren, „New Approaches to Public Administration in Ukraine Based on Domestic and International Experience”, Bulletin of the National Academy for Public Administration under the President of Ukraine, No. 2., 2016, pp. 13-20. [in Ukrainian].
• Tertychka, Public Policy: Analysis and Implementation in Ukraine, Solomiia Pavlychko Osnovy Publishing House, Kyiv, 2002. 750 pp. [in Ukrainian].
• I. Andriiash, „Public Policy: Conceptual Aspects of Definition”, Public Administration: Improvement and Development, No. 9, 2013. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Duur_2013_9_6. [in Ukrainian].
• D. Shakhnenko, „The Theoretical and Methodological Substance of Public Policy and the Role of Civil Society Institutions in Its Formation”, State-Building. No. 2, 2008, URL: http://www.kbuapa.kharkov.ua/e-book/ db/2008-2/doc/1/16.pdf. [in Ukrainian].
• Kanavets, „The Current State and Prospects for the Development of Civil Society in Ukraine and Interaction between Public Authorities and the Public”, Efficiency of Public Administration, Issue 2 (55), Part 1, 2018, pp. 153-168. [in Ukrainian].
• A. Korniievskyi, „Civil Society in Contemporary Ukraine: Problematic Aspects of Development”, Scientific Works of the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management, Issue 52 (1), 2017, pp. 56-63. [in Ukrainian].
• I. Andriiash, op.cit..
• I. Piren, op.cit., p. 16. [in Ukrainian].
• I. Petrenko, „Principal Types of Public Policy Analysis”, Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv: Philosophy and Political Science, Issue 4, 2014 pp. 41-42. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/ UJRN/VKNU_FP_2014_4_12. [in Ukrainian].
• Yu. Tokar, „Directions for Optimizing State Policy to Promote the Development of Civil Society Organizations in Ukraine”, Theory and Practice of Public Administration: Collection of Scholarly Papers, Issue 2 (65), , Kharkiv Regional Institute of Public Administration, Mahistr Publishing House, Kharkiv, 2019, pp. 57-58. [in Ukrainian].
• On the Strategy of State Policy for Promoting the Development of Civil Society in Ukraine and Priority Measures for Its Implementation: Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 212/2012 of 24 March 2012. Legislation of Ukraine. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/212/2012. [in Ukrainian].
• On Promoting the Development of Civil Society in Ukraine: Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 68/2016 of 26 February 2016. URL: https://www.president.gov.ua/documents/682016-19805. [in Ukrainian].
• National Strategy for Promoting the Development of Civil Society in Ukraine for 2016-2020: Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 68/2016 of 26 February 2016. URL: http://www.president.gov.ua/documents/682016-19805. [in Ukrainian].
• M. Yablonskyi, O. M. Balakirieva, T. V. Bielska et al. Development of Civil Society in Ukraine amid Internal and External Challenges: An Analytical Report, prepared in implementation of Presidential Decree No. 68/2016 of 26 February 2016, „On Promoting the Development of Civil Society in Ukraine”. O. A. Korniievskyi (ed.). Kyiv: National Institute for Strategic Studies, 2016. 72 pp. [in Ukrainian].
• Pavliuk, „Improving the Organizational and Legal Mechanism of Interaction between Public-Governance Institutions and Civil Society Organizations”, Efficiency of Public Administration. Issue 1 (50), Part 1, 2017, p. 99. URL: http://www.lvivacademy.com/vidavnitstvo_1/edu_50/fail/13.pdf. [in Ukrainian].
• Yu. Tokar, Opportunities for Cooperation between a Civil Society Organization and an Amalgamated Territorial Community. Public Administration in the Twenty-First Century: A Synthesis of Scholarship and Practice: Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Scientific Congress (Kharkiv, 19 April 2019). Kharkiv: Kharkiv Regional Institute of Public Administration, Mahistr Publishing House, 2019. pp. 177-178. URL: http://kbuapa.kharkov.ua/e-book/conf/2019-2/2019_02.pdf. [in Ukrainian].
• Amalgamated Communities: List and Key Data. Decentralization. URL: https://decentralization.gov.ua/gromada. [in Ukrainian].
• Kaziuk, V. Ventsel, I. Herasymchuk, „Experts Analyzed the 2018 Budgets of Amalgamated Communities in Every Region”, Decentralization. URL: https://decentralization.gov.ua/news/10674. [in Ukrainian].
• Pavlov, „The Rural Territorial Community as a Component of Society’s Political System, Political Management, No. 3., 2007. pp. 63-64. URL: http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/bi-tstream/handle/123456789/8856/07Pavlov.pdf?sequence=1. [in Ukrainian].
• Not by Subventions Alone: How Residents of New Communities Are Transforming Their Towns and Zaporizka Pravda. ZP_Pravda. URL: http://zp-pravda.info/2018/ 09/ 19/ne-subventsiiamy-iedynymy-iakm-eshkantsi-novykh-hromad-zmi-niui-ut-svoi-mista-ta-sela/. [in Ukrainian].
• Tiahlo, „Provision of Social Services: Cooperation between NGOs and Local Self-Government Bodies”, GURT Resource Centre, URL: https://gurt.org.ua/news/rece-nt/ 43120/. [in Ukrainian].
• Yu. Tokar, Opportunities for Cooperation …, op. cit., pp. 177-178. URL: http://kbuapa.kharkov.ua/e-book/conf/2019-2/2019_02.pdf. [in Ukrainian].
• H. Bulba, „The Social Functions of the State under Conditions of Change Management” State-Building. 2013. No. 2. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/DeBu_2013_2_30. [in Ukrainian].
• Yu, Tokar,  op.cit., pp. 60-61. [in Ukrainian].
• Kanavets, Op.cit., p. 155. [in Ukrainian].
• On the Coordination Council for Promoting the Development of Civil Society: Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 487/2016 of 4 Novem-ber 2016. URL: http://www.president.gov.ua/documents/4872016-20692; On Public Associations: Law of Ukraine, as amended on 22 June 2018. Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, No. 1, Art. 1, 2013.; On Approval of the 2016 Action Plan for Implementing the National Strategy for Promoting the Development of Civil Society in Ukraine for 2016-2020: Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 802-r of 2 November 2016. Legislation of Ukraine. URL: http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/802-2016-%D1%80; On Promoting the Development of Civil Society in Ukraine: Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 68/2016 of 26 February 2016. URL: https://www.president.gov.ua/documents/682016-19805. [in Ukrainian].
• Yu. Tokar, Directions for Optimizing State Policy …, op.cit., p. 61. [in Ukrainian].

