by R.G. Gidadhubli
In Russia Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) have been subjected to indiscriminate checking and investigation during the last few months, raising considerable resentment both inside the country and abroad. In the first week of June 2013, Russia has legalised ‘Random Checking' of NGOs. This has in fact compounded the problems of those engaged in the civil society movement in the country because prior to this legislation, in November 2012, a law became effective under which any NGO that received money from abroad was required to register as “foreign agent” failing which it could face severe administrative action. Despite massive domestic and international criticism, Vladimir Putin had signed this law in July 2012, that is, within one month of taking over the presidency, having got the full backing of Russia's ruling United Russia party which contended that NGOs in Russia were excessively politicised and financed from abroad and needed to be regulated. Shuvalov, a spokesman of the ruling party, was even frank in stating: “NGOs operated as an instrument of influence on Russia from abroad.”
But disagreeing with these contentions, journalists, several members of the Liberal-Democratic Party, Yabloko had protested against the bill that branded NGOs involved in political activity and funded from abroad as “foreign agents”. Thus both these laws have caused deep concern and the NGO community in Russia has been resisting these laws and many refusing to register as ‘foreign agents' as this new policy measure has increased state control over NGOs and restricted their freedom and activities in the country. Notwithstanding protests and resentment, by passing these laws, the Russian President has demonstrated his authority over the role of NGOs in the country. Hence this policy measure assumes considerable importance in Russia's social and political life as Putin will remain President of the country till June 2018.
The institution of the NGO is a relatively new phenomenon in independent and democratic Russia during the last about two decades even as there was a dissident movement in the former Soviet Union and a few organisations such as the Rights Organisation of the Moscow Helsinki Group operated in the country. At present officially there are about 650 NGOs in the country engaged in various social, economic and political activities. In view of this it is worthwhile to know why Putin has taken this controversial policy measure, what are the reactions to this policy both in Russia and abroad, what will be the likely impact of this policy and how far he will succeed in his objectives.
There are several possible reasons for the Russian Government initiating such controversial policies. Firstly, Putin's resentment against some NGOs seems to have been caused by the protests against him since 2011 when he announced his decision to contest for presidency for the third term, as permissible under the Russian Constitution, and subsequently during his campaign for election in April-May 2012. In May 2012, protests against Putin continued even after he was declared elected and they were at their peak at the Bolotnaya Square in Moscow as also on the internet. Hence the Russian parliament also passed bills on blacklisting undesirable internet sites which, in turn, have raised concerns about a general clampdown on civil society.
Secondly, from the Russian perception, activities of some NGOs amounted to foreign interference in internal affairs of the country. For instance, a NGO known as ‘Golos' (Voice), that is funded substantially by the USA, had been contesting the official claim of fairness in regional and Duma elections in December 2011. Taking advantage of freedom of the press in Russia, Golos had been widely reporting vote-rigging and fraud in elections in Russia and even questioning the popularity and extent of Putin's success in the election. What might have further agitated the Russian Government was that Golos was one of 11 Russian NGOs that lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights about the “foreign agents” law in February 2013. Hence, as per reports, members of Golos' independent election watchdog Andrei Buzin, Grigory Melkonyants have been tried earlier in Russian courts and are now targeted by the new law on “foreign agent”.
Thirdly, while claiming that these laws are not against NGOs per se, the Russian Government has justified that this law is in the national interest and a necessary measure to prevent foreign meddling in Russia's public life. Russian political leader Alexander Sidyakin of the United Russia Party has alleged that an entire network of NGOs operate in Russia whose financing was suspicious from the standpoint of its provider. He has alleged that Golos was paid $ 2 million in 2011 to dirty the Russian authorities. Similarly, in support of this argument and reacting to public protests against these new laws, the Justice Ministry of Russia has contended that the goal was to check if their activities were in line with the legislation and corresponded with the objectives of their charters. There is tit-for-tat between the USA and Russia on human rights issues. For instance, the USA introduced the Magnitsky Act (Russian lawyer Magnitsky, who was a human rights activist, died in jail in 2009) and imposed sanctions on Russian officials on the issue of human rights violations and in turn Russia responded by banning US citizens from adopting Russian children.
Fourthly, Russian leaders could have some legitimate concern about the role of NGOs in ‘Colour Revolutions' that occurred in some former Soviet republics including Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic during the last over a decade causing political instability in these newly independent states. Hence as a preventive measure Russian leaders seem to have introduced this policy to ensure political stability in the country. Russian leaders also seem to contend that support to certain Russian NGOs by some Western countries and institutions was “ideology based” and against the policy and ideology being pursued by Russia including on issues relating to human rights activities. Thus there are ideological differences between Russia and the West on issues relating to NGOs.
For instance, the European Union has exerted constant pressure on the Russian authorities to meet the OSCE standards on human rights, democracy, rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. But while disagreeing with these views of the European Union on this issue, the Russian Government expressed openness in providing detailed clarifications as to the implementation of the Russian law.
Fifthly, the Russian Government might be legitimately interested to know the exact amount of foreign money and, equally important, the sources of funding received by the NGOs. These new laws will also help the government to indirectly control their financial position apart from knowing as to who is funding. Hence Russian NGOs, that did not comply with the new law, were also subjected to heavy fines. In fact Golos was the first NGO to face heavy administrative charges and fined $ 10,000 forcing them to abide by the new law that has raised concern in the West. As opined by some civil right activists, the amount of fines are heavy and might force many NGOs to close down and that seems to be the objective of the government. Putin has claimed that Russian NGOs received almost $ 1 billion in foreign funding in 2013. In fact possibly to counter foreign funding, Putin has offered $ 75 million to NGOs that are working for social causes in Russia dealing with education, health care etc.
