On recent Russian legislation requiring registration of foreign-funded NGOs

Many observers, both inside and outside Russia, view recent legislation requiring foreign-funded NGOs to register as foreign agents as a roll-back of democracy and civil society.  President Putin has responded saying that the legislation was essentially copied from the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).  In fact, much of what he has been saying in defense of the legislation could have been lifted from the FAQs page of the FARA website. Morever, Putin insists that the Russisn legislation does not prohibit anything, it only requires transparacy concerning the sources and usage foreign financing.  

Penalties under the American FARA are similar to those set forth in the new Russian legislation.  FARA provides that “any person who willfully violates any provisions of this Act or any regulations thereunder, or in any registration statement or supplement thereto or in any other documents filed … willfully makes a false statement of a material fact or willfully omits any material fact required to be stated therein or willfully omits a material fact or a copy of a material document necessary to make the statements therein and the copies of documents furnished … [shall be] … punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than five years  http://www.fara.gov/enforcement.html .

The main difference between the situation in the U.S. and Russia is that the U.S. does not have a compliance problem, while Russia most definitely does.  I can certainly empathize with nervous Russian NGO officials visited by agents of the security services, who seize documents, financial records, and hard drives—especially in light of memory of Russia’s recent past.  Largely overlooked, however, is that the new legislation was at first ignored or defied outright by most NGOs receiving foreign funding.  The visits of investigative and enforcement agencies began months after the legislation took effect. I am curious as to what the administrators of FARA would do if faced with such massive and defiant non-compliance.  

Some critics note that in Russia the term “foreign agent” has connotations of being a spy.  I suspect that others who know the United States well will agree that the term “foreign agent” is not a label worn comfortably there either.  In the U.S., there is little opposition to FARA. Americans are inclined to trust their law enforcement and judiciary, and most likely agree that keeping tabs on foreign influence is necessary and legitimate.  Russians, on the other hand, have little trust in their country’s law enforcement and judiciary, and tend to be uneasy about their security agencies keeping tabs on anyone.  Such deep and widespread mistrust often makes the adoption and enforcement of needed legislation difficult. Russia's leaders face a serious dilemma.  What are they to do if there is a legitimate national interest to protect, but the agencies of law enforcement the judicial system are flawed and mistrusted?  

Few seem to appreciate how serious is the problem of weak government and weak law enforcement in Russia. That NGO leaders are not afraid openly to proclaim defiance of the law is symptomatic of a much broader problem of lack, not only of respect for the law and also lack of fear of the law. This helps explain why contract killings are common and corruption so rampant. In no other country have I seen so many people blithely jumping barriers in subways, buses, and trams.  The flawed character of law enforcement and the judicial system severely undermines respect for the law. This makes it difficult for Russian governments to use force and other police measures, even where it would be considered legitimate in established democracies.

Yet, in their efforts to strenghten democracy in their country, Russians need to focus less on our democratic rituals and more on the lessons of how our democracy emerged and developed. The admirable features of Western democracy did not fall from the sky fully-developed. Much of American history would not look good at all if assessed by the standards of Freedom House. Many Russian activists and their foreign teachers of democracy fail to recognize that development of vibrant, healthy democracy and civil society have often included protracted struggle.  In the U.S. it took much time and effort to abolish, slavery and racial segregation, reduce electoral fraud and government corruption, break big city machines, reign in the Mafia, abolish the Alien and Sedition Acts, muzzle Senator McCarthy, abolish the HUAC, and so on.  Russians need to get out of the habit of expecting quick fixes. They need to take responsibility upon themselves for building the kind of regime they want. It is not democratic rituals that drive development of civil society and of democratic traditions. It is a shared attitude that the country belongs to its citizens, and shared habits of spontaneous reaction to repression and malfeasance of government (and other large organizations).   Russian citizens would be better advised to struggle to change bad laws and leaders, than to fight for a right to secrecy about the sources of their funding.  

To be sure, many foreign-funded organizations in Russia do useful work, and I don’t think many are out to subvert the state.  Yet, there can be an unhealthy aspect to foreign funding.  Foreign funders often seek out genuine, budding civil society, and begin to fund it.  This can weaken civil society rather than strengthening it, if the aims of foreign funders take precedence over spontaneous initiatives from an organization’s roots in civil society. This has no parallel in the United States, where civil society is strong, and where there are few foreign-funded organizations seeking to imbue Americans with their values.