Misperception and Reality

Russia: NGO registration, democracy, and civil society

February 1, 2015
Print

If I were a Russian citizen, I would be somewhat troubled by recent Russian legislation requiring foreign-funded Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to register as foreign agents.  However, as a social scientist I see the Universe unfolding as it should in Russia.

 

The widespread view that civil society is being rolled back rests on a mistaken assumption that civil society can be rolled back by actions of governments.  On the contrary civil society is autonomous, by definition.  It has a life of its own. It can sometimes be pushed under the surface for a limited time but it cannot be broken or crushed. If it is genuine, robust civil society it will bounce back, often with even greater force. The concept "civil society" refers to much more than organized NGOs. In fact, some scholars argue that NGOs which rely on outside funding, either from government or from foreign funders, do not really belong to civil society. Outside funders determine priorities, rather than the organization's membership and those it is presumed to serve, hence sapping internal initiative within the organization.  

 

In his classical work, THE SOCIAL ORIGINS OF DEMOCRACY AND DICTATORSHIP http://books.google.ca/books/about/Social_Origins_of_Dictatorship_and_Democ.html?id=Ip9W0yWtVO0C&redir_esc=y, Barrington Moore argues that the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell played an important role the development of liberal democracy in Britain.  Since it was a dictatorship it angered people, but since it was a mild dictatorship, people were not afraid to criticize it openly.  As a result, the British were inoculated with a lasting distaste for tyranny.  American democracy similarly evolved by protracted struggle against injustice and abuse of power. Those who struggled may sometimes have been beaten and arrested, but they were not often killed, terrorized, or tortured in process.  

 

The current situation in Russia bears similarities to such experiences of developing democracies. Though it would be hard to deny that the regime in Russia is somewhat authoritarian, it would be a stretch to characterize it as more than mildly authoritarian. Though many Russians are irritated by the authoritarian aspects of the regime, they are not afraid to criticize it publically.  Most Russian NGOs receiving foreign funding were not afraid to ignore, even openly defy the new registration law.  The difference between the situation in today's Russia and that under the Soviet regime, or under really repressive regimes is like night and day.  

 

The Russian NGO registration legislation gives some grounds for concern.  However, even under the most democratic of regimes, governments and ordinary citizens tend to be uneasy about foreign influences. The United States is certainly no exception.  From 1795 to 1790, Congress passed four laws commonly known as the Alien and Sedition Acts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_acts. From 1947–1975, the House of Representatives had a Committee on Unamerican Activities (HUAC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee. Since 1938, the U.S. has had legislation that is very similar to the new Russian legislation--the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).  President Putin has even been saying that the Russians copied their legislation from FARA. 

 

This U.S. legislation requires that "agents representing the interests of foreign powers in a "political or quasi-political capacity" disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances." This requirement includes, not only political activities, but also "public relations counsel, publicity agents, information-service employees, political consultants."  Individuals and organizations must register "when acting in any capacity, even if only indirectly controlled, on behalf of a foreign principal."  FARA is administered by the Counterespionage Section (CES) in the National Security Division (NSD) of the United States Department of Justice.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act.   http://www.fara.gov/fara-faq.html#7

 

To be sure, the Alien and Sedition Acts were criticized from the outset in the U.S., and were eventually repealed. It is significant that President Harry Truman once said that "the Un-American Activities Committee in the House of Representatives was the most un-American thing in America! The House Committee was widely criticized and, after 28 years of existence, was abolished.  However, under Truman's own anti-communist programs, Government employees were forbidden to criticize US foreign policy or attend foreign films.  

 

There does not appear to be significant opposition to FARA in America although, over the years, there has been considerable litigation concerning the Act.  This is, no doubt, because Americans have either agreed with the intent of the Act, or not been alarmed enough to oppose it, or because they have trusted their Government not to misuse it.  Some organizations have argued in the courts that they should not be required to register.  These cases have brought greater clarity regarding such questions as what should count as "political" activity, and what it means to represent a foreign power.  

 

As Russian citizens increasingly find their political voice, those who believe their new law is unjust or wrongheaded will no doubt work to amend or repeal it. 

Share this article

Poll conducted

  1. In your opinion, what are the US long-term goals for Russia?
    U.S. wants to establish partnership relations with Russia on condition that it meets the U.S. requirements  
     33 (31%)
    U.S. wants to deter Russia’s military and political activity  
     30 (28%)
    U.S. wants to dissolve Russia  
     24 (22%)
    U.S. wants to establish alliance relations with Russia under the US conditions to rival China  
     21 (19%)
For business
For researchers
For students