Russian Civil Society Organizations and the State: Past and Present Developments

1
Russian Civil Society Organizations and the
State Past and PresentDevelopments Views from
Federal to Local Level through GenderedLenses

• Meri Kulmala
• The World of Civil Societies
• 12 November 2008, University of Jyväskylä

Aleksanteri Institute
2
About the lecture Focus on interaction of state
and civil society

• Models of the state-society relations
• State and civil society in Russia
• Past and present features of Russian civil
  society
• Federal-level statist model and examples
• Criticism to federal-level approach views from
  the regional and local levels

3
Civil society Western models Russian practice

• Civil society an arena of activity outside the
  spheres of family (private), state and economy
• Normative approach civil society as a basis of
  democracy
• Certain models from the West an assumption
  that Russia (and other former socialist
  countries) would follow
• Western models followed unevenly, partially or
  reluctantly
• Hybrid models If the same, do they function
  equally?
• Prevalent conclusion there is no civil society
  in Russia, at least in a sense of western
  (liberal) understanding
• Adequacy of western models to Russia
• Possibilities to avoid with e.g. methodological
  choices (cf. ethnography of state) no need to
  reject the models but to study phenomena in their
  context then to mirror

4
State-society models

• Liberal model (e.g. USA, UK)?
• Associations independent of the state
• Function of a watchdog, a critical counterweight
  
• Often Russia looked at from this perspective no
  civil society
• Corporatist model (e.g. Germany, Italy)?
• Emphasis on state and immediate communities
• Statist model (Finland?, Russia?)?
• State and society part of the same system civil
  society completing the state cooperation
• Often interpreted as co-optation of civil society
  by the state
• Social-democratic (Finland and other Nordic
  countries)?
• History associations closely related to the
  administration
• Close collaboration between the state and civil
  society, without destroying autonomy of the latter

5
Past developments of Russian civil society
Soviet Union (from statist to liberal)?

• Debates if there was civil society in the Soviet
  Union
• 1) No control mechanisms pervasive
• 2) Yes, a pre-stage embryonic civil society by
  the late 80s
• Dissidents, underground groups
• Party-controlled womens councils, youth and
  disabled organizations, trade unions their role
  neglected?
• Social networks
• Gorbachevs perestroika collapse of the Soviet
  Union
• Euphoria and optimism
• Mushrooming of organizations (in number, fields
  of activities)?
• Mobilization (against the state anti-communist)?
• Foreign partners and donors contacts and
  dependency

6
Past developments of Russian civil society New
Russia (liberal/statist?)?

• 1995-2000 Institutionalization
• First legislation concerning civil society
  organizations
• Professionalization of the sector (cf. Foreign
  assistance)?
• Cooperation mechanisms with the authorities,
  particularly at the local and regional level
• 2000-gt Putins directed or sovereign
  democracy
• Strong emphasis on civil society even more under
  Medvedevs regime
• 1990s against the state 2000s within the state
  -gt turn from liberal to statist at least at the
  federal level

7
Russian civil society in figures

• 2006 approximately 250,000 civil society
  organizations
• Cf. Finland 117,000 USA 1,5 million
• Social welfare dominance education and culture
• Citizens low participation
• 8 of Russians are members of a civil society
  organizations (cf. in Finland 80
  rank-and-filer)?
• Amount of organizational activities low (in GDP)
  
• lower 1 (cf. Finland 10 , Netherlands 15
• Why is that?
• Soviet legacy (forced participation, low trust
  (politics foreign influence), every-day survival
  (cf. middle-class)?
• Potential in the future?
• Not too long time passed
• New opinion polls

8
Russian state and civil society in 2000s
tendencies at the federal level

• Dualistic attitude of the state towards the civil
  society
• Emphasis on civil society cooperative relations
• Useful and dangerous civic organizations
• Help vs. criticism (e.g. social-sector vs. human
  rights organizations)
• Parallel support and disruption cooperation and
  control
• New mechanisms
• State harness civil society to help the state
• Welfare services, vulnerable groups
• Examples about dualism
• New legislation concerning civil society
  organizations (2006)?
• Public Chamber (2005)?
• State subsidies

