[CivilSoc] Civil Forum of 4,000 NGOs Opens in Moscow

[Center for Civil Society International]

This item comes from:
Johnson's Russia List
#5559
21 November 2001
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
#1
Izvestia
November 21, 2001
AGREEMENT ON OPINIONS
Civil society is being born in Russia
Author: Alexander Arkhangelsky
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
____________________________________________________________________
THE CIVIL FORUM THAT OPENS IN MOSCOW TODAY WAS PERHAPS THOUGHT TO BE
JUST ANOTHER DISPLAY PUT ON BY THE GOVERNMENT. HOWEVER, THE CIVIL
SOCIETY WHICH HAD SPONTANEOUSLY DEVELOPED SINCE 1991 IS SEIZING THE
INITIATIVE. YET THERE IS CLEARLY STILL A LONG WAY TO GO.
Today Moscow witnesses the opening of the Civil Forum, in which 4,000
representatives of citizens' groups and NGOs will take part.  The
Justice Ministry has registered 350,000 non-profit organizations in
Russia. According to the forum organization committee, about 70,000
of these are actually operational; every year they create up to 1
million jobs and provide free services to 20 million Russians--worth
15 billion rubles a year. The forum is to result in a new public
agreement, or, at worst, a "protocol of intentions."
The new Russia has been consistently resolving essential historic
challenges. Having defended its right for freedom in 1991, it dived
in freezing waters of market so that home capital arose that would be
vitally concerned for existence of the democratic regime. Then, they
polished political institutions that still secured, if worse,
functions of power. Now, time has come to do a much more important
job, although much more difficult, too: gradually to create ground
for development of an independent and strong civil society. That is a
system of organizations that would be capable of protecting a person
from despotism of business and of power, giving him the possibility
of civil self-realization, and inculcate in the country a taste for
self-government.
The forum had been preceded by conflicts on the verge of a scandal.
At first, the refugee oligarch Boris Berezovsky announced of his
ambitions for building a civil society in Russia. His obvious
ideological rival Gleb Pavlovsky at once brought some very marginal
public men to the Kremlin to meet the president. There was a feeling
that the power had "ordered" him making a governable model of a civil
society, a fake, a mirage. Even now, Pavlovsky does not hide that he
had primarily political aims. This is how he explained the reasons
that suddenly aroused civic feelings in him: "Today's peaceful
situation is actually based on the president's personal resources
alone, with a colossal bureaucratic community attached to it. This
does not support Putin by itself and its contact to the real society
is very weak. This whole construction is itself a danger. It is
necessary to urgently bring the public out of the position of
spectator into the position of participant and designer, or, at
least, expert and controller."
However, the process, like it suits every public process, very
quickly ruined accurate plans of political technologists. The forum
tasks were in principle altered; real civil forces joined in its
preparation. Why was it so? Explain Alexander Auzan from the
International confederation of consumer societies: "We were not
satisfied with the idea of a forum-congress at which the State will
"built" public organizations. However, we managed to change the
approach; the mater was now in the ways of interaction of the society
and the State." Not every "conscious citizen" shares this position;
some rights watchers have preferred the habitual opposition to an
equal dialogue. In the words of Veronika Marchenko from A Mother's
Right, "protecting the rights of a specific individual is only
possible when one is not bound to agreements with authorities. One
should not look for a nobleman to come and judge a dispute, and award
somebody a fur coat. One should demand that the nobleman should abide
by the law. And this is only possible when you have no relationship
with that nobleman that involves him giving you a fur coat and you
giving something in return." And still: the forum structure has
changed beyond recognition. That is to the norm.
One should not please oneself with illusions; even if it does not go
very smooth at first, we are just standing at the mouth of a movement
that can lead us to the sought end. But far from soon.
Overall, the question is the same as it was in August 1991 and
October 1993: who will win. Either them, or us. This opposition has
only assumed different, more civilized forms; the past decade has
produced a cultural layer. Without this, we couldn't even think of
civil society.
(Translated by P. Pikhnovsky)