– The apocalyptic Beslan tragedy was used by Putin as a chance to strengthen the power vertical and to have a free hand in pursuing the goal of consolidating his personal power, said Ida Kouklina from the Soldiers´ Mothers Committee in the Russian Federation, at the HRH Anniversary Conference 13 October 2004. (22-OCT-04)

Read the speech below

More about the HRH Anniversary Conference 13-14 October

Ida_01_400px.jpgLecturer:
Dr. Ida Kouklina, Union of Soldiers´ Mothers Committees of the Russian Federation, Russian Research Center for Human Rights, HRH Moscow

Speech held at the Human Rights House Network Anniversary Conference Activists under Attack. Defending the Right to be a Human Rights Defender, 14 October 2004, Oslo

Some notes of relations between state and civil society in the Russian Federation

1. It is quite difficult to define degree of civil society development in the Russian Federation. If one chooses quantitative indices, then it is possible to say that there is more or less developed structure of civil society. In contrast with the Soviet period there is a lot of various NGO in the country. If one choose qualitative indices, then it is evident that Russian state power (which for ages was highly centralized) still has no intentions to build democratic and partner relations with society. In this conditions NGO had to choose one of two roads. They could adapt themselves to the state policy, to exist under its roof and collaborate with the state authorities, using them as a source (financing) and a method (status, prestige) of survival. Another way is independence of the state and to oppose its policy, if it violates HR. It is evident that in this case any Russian NGO could be a victim of the state arbitrariness press. First of all this danger concerns the HR NGO which are forming their activities on the principle of HR universality. As the state is the main source of HR violations in the Russian Federation the HR NGO cannot avoid the critical attitude towards the state authorities activities and it puts them automatically in the opposition to the state. I will concentrate my analyses on the situation in this sphere.

2. Since 1991 relations between the state and HR NGO went through several periods. The first, romantic, period lasted till 1993-94. The first HR NGO grew in the situation of great expectations and euphoria (perestroika). The new power at that time needed society support and HR NGO had some significant possibilities to influence the state policy. Some of important Laws were initiated and supported by democratic NGO.
The new period began with the first Chechen war. In 1994-96 the new Russian state elite felt the real strength of negative public opinion because of the conflict in the Chechen Republic. At that time the NGO, as before, still remained to be the participants of political process. But the Elzyn regime did not want any kind of criticism on the eve of Presidential elections and was trying to change the situation to its own benefit: the first «party of power» were quickly organized. In 1996 began the Elzyn policy of neutralisation of HR NGO activities. 1996-1999 were the years of social stagnation. The HR HGO were deeply engaged in the fight with bureaucracy and the state tried to strength the so called administrative resources (selective approach to HR NGO by means of re-registration).
The new period began with Putin. During his first presidential term Putin made some steps which seemed to be the attempts to establish the straight contacts with HR NGO over bureaucracy head. The examples: Civic Forums, creation of Commission on HR. But at the same time he started the parallel process directed to limitation the socio-political influence and initiatives of HR movement using legislative (Tax Code) and administrative instruments. The President tried to transform HR NGO into supporters of his regime. The HR NGO after some discussions agreed to cooperate with the President but after first practical steps to this direction very soon understood that their efforts do not bring any positive results. To certain extent Putin won this round. HR NGO did not reject cooperation with Presidential administration, popularity of Putin among population remained to be quite high. HR NGO had to work in the atmosphere of complicated mixture of state weakness, bureaucracy strength and growing influence of power structures.
The second term of Putin could be characterized as continuation of successive and consistent policy of civil society transformation into passive object of state governance. Apocalyptic Beslan tragedy was used as a chance to strengthen the power vertical and to have a free hand in pursuing the goal of consolidating his personal power. The last Putin initiatives concerninig strengthening of «power vertical» are not related to antiterrorism. They are not related even to the Chechen Republic, where the policy of Putin failed with all evidences. Abolishing the straight elections of governors, changing the electoral system, strengthening of power structures which should be the main supporters of Putin regime, demonstrate his intentions to improve the state governance by authoritarian methods based on the principle of personal loyalty. In other words, during the short period since his election in 2004 Putin refused to follow his pre-electoral promises (on social field – liquidation of social privileges for the poorest strata of population instead promised Programme of fight against poverty). At the same he is willing to preserve the decorative facade of good relations with civil society etc. The Decree of the President of September, 28 concerning additional measures of supporting the HR movement proves that Putin would like to «to save his face» before Western critics of his interior policy and to ensure the «correct» — for the state — representation of NGO in the new structures (international Center on Human Rights and Social Chamber plus servile structures of NGO around governors and representatives of the President in Federal okrugs).