9
Example 1 Legislation concerning civil society
organizations

• Into force in spring 2006 after discussions and
  criticism
• Regional offices of the new state-level
  registration body
• Need for organizations to register and annually
  report
• Difficulties for foreign organizations (cf.
  orange revolution) and critical Russian
  organizations
• For social-sector mostly extra work, no harm
• Loosely written plenty of room for
  interpretation of individual officials and
  arbitrariness -gt exclusive
• E.g. political activities forbidden what is
  political?
• Dualism makes possible to close down unwanted
  organizations but does not necessarily hamper
  anything
• NB! Regional differences
• BUT, rules of the game

10
Example 2 Federal Public Chamber

• Established in 2005 by Putins administrations
  initiative
• Official purpose to consolidate interests of
  citizens, civil society and authorities
• Monitoring of federal and regional legislation,
  societal control towards executive power,
  recommendations etc.
• 126 members 1st 1/3 appointed by the president
  2nd by the 1st rest by the 1st and 2nd
• Many organizations refused to take part
• Official voice of civil society citizens dont
  recognize form the power-holders
• Civic forums criticism and compliments
• Also regional public chambers

11
Example 3 State subsidies for civil society

• Putin introduced a system of state subsidies
• In 2008 42 million
• In 2007 34 million in 2006 15 million
• Distributed in 2006 by the presidential
  administration, since then by six umbrella
  organizations
• All Russian registered civil society
  organizations can apply
• Most money for vulnerable groups and healthy ways
  of life (cf. national priorities and welfare)
  helping the state
• NB! Latest human rights Medvedevs emphasis
• Other funding of civil society
• Russian regional and local grants Russian
  business foreign grants

12
Some conclusions and arguments based on the
situation at the federal level

• Civil society in liberal understanding?
• What about statist?
• Dualism and helping the state
• Support (also financial) according to the
  national priorities but also citizens concerns
  are in welfare
• Russian civil society is sporadic (no horizontal
  links) and socially orientated, lack of
  civic/political elements?
• Division into 1) policy-advocacy civil society
  organizations 2) social service orientated
  organizations
• Yes and no cf. my own research and data
• -gt lots of activism and activities complex of
  relations (cooperation, co-optation,
  confrontation, interdependence etc.) several
  functions in parallel

13
Extensive ethnographic field study Sortavala
municipal district, Republic of Karelia
14
Sortavala municipal district an overview of
civil society organizations

• Lots of socially orientated civil society
  organizations
• Social orientation not necessarily social-sector
• Old Soviet and more newly established
  organizations
• Two categories self-help social service
  organizations
• Two functions of advocacy and service provision
  parallel
• Female dominance
• Power women a profile of an activist
• Essential explanations
• Social responsibility social motherhood
• Finnish influence
• Lots of joint projects funded from Finland
  kick-off
• Emphasis on cooperative relations with the
  authorities

15
Sortavala municipal district civil society
organizations and local authorities

• No local funding from the side of authorities
• Moral support, some material benefits
• Local business
• Some regional and federal grants
• Complex picture of relations (cf. Cases)?
• Marginalization Co-optation Confrontation
• Cooperation Public-Civic-Mix
• Overlapping roles and functions not necessarily
  separate encounters
• Interdependence

16
Sortavala municipal district Cases

• 1) Social Service Center
• Public-civic-mix two functions
• 2) Self-help organizations
• Marginalization and confrontation two functions
• 3) Strong and independent social organization
• Independency but authority in the eyes of the
  local administration cooperation/partnership
• 4) Womens organizations as a small-scale
  movement
• Cooperation with policy impact two functions

17
Case 1 Social Service Center / Public-civic-mix

• Extra services new clientele
• Articulation of new identities sensitive issues
• Social rights promotion of social citizenship
• Agents of change
• Service provision/civic functions

• Municipal Center responsible for social services
  (minimum requirements)
• Staff networked with Finns and formed two
  voluntary associations -gt new services initiated
  through projects
• E.g. crisis center for women workshops for
  mentally disabled
• At present partly municipalitys, partly
  associations responsibilities
• Volunteers mainly staff of the center
  overlapping roles
• Some other civil society organizations involved
• Public-Civic-Mix

18
Case 2 Self-help organizations Marginalization
and confrontation

• Providing their members (e.g. disabled)?
• Help with access to services, subsidies and
  information
• Meeting place
• Small-scale rights defense (members)
• Under new municipal leadership attitude changed
  not needed anymore
• Evicted from their subsidized premises
• Self-helps went to war contacts to regional
  level media and bodies of civil society
  development and inclusion
• Municipal administration withdrew

• Regional-level emphasis on civil society as
  resource
• During the war civil society and rights defense
  rhetoric
• Service right defense functions, but marginal

