It's pretty clear that the new law on NGOs is designed to tar organizations that receive funding from abroad with the same "foreign agents" tag as the liberal opposition.

file photo
But it is not so clear that the measure will curb opposition activity and help to bring about the Kremlin's longed-for stability ­ a key prerequisite for many wouldbe foreign investors.

In recent months, the Kremlin appears to be abandoning the sometimes skillful scalpel of "Surkovian propaganda" for the more blunt "hammer and pickaxe" approach of Vyacheslav Volodin, Vladislav Surkov's successor as chief political spin doctor.

The Kremlin strategists presumably hope that by associating NGOs such as vote monitors Golos in the public mind with foreign espionage, they can smear them in the same way that NTV claimed the opposition was taking money from the U.S. State Department.

While this strategy may succeed in the short term, it may ultimately lead to a radicalization of activists.

In reviewing the NGO bill, President Vladimir Putin did remove some of its more unworkable aspects, such as the possible labeling of healthcare and other charitable NGOs as "foreign agents."

It is true that Western governments often have deeper motives in promoting Russian civil society, such as putting pressure on the Kremlin over democracy and human rights. And it is also true that organizations such as Golos were a bit naive in accepting funding from such sources.

But often Russian NGOs take money from abroad simply because it's the only way to stay afloat, and there is quite a difference between funding from the U.S. government and, say, a Scandinavian charitable trust.

There will also be many apolitical NGOs who are forced to accept the extra state cash that Putin has promised ­ simply to keep going.

This will have the effect of polarizing civil society ­ dividing NGOs into the quasi-state organizations and those who go into a twilight zone of semi-illegal existence.

The more legitimate opposition and civil society is marginalized, it increases the chances of more radical street and workplace protests becoming the focus of opposition.

Or to put it another way, Robin Hood only became a rebel leader after he was outlawed.

Keywords: Russia, Government, Politics - Russia, Nonprofits, Activists, NGO's - Russian News - Russia

It's pretty clear that the new law on NGOs is designed to tar organizations that receive funding from abroad with the same "foreign agents" tag as the liberal opposition.

file photo
But it is not so clear that the measure will curb opposition activity and help to bring about the Kremlin's longed-for stability ­ a key prerequisite for many wouldbe foreign investors.

In recent months, the Kremlin appears to be abandoning the sometimes skillful scalpel of "Surkovian propaganda" for the more blunt "hammer and pickaxe" approach of Vyacheslav Volodin, Vladislav Surkov's successor as chief political spin doctor.

The Kremlin strategists presumably hope that by associating NGOs such as vote monitors Golos in the public mind with foreign espionage, they can smear them in the same way that NTV claimed the opposition was taking money from the U.S. State Department.

While this strategy may succeed in the short term, it may ultimately lead to a radicalization of activists.

In reviewing the NGO bill, President Vladimir Putin did remove some of its more unworkable aspects, such as the possible labeling of healthcare and other charitable NGOs as "foreign agents."

It is true that Western governments often have deeper motives in promoting Russian civil society, such as putting pressure on the Kremlin over democracy and human rights. And it is also true that organizations such as Golos were a bit naive in accepting funding from such sources.

But often Russian NGOs take money from abroad simply because it's the only way to stay afloat, and there is quite a difference between funding from the U.S. government and, say, a Scandinavian charitable trust.

There will also be many apolitical NGOs who are forced to accept the extra state cash that Putin has promised ­ simply to keep going.

This will have the effect of polarizing civil society ­ dividing NGOs into the quasi-state organizations and those who go into a twilight zone of semi-illegal existence.

The more legitimate opposition and civil society is marginalized, it increases the chances of more radical street and workplace protests becoming the focus of opposition.

Or to put it another way, Robin Hood only became a rebel leader after he was outlawed.