Civil Society in the Newly Independent States: A Rocky Road to Survival
Marianna Gurtovnik
What follows are some of my thoughts about the civil society development in the Newly Independent States. I would welcome comments and insights from interested readers, particularly about the role that local corporate philanthropy may play in sustaining the civil society and bridging the gap between the rich and the poor in the region.
Many reputable publications in the West tend to portray current political and economic developments in the Newly Independent States as a decline of democracy and restoration of authoritarianism. With no intention to sound gloomy, one cannot help but wonder if a genuine commitment to democracy was there, to begin with. And has the track record of reforms up-to-date been solid enough to justify the use of the word “decline” when describing the current state of affairs? This article provides a broad overview of the government-civil society relations in the Newly Independent States, and suggests ways to lift the existing tension to the benefit of both parties.
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
With a possible exception of the Baltic States, none of the Newly Independent States has, over the past 15 years, followed steadfastly the path of democratic progress. Several historical circumstances have contributed to these newly emerged nations’ checkered history of democratic achievement. (Martha Brill Olcott has also provided her own assessment of the democracy-building efforts in Central Asia.) At the dawn of the 1990s, anxious to cement their independence and gain international credibility through participation in global economic and military institutions, ruling elites from Ukraine to Uzbekistan hurried to proclaim laws that were to promote transparent governance and fair opportunities for all. Often half-baked and contradictory, these laws mainly served as a window-dressing; tested in critical circumstances, the fragile institutions that they had established failed to uphold citizens’ political rights and economic freedoms. Such systemic dysfunctions were to be expected. After all, for the most of the post-independence period, political power in all of the Newly Independent States (NIS) has been concentrated in the hands of former communist chiefs who regarded democracy as an alien and inconvenient concept. As international pressure to reform grew, the costs of relinquishing some of their immense powers outweighed, in their view, the potential benefits of the rule of law. Nationalistic voices in some ex-Soviet nations, too, have openly resisted calls for reform that, they felt, were imposed on their countries by meddlesome democratic crusaders from the West. Furthermore, several NIS leaders have leveraged their countries’ vast natural resources and geo-strategic advantages to toughen their grip on domestic affairs and brush off western criticism of corruption and abuse of authority.
Legislative Clampdown on NGOs
Legislation on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is the case in point. Its vague and convoluted regulations have long been a source of frustration for civil society activists who have continuously pressed for improvements. Nevertheless, the latest amendments introduced by governments in Russia, Uzbekistan, and Belarus, to mention just a few, have invoked an even harsher domestic and international criticism. In some instances, advocates of free speech fear that bureaucrats have been granted a broad discretion in interpreting legislative provisions. An example is the Russian Law on Non-Commercial Organizations of January 2006 authorizing the Ministry of Justice to disband non-governmental organizations whose activities may threaten the “political independence of the Russian Federation.” The language is so unspecific, say opponents of the law, that the ban may easily be placed on opposition-minded organizations.
In others instances, new provisions have further tightened governmental control over NGOs by obstructing the flow of foreign funding. An example is the Uzbek government’s 2004 requirement that NGOs deposit their foreign grants in one of the two state-controlled banks. The government had subsequently blocked the transfer of more than 80% of foreign grants to Uzbek NGOs. Belarusian Government ruled in 2004 that civil society organizations ought to obtain state registration and approval of their foreign grants. This regulation had resulted in the suspension of NGO activities throughout the country.
On the other hand, there is breakthrough evidence pointing to an easing of fiscal pressure on NGOs in some countries. In 2005-2006, governments of Kazakhstan and Tajikistan have passed the laws substantially reducing registration fees for NGOs. Still, although these changes do provide positive examples, they are not enough to reverse the largely regressive trend in the governments’ treatment of civil society organizations in the Newly Independent States.
It may be tempting to blame the trend on the world’s leading powers’ hesitation to penalize corrupt dictators with whom they have, instead, partnered in the pursuit of energy security and fight against global terrorism. No doubt, a closer match between what the developed nations’ leaders practice and preach in their lofty speeches would help. But, foreign politics aside, what can civil society organizations realistically do on the domestic front to help themselves stay afloat?