19
Case 3 Child protection organization
/Independency partnership

• Keeps going in its own field no matter what
  independency
• Focus on service provision
• Childrens rights defense

• Established by a Finnish sister organization and
  the support of the local administration
• Works by continuous foreign and national
  projects, no material support from the local
• High authority among authorities
• Members from administration
• Informal and casual relations
• Professional and provides
• Expertise for authorities
• Services for various groups of children and their
  families
• Information on children rights
• Other organizations on project planning

20
Women organization(s) as a special case

• Highly known and appreciated among authorities
  and civil society organizations (members among
  authorities, too overlapping roles)?
• Republic-wide network Association of the
  Karelian Women
• Activists in every villages trough local womens
  organizations
• Annual Karelian womens forum
• Policy recommendations and programs, e.g.
  Karelian women
• Locally concrete help and services for local
  women, regionally (social-)policy initiator
• Welfare/social policy impact targeted to the
  regional level or even national level

21
Conclusions on roles and functions at the local
level I

• Social welfare orientation
• Not too contradictory issues but common concerns
  among local community
• National priorities helpers of the state vs.
  Strong grassroots input peoples concerns
• But, earlier ignored issues and groups of people
• Relationship of interdependence between
  authorities and civil society organizations
• Moral support from the side of authorities
  matters
• Civil society organizations bring extra resources
  
• Overlapping roles of activists and administrators
  facilitates contacts and collaboration (small
  town?)?
• Female dominance
• Cf. Finland at first, women active locally with
  social issues

22
Conclusions on roles and functions at the local
level II

• Service orientation
• Focus on concrete and practical help
• Remarkable role for various groups and local
  administrations
• Close link to ordinary people, community
  constituency
• Policy/advocacy function (civic function)
• Avoiding politics what is political?
• New identities rights defense -gt social rights
  (citizenship)?
• Sensitive issues to public
• Few contacts to legislative bodies (cf.
  segregated fields) -gt low concrete policy impact
  (except womens organizations)?
• -gt Two function in parallel, not separate or
  contradictory
• Can socially orientated actions promote civic and
  democratic elements? (Cf. Putnamian approach)?

23
Political opportunity structure Republic of
Karelia / Sortavala I

• Less conflicts of civil society organizations and
  authorities
• Strong civil society rhetoric emphasis on civil
  society and constructive partnership of different
  sectors
• Socio-economic plan of the Republic
• Partnership conception
• Constitutional rights for legislative initiatives
• Numerous official bodies for inclusion of civil
  society to governance
• Head of the Republic (a couple of bodies)?
• Regional Duma, different ministries
• Financial mechanisms (cf. national priorities)?
• Annual civil society festival - networking
• Consultations with civil society organizations

24
Political opportunity structure Republic of
Karelia / Sortavala II

• Location on the border Finland Finns active
• Lots of connections at official level
• Civil society organizations projects brings them
  authority
• Resources, competency
• Success with national/regional funding
• Finnish emphasis on collaboration between civil
  society and authorities and post-project
  continuity of activities
• In Sortavala relatively more civil society
  organizations
• Other regions of Russia?
• Federal legislation and norms need to be
  followed, but
• Regions have lots of power to decide
• Will of regional and local leaders
• More likely Karelia/Sortavala not a unique case

25
Methodological conclusions

• Ethnography of state (Verdery 1996) studying the
  state- society relationship at close range from
  within their daily routines and practices
• Attention on nature of functioning and
  interrelations in different cases
• -gt State in its everyday practices political
  culture
• Extended case study (Burawoy1998) everyday
  practices are to be located in their extra-local
  and historical context.
• Mirroring results of the ethnographic case
  studies towards different (western) models and
  concepts
• New questions and problems new contents for
  concepts
• Fruitful approach for studies of civil society
  creates a need for case studies

26
Final conclusions views from the local level vs.
federal

• Instead of purely statist model (co-optation), a
  complex set of interrelations between civil
  society and the state
• Also elements of Nordic regime
• Division into separate policy/advocacy
  organizations and service orientated
  organizations not comfortable
• Democracy potential of all organizations (cf.
  liberal model)
• In Russia civil society exists but partly
  functions in unfavorable circumstances (cf.
  federal-level dualism)?
• Local and regional solutions possible (cf.
  local-regional political opportunity structure)
  Moscow doesnt control everything
• Logics might be different that used to in Western
  context
• Still under development process