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