Local Corporate Philanthropy: Exploring Win-Win Solutions
Clearly, foreign funding is a thorny issue. So NGOs could start off by cultivating a culture of giving among local businesses. While it may be difficult for smaller and poorer economies, opportunities are plentiful in the resource-rich Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. In Azerbaijan, it would actually mean reviving the century-old traditions of charity and compassion toward the less fortunate, which had been actively practiced by many oil barons as far back as in the 1880s–early 1900s, until the socialist revolution. Not only would such homegrown philanthropy break the civil society’s dependence on foreign funding, but it might also strengthen community ties and promote social stability by bridging the gap between the rich and the poor. Besides, local funding should be more responsive to, and supportive of, locally generated solutions to various problems that non-governmental organizations seek to alleviate. This is a positive factor as experience shows that solutions born within a society have a higher likelihood of being sustainable. Finally, national philanthropy may allay suspicions of those NIS leaders who are convinced that foreign donors have secretly conspired to subvert their regimes.
Both public and private sectors stand to win from these efforts. Governments may encourage businesses to practice charity by introducing tax breaks and other economic incentives. In addition, businesses may use their charitable activities to burnish their image among the local populations. And for governments, the benefits of supporting the local civil society should be obvious: cost savings through reliance on volunteers and community in-kind donations wherever possible, plus a countrywide network of activists resulting in a higher operational mobility and less red tape. Accountability and the quality of services can be straightened out, too, if corporate donors keep a close eye on how their funds are spent.
on April 1st, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Thanks, Marianna, very interesting article!
Philanthropy cannot be imposed, it still a voluntary action, but it can be definitely encouraged by the state through tax benefits. I know that in Kazakhstan some companies (foreign, mostly) provide support for NGOs. Coca-Cola, Proctor&Gamble, Philip Morris, Mobil, all do charity and public benefit activities.
I think local NGOs should be more proactive in letting the businesses know about themselves. What if an NGO that combats AIDS approaches a pharmaceutical/medical company to donate money for treating the 87 kids who were infected in Kazakhstan? It would be beneficial for all.
I agree that oil-rich countries have more potential for corporate philanthropy. Currently, when foreign NGOs have less opportunities for work in the region, they should probably concentrate on training the local NGOs on how to partner with local businesses, and individuals. Ideally, they would also cooperate with the state, but for this, we need to see major re-thinking of NGO-state relations, from both sides… Kazakhstan already allows the state to contract the NGOs for certain services. The NGOs, however, are still suspicious of this scheme, as there is a room for corruption (kickbacks for the government, and NGOs quickly created by local authorities to win the funds). Besides, which government would ever finance election monitoring NGOs, for instance?..
on April 4th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Thank you for the thoughtful comment, Leila. I agree there is a deep distruct that NGOs and governments in the Former Soviet Union have for each other, and I was thinking about ways to overcome that. Perhaps NGOs can start with activities that would be less political in nature (elections obviously are very political) and see if they can build alliances with government and businesses to resolve problems the society is facing. Public health comes to mind as one area where local businesses could fund local NGOs and where the government might make use of dedicated volunteers, public educators, and outreach workers provided by NGOs. This is already being done but mostly by foreign donors and foreign NGOs. If local players got involved, there could be greater sustainability and commitment to these efforts.
on April 10th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Interesting post, for a thorough analysis of the work of and pressure on NGOs in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, please see/listen at: http://www.freedolina.net/ru/
on April 10th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Michael,
Thanks for the great link. I have to say, it really strikes the chord with some of the issues I raised in my post so, in that sense, coming across the Freedolina website was very timely. Specifically, many NGO staffers interviewed by the Freedolina.com program mentioned the need to diversify NGO funds and not to rely on foreign funds only (which is something I tried to make a point about in my post). Then another interesting thought was about the lucrative (by Central Asian standards) labor market created by foreign funding that brought many local NGOs to existence. The downside of that is that many NGOs workers in Central Asia view their projects as simply a way to earn a living whereas in developed nations people often (not always, of course) join NGOs to pursue a case/promote an issue they strongly believe in. I would think this is a phenomenon that is characteristic of many developing economies. Perhaps, there is nothing wrong with that as long as the “core” of the organization is composed of/sustained by the people who want to stay focused on the cause.
Another thing is the cut-throat competition some interviewees mentioned that is caused by the need to obtain limited funding as well as the need to survive in a government-controlled environment.
