“NGOs are an important constituent part of society as an organism, but we do not want them to be run by puppet masters from abroad.” Vladimir Putin (2006)
Numerous scholars, (see e.g. Diamond 1999, Putnam 1994, Dahl 1991) offers definitions of the term civil society. The debate can be divided between two perspectives, a Western and an Eastern. The Western perspective puts the individual in focus, and is often interrelated to democratic liberties and processes. In Eastern Europe, and the former USSR, civil society was connected with nationalism and networks (Narozhna 2004). Therefore it is necessary to avoid confusion by a sufficient clarification of how the concept will be understood in this thesis.
First and foremost, I will not argue that civil society is inherently democratic, rather focus on how people can co-operate through network connections in the public sphere as a link
between the individuals and the state. The definition is based upon London School of Economics (2004):
“Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated. Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power. Civil societies are often populated by organisations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organisations, community groups, women's organisations, faith-based organisations, professional associations, trades unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy group” (LSE 2004).
As this definition implies civil society can be interpreted as a realm between the state and society/individual and consists of organizations, groups, unions and social movements. The concept of civil society was indistinct in political theory, but during the past years the term has been widely accepted and applied to different contexts throughout the world. As Gellner (1994: 5) points out: “The dusty old term, drawn from antiquated political theory, belonging to long, obscure and justly forgotten debates, re-emerged, suddenly endowed with a new and powerful capacity to stir enthusiasm and inspire action.” The socialist society was a society determined by the party, and after the dissolution of the USSR, the concept of civil society evolved as an essential feature for development and liberalization form the Communist state.
During the 1960s, the first attempts to liberalize the Communist society started with Khrushchev, and these efforts were later followed by Gorbachev. Gellner (1994) criticize the liberal debate about civil society, where the state is marked as a negative institution. With Gorbachev’s reforms of liberalization and the political shift in the 1990s the “new slogan” of civil society became a counter-vision to Marxism (Gellner 1994). Since the post Cold War era, the developments of a civil society have been regarded as a positive instance for influence on a democratic transition (Diamond 1999), thus a vibrant civil society has been considered a key indicator for “success” (Howard 2003: 31f), and the main indicator of the democratization efforts. Accordingly, in the post-communist states civil society became “central to western aid programs in Eastern Europe linked intimately to privatization aid” (Hann & Dunn 1996:9
supervised by the party-state. Most scholars agree that it did not exist any civil society under the Soviet Rule (e.g. Evans 2006). In the 1980s, Gorbachev’s reforms of perestroika and glasnost resulted in formation of social movements and coalitions of political parties. Many of the groups were politicised and claimed rights and changes from the state (Evans 2006: 44ff).
The new reforms contributed to dismantling of the party-state and weaken the ideology;
however, because of the historically strong impact of the party-state, the society did not give rise to a civil society in the Western sense of the concept. There were no traditions of a pluralist society within the Russian state, and it is highly debated whether there in fact exist a civil society in Soviet time (Linz & Stepan 1996: 376). In transition to democracy, civil society and marked economy have often been regarded as inevitable to get a functioning democracy. Russia did not have any traditions of either; nevertheless, the establishment of independent organizations in the late 1980s gave optimism among the people. The Russian Constitution anno 1993 gave room for a civil society to develop, as it underlined people’s right to organize (Hønneland & Jørgensen 2006: 141).
In order to have a vigorous civil society the state in the post-communist context has played a role, as it has to provide the necessary resources and support of organizations of civil society.
Thus, political battles among elites and corruption within the Government have decreased developments. Many scholars (Evans 2006, Linz and Stepan 1996) have indicated that there was no room for the civil society to develop within the USSR. In addition, the development of a civil society is dependent upon a stabile economy. In the case of Russia, economic uncertainty and chaos persisted and increased since the collapse of Communism. Economic instability and lack of state support can contribute to a valid explanation of the weak civil society (Howard 2003: 17). Putin’s design for the civil society in Russia has been to link it close to the interests of the state and his policies towards the civil society have been characterized by decreasing foreign support. In 2006 a new NGO law was ratified by the Russian Government, claiming the necessity to clear any disorder among the NGOs and to have full access to all the financial sources, and thereby clarify the NGOs role within the society. Though these measures were implemented, Putin has repeatedly underlined the importance of a civil society and signal gratitude to those who he claims does a constructive job (Hønnesland & Jørgensen 2006: 147f).
2.4.1 Civil Society in North West-Russia
The situation in North West Russia is hard to map out, due to scarce statistical measurements available. Marina Mikhailova (2008) has stated the concern about official numbers on NGOs opposed to the real numbers of operating NGOs. There are registered about 700 NGOs in Russia, and Mikhaliova states that this number should be reduced ten times to get the real number. This statement shows the complexity in getting real numbers and a truthful picture of the reality for the civil society in Russia. There are few non-governmental (NGOs/INGOs) and governmental organizations (GOs) in this region. UNICEF and other big international organizations are placed in Moscow or other big cities and are concerned with other parts of Russia. Mikhailovna also raises concern about the instability of the NGOs, this in form of low competence, lack of financial support and bad facilities. These factors have been a particular challenge in the North-West regions. In order to work systematically one needs professionals, and it is hard to do this work on a voluntary basis (Mikhaliova 2008).