Civil Society, Development & Aid, Europe, Headlines, Human Rights

CIVIL SOCIETY: The Geopolitics of Post-Soviet Activism

Zoltán Dujisin

GLASGOW, May 29 2007 (IPS) - Representatives of civic groups from the post-Soviet region admit that their organisations are sometimes more closely following the democratisation line set by donors than the aspirations of their societies.

“Most people are more concerned about socio-economic issues and less about democratisation, and if you want to speak for people you have to be representative of them,” Paata Papava, from the Centre for Training and Consultancy in Georgia, told IPS.

Activists from the former Soviet republics found themselves in an uncomfortable position at the CIVICUS World Assembly, a global civil society gathering held in this Scottish city May 23-27, where the focus was on greater grassroots accountability amongst non-governmental organisations.

The problem would not necessarily have political implications if it weren’t for the fact that civic groups are often seen as taking sides in what is increasingly recognised as a relentless geopolitical struggle.

The demise of socialism in Europe saw Party-promoted activity replaced by an incipient civil society, but its presence became controversial after it was seen as leading popular revolts against vote rigging, in 2003 in Georgia and in 2004 in Ukraine, which swept staunchly pro-Western governments to power.

Claiming that NGOs rely heavily on funds from Western countries and philanthropists, Russia and its neighbour Belarus have accused groups from its former allies of serving Western goals under the guise of democratisation.

“You cannot attribute all of it to foreign foundations; it would be giving them too much credit,” Russian-born Olga Alexeeva, head of the Charities Aid Foundation Global Trustees, told IPS.

“They are not that effective – we can only wish they were. Democracy development programmes usually waste most of their money along the way,” she added.

Alexeeva however believes the issue of foreign donors is more pressing now than before the popular revolts. “Ukrainian NGOs did what had to be done, but the problem is people are very easy and fast in making revolutions and don’t think about what’s going to happen next,” she said.

Now Ukrainian civil society will have to struggle so as not to become simply “a toy of politicians and people who create foundations for their personal benefit and profit.”

Papava takes a similar stance: “International financial flows supported post-Soviet civil society, but the fact that democratic processes in our country were supported is good.” However, he adds, “civil society leaders are shifting into governmental structures, and many donors are looking more intensively at initiatives coming from the government.”

This is in sharp contrast to the situation in Russia, where there really is no threat of an unhealthy mix of politics and civil society, but quite the opposite.

“You can’t be political in Russia, that’s suicidal,” Alexeeva told IPS in reference to the highly government-monitored civic activity in Russia.

“It’s a Russian paranoia. They are afraid of civil society, they are very scared about what happened in Ukraine,” she said. “In Russian you have the same word for policy and politics, and when civic groups start discussing policy, the government sees it as them discussing politics.”

The civic activist sees the Kremlin’s fears as exaggerated: “Russians don’t give a damn about parliamentary elections; they give a damn when a high-rise building is built on a playground. Russians just live their life, they are preoccupied with their personal challenge to survive and build a decent quality of life.”

She pointed out that it is “apolitical NGOs” that constitute the largest share of civil society organisations in Russia, and these are usually concerned with problems of veterans, the elderly or the disabled.

The same cannot be said about several Belarusian groups, who are intent on reforming the heavy-handed regime in Minsk. Dmitry Savelau, from the Transformation of Humanities Association, a group whose existence is threatened by the government, told IPS that if it weren’t for civic groups, “nobody else will manage governance and policy in Belarus.”

This is why pro-democracy aid by international donors, whatever their ultimate goals are, is welcomed. “We are thankful that there is any kind of alternative organisation,” he said.

However, the activist admitted such organisations have yet to find much response in a population simply content with socio-economic stability. “We might have money for information or revolutions, but we lack the formation to democratise society. We are not in a situation in which we can focus on accountability.”

Alexeeva sees different priorities in Russia: “A revolution would be disastrous, and would be used in even worse ways by all sorts of individuals. But there should be more reaching out to ordinary people and less publishing leaflets that nobody reads. There should be civic, not political action, teaching the public that human rights are not just politics, and that if you don’t have them, other rights you might care about are not protected.”

In Georgia, Papava is calling for NGOs to drop the top-down approach to democratisation promoted by donors, and to work more from the ground up. “We have to think of strategies and policies for building democracy from the grassroots levels,” he said.

However, there might be reason for civic groups not to heed his advice.

“It’s not difficult to identify the reason: They want more funds and support,” he told IPS.