I still remember a budget discussion that stayed with me long after the meeting ended.

It was not because of a new figure or a sophisticated reform proposal. It was because one person asked a very simple question: "If the plan changes halfway through the year, how do we know what that means for the service we are counting on?"

What struck me was not only the question itself, but what was behind it. It was not really about numbers. It was about trust. In the Western Balkans and Türkiye, people are often ready to accept difficult choices and limited resources. What is harder to accept is not knowing what changed, why it changed, and what that means for daily life.

That is why I started thinking of budgets as more than documents, procedures, or technical exercises. They are also a way of communicating priorities. A budget tells a public story about what matters, what must wait, and how decisions are made. When that story is clear and updated honestly, it creates room for citizens and institutions to share responsibility for difficult choices. When it is fragmented, delayed, or hard to follow, distance quickly grows.

This is where civil society organizations matter in ways that are still underestimated. Yes, CSOs can and should play a watchdog role. But the most productive role I see in practice is different: CSOs as translators, connectors, and feedback mechanisms. They act as infrastructure that helps citizens and public administration actually hear each other.

That framing matters because dialogue is not an abstract principle. It is a set of skills and routines.

One of the simplest and most useful ways I have found to describe meaningful public participation is as a feedback loop with three steps: institutions share information, institutions listen to citizen voices and input, and institutions act and report back on what they did and why. This sounds obvious. Yet in budgeting, we often get stuck at the first step: publishing. In many places, that first step has improved over time. More information is available, and there is stronger formal language around accountability and openness. But the more difficult questions begin after publication. Can people understand the implications of budget choices? Can they follow what changes during the year? Can they see whether their input shaped anything at all? This is often where dialogue weakens. It is also where both sides need stronger capacity.

For CSOs, the bridge role is not glamorous. It requires more than commitment and good intentions. It requires budget literacy that goes beyond headline allocations. It means understanding execution data, recognizing what procurement patterns may signal, and seeing the difference between a policy promise and a funded, implementable plan. It also means having the ability to listen carefully and represent concerns responsibly, rather than simply amplifying the loudest voices.

Just as importantly, CSOs need communication skills that can hold complexity without losing readers or audiences. They need to be able to explain tradeoffs without turning every budget choice into a moral accusation. And they need trust capital. To serve as a connector, a CSO must be credible to citizens and understandable to institutions at the same time. That takes consistency, transparency about methods, and a style of engagement that invites conversation rather than confrontation.

But dialogue, of course, requires two sides, and responsibility does not rest only with civil society. Dialogue often fails because institutions themselves do not yet have the incentives, routines, or capacities to receive input and respond meaningfully.

Read Part II on May 5.