Arguments Against the Law
There are several arguments and contentions by those who are protesting against these laws on NGOs. Firstly, the term “foreign agent” has overtones of spying and indeed amounts to treason and discredits an NGO in the eyes of the public. Hence there is considerable resentment among political activists and part of the educated middle class population who support the values of freedom, human rights of a democratic system in their country because branding all NGOs as foreign agents simply because they are getting funding from abroad is totally unacceptable to them. The veteran human rights activist, Lev Ponomaryov, of the For Human Rights organisation has been very critical and stated that the new law was an attack on the entire Russian civil liberties movement.
Secondly, the term ‘foreign agent' to an NGO, as applied by the Russian Government—irrespective whether it receives one per cent or 90 per cent of its total funds for its activities—and clubbing all such NGOs in one category, does not seem to be rational. Even the issue of source of funding is important since institutions such as the United Nations Organisation do provide funding to NGOs and there is no justification to call all of them as foreign agents. On its part, one possible intention of the Russian Government is to control several Russians who have laundered money during the last two decades and, living abroad, could be funding some NGOs to oppose Putin. Notwithstanding this contention, clubbing all NGOs as ‘foreign agents' has created controversy in the country and abroad. There is a legitimate need to differentiate between NGOs based on the source of foreign funding rather than branding all as foreign agents. Moreover, what is important is the nature and functions of activities any NGO is carrying out in the country, political, social or educational.
Thirdly, there could be valid apprehension about the term ‘random checking' since as the law is applied in reality it may not be ‘random' nor is it ‘checking'. There is a strong possibility of targeting certain NGOs. Hence international funding agencies—such as the UNO, Helsinki Foundation, that are funding NGOs—have expressed their concern with random checking and branding NGOs as ‘foreign agents', and the manner of investigation by the Russian Government agencies. In fact many NGOs, including international human rights groups, are critical of the humiliating manner of carrying out unannounced and lengthy inspections by the Russian administrative bodies. This is contrary to the claim of simply checking. Many NGOs allege that inspection by government officials was ‘extraordinary' while the Russian Government claimed that it was ‘routine'.
In the first week of June 2013, the UN human rights experts expressed their concern that two NGOs, namely, the Centre Memorial in St. Petersburg and the Public Verdict Foundation in Moscow, have been selectively targeted and charged by the Russian authorities. These two organisations seem to have provided information on human rights violations in Russia to the UN Committee Against Torture. In fact being concerned with Russia's administrative actions, the UNO has sought assurance that these two groups will not have to face any reprisals ‘as a result of their legitimate activities'. Thus antagonising these international agencies and organisations will have an adverse impact on the image of the Russian Government as a democratic country. Hence the Director of Human Rights Watch of Europe, Hugh Williams, has opined that the Russian Government's crackdown on NGOs was hurting Russian society and harming Russia's international standing. What is important to note is that the Human Rights Watch, in its report of 2012, has made critical observations about Russia's performance stating that the Russian ‘authorities introduced a series of restrictive laws, harassed and intimidated activists, and interfered in the work of Non-Government Organisations, crushing hopes for reform'.
Fourthly, some NGOs have legitimate concern if they are to be called ‘foreign agents'. Hence they have maintained that the law was likely to be misused to put unfair pressure on their activities. Their concern is based on the possibility that it could be used indiscriminately against groups that are engaged in social and humanitarian activities. It is a well-known fact that there are some institutions that are engaged in education and receive funding from abroad. For instance, according to Russian Government prosecutors, during the last one year the Moscow School of Political Studies has received from abroad 12.8 million rubles ($ 411,600) including 7.3 million rubles ($ 235,000) from the US-based Open Society Foundation, also known as George Soros Foundation. As per Russian law, this institution has to be registered as a foreign agent. This does not appear to be rational since it is engaged in promoting education and research.
Fifthly, accusation of foreign countries and institutions by the Russian Government that by giving financial support to NGOs they are meddling in its internal affairs may not be sustainable and convincing. In Russia, apart from NGOs, many Opposition party leaders have been actively opposing Putin's policies. Therefore, the protest movement in Russia may not be contained by these policy measures aimed at restricting the foreign funding of NGOs.
In lieu of conclusion it may be stated that the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, has reasons to express his anger with the protests against his legitimate election as the President for the third term that has led to the enactment of laws on NGOs. The Russian Government is concerned over the activities of certain NGOs and has some genuine perception about the impact of their activities on the country's political stability. But at the same time both the laws concerning NGOs have created considerable disagreement and controversy in Russia and abroad. There are certain shortcomings in the indiscriminate branding of all NGOs as ‘foreign agents' for receiving funding from abroad and the manner in which the random checking law seems to have been applied and implemented in reality. The objective of totally controlling the activities of NGOs and containing protests against these laws in the country and abroad by passing these laws may not be fully achieved. On the other hand, considering the severe adverse reactions both at home and abroad even by the UNO, there is a need and possibility of certain revisions in a bid to modernising the civil code in Russia.
Dr R.G. Gidadhubli is a former Director, Centre for Central Eurasian Studies, University of Mumbai, Mumbai.