It would be interesting to get a transcribed version of the recording (In Russian or English)–do you happen to have such a file?
on April 11th, 2007 at 6:27 am
Dear Marianna,
for me personally you raised kind of interesting topic, even though the corporate philanthropy conception per se and its applicability would unlikely seem much topical nowadays, especially in Central Asian region, bearing in mind the context of today’s political agenda (I’m from Kyrgyzstan by the way).
But from the perspective of finding new alternative recourses to support civil society institutions in the region, this is very important. On the other hand, I would argue that it is still a less known and discovered issue on the table. And unfortunately so far this issue has not received a proper consideration among experts and scholars.
Instead of providing commentary let me just throw out some points which might be considered (at your discretion):
1. Corporate philanthropy is still kind of novelty phenomenon for Central Asian countries (even though we see the charity sector is gradually rooted especially in social sphere). And it will really take some time to adjust this conception in the region since it requires efforts from each side: from the Government as a major regulator to ensure creation of favorable and efficient legal and political environment, from business – to be motivated and socially oriented (at least to realize that the philanthropy is not only a form of social investment through the way of corporate giving but also an effective market instrument of successful business management), and for NGOs themselves to offer a topical and feasible agenda which meets beneficiaries’ needs and satisfies business interests in community. Another aspect here is how to deserve a credit in business society opinion. Unfortunately, there is a stereotype still circulated that business sector doesn’t trust non-profit alleging fear of non appropriate transferring/allocation of assets and absence of cost effectiveness. This mainly leads to the problems in the NGOs’ sector, since there is still a shortage of critical mass of qualified NGOs capable to professionally provide their services, or offer long-term projects of cooperation to business (instead of just soliciting nonrecurring funds/donation) and meet certain management, administrative, financial and other criteria.
2. from my perspective a modern corporate philanthropy represents a complex issues where many parts should be synchronized, and it’s not only about tax incentives which are supposed to encourage the corporative giving. Moreover the corporative giving itself is a contentious issue and represents subject matter of concern even among contemporary scholars and experts in terms legal rational and approaches to that. Suffice it say that even in US this is still subject of discussion and the society not always treat it positively (well, at least judging by certain number of articles I read)
3. among the obstacles might be considered within this context are: shortage of big corporations (willing to pay), even among those paying, they usually in many instances make it without “public advertisement” and there are certain reasons for that which again referred to regional peculiarities.
4. apart from the need to improve tax legislation, we don’t have well formed and developed nonmembership type of NGOs, namely foundations, whose mission is to make professional fundraising, allocate assets for specific purpose, conduct grant activity. This is also well-known western conception, but barely cultivated in our region. We’re at the embryonic stage in terms of that. Based upon such reflecting there is certain number of legislative initiatives should be induced (which is another big area of consideration and deserve a separate article:)
on April 11th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Dear Yuri,
Yes, you are correct… many obstacles to be overcome here. But I am a believer that things can start from smaller, community-oriented initiatives where the issues of sketchy financial management and tax incentives may not be as prominent due to the small size of these projects…
I am not sure what the right way to proceed is in this situation. Should NGOs start advocating for a larger legal framework to be built that would regulate corporate charity, or should they and businesses build the “critical mass” of experience of working together first, and then proceed to formalizing the arrangements and ironing out the kinks? The second approach kind of makes more sense because you cannot know what challenges you may come across in the procees until you actually go though it.
I also realize the new skills NGOs and larger businesses would need to bring on board to make these things happen. For instance, corporations would have to find and hire people to oversee the grant activity and the public relations part of the process to make sure businesses are perceived from a positive standpoint in the communities as a result of their charitable activities. Bur before that happens, businesses have to realize why pursuing these projects may be beneficial for them (better image in the community is one reason, for instance.)
It would be interesting to talk to people at NGOs in Central Asia and the rest of the FSU who have actually got funding from local businesses to see how the whole process has worked and what the “lessons learned” from this experience are. I am sure there are some examples out there. Anyone you know about? I am myself from Azerbaijan, by the way, but now live in the US.
on June 23rd, 2007 at 2:19 pm
if all ngo give attention on emplyment generation than there is a big move in economy in any country and employment generation is a chain system. in this chain system we can do wonder.