References

Documents

On Public Associations: Law of Ukraine, as amended on 22 June 2018. Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. 2013. No. 1, Art. 1. [in Ukrainian].

YABLONSKYI, V. M., BALAKIRIEVA, O. M., BIELSKA, T. V. et al., Development of Civil Society in Ukraine amid Internal and External Challenges: An Analytical Report, prepared in implementation of Presidential Decree No. 68/2016 of 26 February 2016, “On Promoting the Development of Civil Society in Ukraine”, O. A. Korniievskyi (ed.). National Institute for Strategic Studies, Kyiv, 2016. 72 pp. [in Ukrainian].

Books

TERTYCHKA, V., Public Policy: Analysis and Implementation in Ukraine. Kyiv: Solomiia Pavlychko Osnovy Publishing House, 2002. 750 pp. [in Ukrainian].

Articles and studies

KANAVETS, M., „The Current State and Prospects for the Development of Civil Society in Ukraine and Interaction between Public Authorities and the Public”, Efficiency of Public Administration, Issue 2 (55), Part 1., 2018, pp. 153-168. [in Ukrainian].

KORNIIEVSKYI, O. A., „Civil Society in Contemporary Ukraine: Problematic Aspects of Development”, Scientific Works of the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management. Issue 52 (1), 2017, pp. 56-63. [in Ukrainian].

NOVYKOV, M. M.,  Civic Associations in the Mechanism of Interaction between the State and Civil Society, Abstract of a Dissertation for the Degree of Candidate of Legal Sciences, specialty 12.00.02, Constitutional Law; Municipal Law. Kharkiv, 2002, 18 pp. [in Ukrainian].

PIREN, M. I. „New Approaches to Public Administration in Ukraine Based on Domestic and International Experience. Bulletin of the National Academy for Public Administration under the President of Ukraine”, No. 2, 2016, pp. 13-20. [in Ukrainian].

