[CivilSoc] The Kremlin and Civil Society

[Center for Civil Society International]

The following article, appearing in today's Moscow Times, was
forwarded by CivilSoc list member Ann Orlov.  It was written by Boris
Pustintsev, chairman of the St. Petersburg-based human rights
organization, Citizens' Watch.
___________________________________________________
The Moscow Times
Monday, Oct. 22, 2001. Page 10
The Kremlin and Civil Society
By Boris Pustintsev
	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.
________________
Boris Pustintsev is chairman of the St. Petersburg-based human rights
organization Citizens' Watch. He contributed this comment to The
Moscow Times.