3. During Putin time the barrier which always existed between society and the state power in the Russian Federation became higher and stronger. The system, the mechanisms and the possibilities for the real dialogue between them practically disappeared. The real trick is as follows: the state declaration of the so called «support» of HR movements is democratic by form and antidemocratic by its substance. The contacts with Government could be only technical and as a rule not productive. One party system in Duma (together with disappearance of independent deputies elections) exclude the possibilities to lobby HR NGO amendments to various laws — the United the Russian Federation votes by strict order of Duma speaker. As none of declared reforms is completed (military, justice, communal, economic) the social life is unstable and disoriented. The only exit to power for HR NGO is the small hole left to and by Kremlin administration. It is very comfortable for Kremlin: through this hole the administration could receive all the necessary information and to use it in its own purposes. At the same time the state power remains absolutely unresponsive and closed for society. It is cunning play of manipulation with democratic mechanisms.

4. The role of HR HGO in this situation reminds the situation with dissidents in the Soviet time. They speak of HR and democracy but the powers just ignore their demands. And lack of mass-media freedom makes their voice unheard by the people. Nevertheless, as there are not political opposition, the HR NGO remain to be the only uncorrupted, democratic and truthful force which are opposed to corrupted, irresponsible and ineffective state system of governance with authoritarian pretensions. In the present socio-economic and geopolitical context the general goals of HR NGO did not change: preservation of Constitutional freedoms, HR and law for every citizen, democratic elections, unconditional responsibility of state officials for HR violations, freedom of mass-media etc. Are the HR NGO ready to cooperate with the state? Yes. But without damaging their independence. The matter is that at present it is practically impossible: the state does not cooperate even with servile and pro-governmental NGO. One has to underline the important fact, that HR NGO are deprived of lawful means of protest of state arbitrariness.
The first task of HR NGO is to survive and to activate the public opinion. But how? Their publications and monitoring made in the frames of the projects finance from abroad are usually good but in the Russian Federation very little people could read it. Diminishing of donor help makes the situation almost hopeless. The way to politization of HR NGO is difficult and dangerous. Though some of the NGO began to move in this direction. In particular, the Union of the Soldiers Mothers Committees of the Russian Federation is trying to create the parallel political structure — the United Peoples’ Party of Soldiers Mothers of the Russian Federation which, in case of success, has to advance participation of women and all citizens in decision making process .
In my opinion, the primary need of HR NGO is the mass newspaper independent of the state and any of financial groups, in other words the newspaper belonging to HR NGO. Alas, this project is too fantastic by financial and political reasons. The other necessary goal is the primary support of NGO which are working with the people everyday, especially in the regions. If these NGO will not survive, the HR movement in the Russian Federation will quietly die. Few persons-HR protectors will remain but the HR movement as such will be dissolved. This scenario could be easily be realised in the case of evolutionary development of Putin regime. If the general situation in the country will be seriously dammaged because of social, military and other kind of conflicts, then, there will be possibilities for the whole bouquet of scenarious.

5. About political preferences of Russian people. as it is an usual matter of interest for foreign friends. First of all one has to take into consideration that Russian people do not know what does it mean — democratic leader. I am not sociologist, but, to my opinion, our people do not see at the moment any alternative to Putin. There are no political leaders in the Russian Federation at all. The political field is one great desert. Our people has no choice and Putin regime diminished the possibilities of choice appearance. Also one has to remember that there are state control over mass-media and this control is strengthening noticeably these days. Between people and Putin there is none of trusted state bodies or leaders. The trust to state authorities is lost completely in Russian society. Those HR NGO which works with people could help only individuals but they lost the possibilities to influence the state policy. So, inevitably the population began to lose their trust in Putin though he still remains their only hope. (The strong feature of Putin is that he says the right words very convincingly.) This is the roots and the reasons of dangers in social and political development in the Russian Federation.