TOKAR, M. Yu., „Directions for Optimizing State Policy to Promote the Development of Civil Society Organizations in Ukraine”, Theory and Practice of Public Administration: Collection of Scholarly Papers, Issue 2 (65), Kharkiv Regional Institute of Public Administration, Mahistr Publishing House, Kharkiv, 2019, pp. 54-61. [in Ukrainian].

Online Resources

ANDRIIASH, V. I., “Public Policy: Conceptual Aspects of Definition”, Public Administration: Improvement and Development. 2013. No. 9. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Duur_2013_9_6 [in Ukrainian].

BULBA, V. H., “The Social Functions of the State under Conditions of Change Management”, State-Building. 2013. No. 2. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/ UJRN/ DeBu_2013_2_30. [in Ukrainian].

KAZIUK, Ya.; VENTSEL, V.; HERASYMCHUK, I., “Experts Analyzed the 2018 Budgets of Amalgamated Communities in Every Region”, Decentralization. URL: https://decentralization.gov.ua/news/10674 [in Ukrainian].

National Strategy for Promoting the Development of Civil Society in Ukraine for 2016-2020: Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 68/2016 of 26 February 2016. URL: https://www.president.gov.ua/documents/682016-19805 [in Ukrainian].

Not by Subventions Alone: How Residents of New Communities Are Transforming Their Towns and Villages. Zaporizka Pravda. ZP_Pravda. URL: http://zp-pravda.info/2018/ 09/19/ ne-subventsiiamy-iedynymy-iak-mes-hkantsi-novykh-hromad-zmi-niuiut-sv-oi-mista-ta-sela/ [in Ukrainian].

Amalgamated Communities: List and Key Data. Decentralization. URL: https://decentralization.gov.ua/gromada [in Ukrainian].

PAVLOV, O., “The Rural Territorial Community as a Component of Society’s Political System”, Political Management. 2007. No. 3. pp. 60-68. URL: http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/8856/07Pavlov.pdf?sequence=1 [in Ukrainian].

PAVLIUK, N., “Improving the Organizational and Legal Mechanism of Interaction between Public-Governance Institutions and Civil Society Organizations”, Efficiency of Public Administration. 2017. Issue 1 (50). Part 1. p. 99. URL: http://www.lvivacademy.com/vidavnitstvo_1/edu_50/fail/13.pdf [in Ukrainian].

PETRENKO, I. I. “Principal Types of Public Policy Analysis”, Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv: Philosophy and Political Science. 2014. Issue 4. pp. 41-42. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/VKN-U_FP_2014_4_12 [in Ukrainian].

On the Coordination Council for Promoting the Development of Civil Society: Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 487/2016 of 4 November 2016. URL: https://www.president.gov.ua/documents/4872016-20692 [in Ukrainian].

On Approval of the 2016 Action Plan for Implementing the National Strategy for Promoting the Development of Civil Society in Ukraine for 2016-2020: Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 802-r of 2 November 2016. Legislation of Ukraine. URL: http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/802-2016-%D1%80 [in Ukrainian].

On the Strategy of State Policy for Promoting the Development of Civil Society in Ukraine and Priority Measures for Its Implementation: Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 212/2012 of 24 March 2012. Legislation of Ukraine. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/212/2012 [in Ukrainian].

TOKAR, M. Yu. Opportunities for Cooperation between a Civil Society Organization and an Amalgamated Territorial Community. Public Administration in the Twenty-First Century: A Synthesis of Scholarship and Practice, Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Scientific Congress (Kharkiv, 19 April 2019). Kharkiv: Kharkiv Regional Institute of Public Administration, Mahistr Publishing House, 2019. pp. 177-180. URL: http://kbuapa.kharkov.ua/e-book/conf/2019-2/2019_02.pdf [in Ukrainian].

TIAHLO, K. Provision of Social Services: Cooperation between NGOs and Local Self-Government Bodies. GURT Resource Centre. URL: https://gurt.org.ua/news/recent/43120/. [in Ukrainian].

SHAKHNENKO, Ye. D. “The Theoretical and Methodological Substance of Public Policy and the Role of Civil Society Institutions in Its Formation”, State-Building. 2008. No. 2. URL: http://www.kbuapa.kha-rkov. ua/e-bo-ok/db/2008-2/doc/1/16.pdf [in Ukrainian].