#12 - JRL 8009
From: Sally Stoecker (Swstoecker@aol.com)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004
Subject: Review of Henderson

Book Review of Sarah L. Henderson’s Building Democracy in Contemporary Russia: Western Support for Grassroots Organizations,
Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2003. 229 pages.
Sally W. Stoecker
American University

Sarah Henderson does a laudable job investigating the impact of Western financial aid to the creation of “civil society” in Russia. Her book is well written, well researched, and generally offers a well-balanced perspective on foreign assistance. She spent a substantial amount of time in Russia during politically interesting years: 1992, 1998, and again in 2002. She visited numerous and varied regions of Russia, from Moscow to Vladivostok, and interviewed many activists and NGO staffers. Henderson thus has a credible background from which to examine the evolution of grassroots organizations. She touches on what I believe to be the biggest obstacle in the attempt to develop civic-minded, nongovernmental organizations in the major post-Soviet state: Distrust.

Henderson examines theories about civil society, Soviet legacies, and economic difficulties; she then turns to funding for women’s organizations in Russia. Henderson spends one chapter looking at Ford Foundation initiatives in Russia as a case study. She concludes that, in most cases, Russian NGOs were preoccupied with “producing results” dictated by the donor organization rather than focusing on the quality of the work in their region or its impact on their communities. Those who were awarded funding were loath to lose it. They were highly motivated to please the donor by issuing monthly reports, holding frequent seminars, and recording all of their “successes” in annual or biannual reports to donors. That bureaucratic busy work—Henderson notes—frequently meant less time spent on the actual project in the NGO communities, be it promoting women’s human rights, preventing domestic violence, or creating job training programs for women. An unfortunate by-product of western funding was the creation of a “civic elite.” Women who met the requirements of the donor organization and by their definition performed well were likely to receive funding in the future. Resentment against this “civic elite” evolved and impeded the women’s efforts to do further work in their communities. Henderson concludes that although foreign aid has helped to establish a nonprofit sector, considerable work remains to be done in making their work more sustainable and their beneficiaries more plentiful and broad-based.

Reflecting on Henderson’s book and my own experience working with NGOs in Siberia and the Russian Far East, I see two major problems: American impatience and Russian mistrust. After seventy years of totalitarian rule, during which 10 percent of the population were members of the Communist Party and the other 90 percent where mobilized to support and respect the Communist regime, whether they trusted in it or not, citizens are expected to break loose from the ideological chains and embrace independence (if not democracy); form groups to solve problems; speak their minds; and set and accomplish self-imposed goals for the betterment of society. If this is what U.S. donors were expecting to happen, they were way off base. After mobilizing around the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for decades, citizens now have the choice of not endorsing a party or joining an organization, and they are taking a much needed break. Moreover, because until recently economic conditions were deplorable, women work three jobs to put food on the table and few have the luxury of joining clubs, fighting for causes, or applying for grants.

The key problem with the research on the impact of western donors on developed and “transitioning” countries, as I see it, is that they are written by American authors. Because the United States is wealthy and has more than 250 years of experience at building civil society, the vantage point from which American authors write is skewed. I challenge Henderson or other authors of this venue to name another country on this globe that has the same motivation, time, and economic prosperity to create social capital. Our standards for Russia are unrealistic and only set donors and evaluators of donor funding up for disappointment.

The totalitarian culture that permeated Russia for decades created and institutionalized distrust; the party distrusted the people and the people distrusted the party. One of the most difficult problems that I encountered in helping to develop NGOs was convincing colleagues of the importance of open competitions for grants. There was a strong aversion to inviting unknown persons into an NGO on the basis of a solid proposal—what was more important was that the NGO leaders knew and trusted the researchers within their organizations. On several occasions, the directors of our projects wanted to hire their wives as secretaries and treasurers. Although Americans might laugh at such an audacious idea, the Russians saw it differently. It all boiled down to the matter of trust.

As a next step, I would encourage Henderson to apply her rigorous research skills to investigating the development of civil society in other countries and produce a comparative study. That would take a lot of leg work and time, but could provide a fascinating and compelling picture of how different cultures develop social capital. It would also enable us all to see more clearly just how unique American civil society is.