#7
Moscow Times
October 22, 2001
The Kremlin and Civil Society
By Boris Pustintsev
Boris Pustintsev is chairman of the St. Petersburg-based human rights
organization Citizens' Watch. He contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.
Fifteen years separate us from the time when any voluntary association of citizens was the object of the most intense scrutiny on the part of the state. It went without saying that the state ensured that the interests of all population groups were observed. Any attempt to question this was equivalent to calumny against the Soviet Union and could result in criminal prosecution.
This situation underwent radical change in the second half of the 1980s when the Soviet authorities, for a number of reasons, were forced to end the Soviet Union's complete isolation from the outside world. Even the regime's controlled liberalization brought a wave of civic activity that the authorities had not bargained for.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there has been a sharp decline in outdoor, "on-the-street" civic activity. However, this has been attended by the low-profile but steady growth in active nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs. Russia's post-Soviet regime did not seek to impede NGO development. In fact, it did not pay much attention to the NGO sector -- which was not such a bad thing; especially after the adoption of a pretty liberal law on public associations.
Although it has often not been easy to attract the attention of the relevant government agency to specific problems, we have managed to maintain our independence and to establish working relations with state officials in most government agencies. We tried to explain to them that their professional interests coincided with those of civic organizations and that we could work together to resolve common problems.
The authorities have, from time to time, attempted to set up their own tame Government Organized Non-Governmental Organizations, or GONGOs, although this has not presented a serious threat to NGO sector development. Actions orchestrated again civil society have never been of a systemic nature. 1998 was probably the most dangerous year, when with the support of the Moscow City Hall legal department a number of regional elites attempted to launch an attack on citizens' constitutional rights. This was most clearly manifested in refusals to register or re-register a number of NGOs. This primarily affected human rights and ecological organizations, i.e. the most ardent critics of the federal and regional authorities.
Civic associations have, over the years, suffered a number of problems in the area of tax legislation, when the status of NGOs has been mixed up with that of commercial organizations -- sometimes seemingly intentionally. However, this problem can be resolved with time.
The main danger currently facing civil society is different. It is the instinct of the new administration -- possibly influenced by an influx of former KGB officers to positions in many state institutions -- to control everything that moves. Furthermore, the drive to strengthen the state's vertical chain of command is being followed by a drive to increase control over society. Vladislav Surkov, deputy head of the presidential administration, said in June at a meeting between the president and NGO representatives: "We need to think about the greatness of society, not only about the greatness of the state."
This, I believe, gives a pretty clear insight into why the Kremlin is supporting a congress of Russian NGOs next month. However, it is not so clear what the NGOs themselves stand to gain from participation in the civic forum.
The main argument of the forum's supporters is that society should engage in a dialogue with the authorities. However, NGOs -- as it is -- do this on a daily basis and not at some abstract level, but with specific government bodies and lawmakers (at all levels) for the purpose of resolving specific problems. The key issue is whether the state is genuinely willing to cooperate with civic society and not just at the level of public declarations.
Today, the authorities are far from homogeneous, and in almost all state institutions there are officials who are perfectly willing to cooperate with NGOs. Conscientious bureaucrats understand that NGOs can make a major contribution toward resolving issues of statewide importance such as the status and accommodation of refugees; homeless children and other juvenile problems; the reform of the education system; military and police reform; and judicial reform. They understand that we are not only mobilizing civil support but are also attracting considerable nonbudgetary funds (mainly from foreign charities and funds) to tackle these problems.
However, there is one area where cooperation does not exist and is not likely to for the foreseeable future: access to many sorts of "open" information that directly affect the vital interests of society.
The cause for pessimism on this front is the current administration's support for the doctrines on "information security" and "a single informational space," which run against the grain of an open society. These doctrines create a kind of Chinese Wall that serves to ensure total nontransparency of state actions. Without functioning public oversight of the authorities' actions, there cannot be a fully-fledged civil society. And here, the civic forum is unlikely to help us. It is, of course, essential to work with the authorities on this issue, but it is a task that will take years, if not decades.
My human rights colleagues assure me that the initiators of the civic forum have accepted "our rules of the game." However, for a fair game to be played it is important that both sides have a shared understanding of the rules. Here it seems that very different meanings have been attached to one and the same terms by state and NGO representatives.
At one of the round tables conducted by the indefatigable Sergei Markov, the following phrase was uttered: "Civil society in Russia differs from the Western model and this is entirely natural in the transition period." It is indeed natural, but probably not for the reason that Markov had in mind. It is due to the civic immaturity of the state, which does not feel obliged to explain its actions in clear terms to the public, i.e. to taxpayers on whose money they exist.
The real fear is that the state will seek to implement the dream of a "civil society" that does not permit itself to criticize the government. Talk of the need to write a special plan for the development of civil society is extremely worrying. No doubt the result would be that plan targets for production of GONGOs would be doggedly overfulfilled.
It probably worth being present at the civic forum, if only to see whether the authorities, which have spent so much money and enjoying majority support (ensured by Kremlin control of two thirds of the forum's federal organizing committee) will reject -- as has been promised -- the idea of packing various structures with loyalists. In any case, it will certainly not be a dull event.
Next Article