Arkhangelsk NGOs adapting to Russian reality
Non-governmental organizations in Arkhangelsk have found a way to adapt to the environment that has developed for the Russian civil society after the NGO law of 2006, Eilen W. B. Zakariassen says in a report on NGOs’ part in civil society.
Instead of serving as watchdogs, they have now turned their centre of attention to collaboration with the local authorities.
This is the conclusion in Eilen W. B. Zakariassen’s report “NGOs in Arkhangelsk – Coping in the civil sector after the 2006 NGO law”. The report was written for the Norwegian Barents Secretariat’s information office in Arkhangelsk as part of Zakariassen’s MA’s in Russian Area studies at the University of Oslo.
In her thesis Zakariassen interviewed representatives from seven different non-governmental organizations in Arkhangelsk to see how they are coping with the situation in Russian civil society, especially after the law on NGO’s of 2006.
When the much criticized and debated “NGO law” was implemented in Russia in 2006, many participants in the international and Russian NGO sector believed the law to cause significant obstacles for NGOs in Russia. Re-registration, comprehensive reporting, stricter rules for donations and extended power for the government to supervise activities of NGOs, are some of the most important factors of the law. In addition, the wording of the NGO law is rather vague, which opens for selective law enforcement, Zakariassen writes.
A strong civil society has been commonly recognized as a fundamental part of a liberal democracy, and the creation of a civil society in post-socialist states has been considered as an essential part of reaching democracy. Nevertheless, the building of a civil society in Russia has been slow.
Many NGOs exist, but their role in strengthening civil society is disputed. First of all, increased state-interventionism, such as the NGO law and minimizing the role of the media has reduced NGOs capacity to promote human rights and function as a watchdog over the government. Second, Zakariassen debates; there is a lack of cooperation and trust between NGOs. This is both due to competition for grants between organizations and also the legacy of the soviet period, where there was a lack of trust between individuals outside each other’s personal cliques. A third reason for the weak civil society is lack of involvement from the citizenry, partly because of a weak economy and lack of trust in what good a strong civil society can do for individuals.
During interviews with spokespersons from the NGOs Aetas, Rassvet, Pomor Vozroshdenie, Garant, Red Cross, Memorial and Voopik it became clear that these organizations are not completely crippled by the NGO law. In fact, they all say that the law has not affected their daily work.
Almost all of Zakariassen’s informants claim that the local authorities in Arkhangelsk are cooperating with the civil society in the region. Many of my informants emphasize the good relationship, and they feel that the dialogue is productive.
What the spokespersons from Aetas, Rassvet, Pomor Vozroshdenie, Garant, Red Cross, Memorial and Voopik argue is that the biggest challenge for development of Russian civil society is not the NGO law, but the apathy of the Russian people. They say that it is hard to find volunteers to participate in the work of the NGOs. The reasoning for this apathy lies in low salary levels in Russia and that people are not aware of their human rights, and therefore becomes less active, some of Zakariassen’s informants said.
