Date post: | 11-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | amie-montgomery |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Russian Civil Society Organizations and
the State: Past and Present
Developments & Views from Federal to
Local Level through Gendered
Lenses
Meri Kulmala
The World of Civil Societies
12 November 2008, University of Jyväskylä
Aleksanteri Institute
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
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
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
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 80’s
- Dissidents, underground groups
- Party-controlled women’s councils, youth and disabled
organizations, trade unions – their role neglected?
- Social networks
Gorbachev’s 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
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->: Putin’s ’directed’ or ‘sovereign democracy’ Strong emphasis on civil society; even more under
Medvedev’s regime
1990’s against the state; 2000s within the state -> turn from
liberal to statist – at least at the federal level
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
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
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 -> 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
Example 2: Federal Public Chamber
Established in 2005 by Putin’s administration’s 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 don’t recognize
form the power-holders Civic forums: criticism and compliments Also regional public chambers
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; Medvedev’s emphasis
Other funding of civil society Russian regional and local grants; Russian business; foreign
grants
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
-> lots of activism and activities; complex of relations
(cooperation, co-optation, confrontation, interdependence
etc.); several functions in parallel
Extensive ethnographic field study: Sortavala municipal district, Republic of Karelia
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
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
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) Women’s organizations as a small-scale movement Cooperation with policy impact; two functions
Case 1: Social Service Center / Public-civic-mix
Municipal Center responsible for social
services (minimum requirements)
Staff networked with Finns and formed two
voluntary associations -> new services
initiated through projects
E.g. crisis center for women; workshops for
mentally disabled
At present partly municipality’s, partly
association’s responsibilities
Volunteers mainly staff of the center;
overlapping roles
Some other civil society organizations involved
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
Case 2: Self-help organizations Marginalization and confrontation
Regional-level emphasis on
civil society as resource
During the ’war’ civil society
and rights defense rhetoric
Service + right defense
functions, but marginal
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
Case 3: Child protection organization /Independency & partnership
Keeps going in its own field no
matter what; independency
Focus on service provision
Children’s 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
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 women’s organizations
Annual Karelian women’s 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
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 – people’s 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
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 -> social rights (citizenship)
Sensitive issues to public
Few contacts to legislative bodies (cf. segregated fields) ->
low concrete policy impact (except women’s organizations)
-> Two function in parallel, not separate or contradictory Can socially orientated actions promote civic and
democratic elements? (Cf. Putnamian approach)
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
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
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
-> 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
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 doesn’t control
everything
Logics might be different that used to in Western context
Still under development process