Soros and Osiatynski Reflect and Reminisce about the Relationship Between Civil Society and Open Society

“Is Civil Society Good for Open Society” was just one of the topics that CEU Founder and Honorary Chairman George Soros and SPP/CEU Professor Wiktor Osiatynski touched on during an engaging 100-minute discussion at the School of Public Policy (SPP) at Central European University (CEU) on November 26. The event, which was part of Frontiers of Democracy, a far-reaching CEU initiative to promote open debate, discussion, and the exchange of ideas with a diversity of views about the nature of democracy today, attracted a large and attentive crowd of students, faculty, and staff.

In his opening remarks, moderator SPP Founding Dean Wolfgang Reinicke noted that both men’s ideas, writings, and practical experience on the organization of societies and especially the values and principles of open society were central and indispensable to CEU as well as to the Open Society Foundations.

Osiatynski said that the idea for the debate had emerged from the class he taught at SPP this fall, “Challenges to Open Society During Transition.” It was while developing this class, something he had done as a birthday gift for Soros, that he had concluded that civil society had not been all that useful in promoting the causes of open society for the last 20 years. “We could have spent the money more wisely,” he said.

Before sharing his memories from 20-25 years ago, Soros cautioned, “I only remember the future.” He then went on to say that civil society had always been a very nebulous concept. Soros said that the goal 25 years ago had been to support any non-state intervention. “In many countries, the state was imposing an ideology on society. By fostering any initiative from civil society, we challenged that ideology.” He went on to say that in some countries—such as Hungary—this strategy had “really worked.” Soros said that he got “sucked into” philanthropy after the successes that his foundation enjoyed in Hungary.

Osiatynski noted that that in places like Poland, civil society groups were organized to countervail communism, and that when communism disappeared, so too did civil society. Looking back, Osiatynski said, “none of the reforms in Poland came from civil society.”

Soros said that a well-functioning democratic government was important for any country to have and that “supporting any organization that opposes the government is not necessarily a good thing.” He and Osiatynski agreed that foundations could be a “source of corruption.”

Turning their attention to Ukraine, Soros said that he saw evidence of a “genuine civil society” and a “return to the exceptional period of 25 years ago.” He observed that people in Ukraine are sacrificing themselves for the common good. Osiatynski agreed that what emerged in Ukraine a year ago was spontaneous and durable but asked, “Can we call Maidan civil society?” He went on to note that it had created no institutions.

Responding to questions, Soros and Osiatynski commented on the role of civil society in “closing societies” such as Turkey and Hungary. Soros said that civil society was in formation in Turkey: “There is now a repressive state with civil society opposed to it.”

Osiatynski noted that one of the goals of civil society 25 years ago had been to create space for experimentation. Civil society today, he said, “is becoming less open and more nationalistic and religiously fundamentalist.” He turned to Soros and asked, “What can we do?” Soros agreed that in many places nationalism was on the rise and civil society was less open… “One of the flaws of Open Society,” he observed, “is that it ignores power relations.”

Soros and Osiatynski still had a lot to say at the end of their 100-minute debate, and agreed to continue their discussion during a future event at CEU.