Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Subject: Response to HRW press release
From: Sarah Lindemann-Komarova <echosiberia@gmail.com>
“An Uncivil Approach to Civil Society Reporting”
Sarah Lindemann-Komarova
A response to Human Rights Watch Press Release JRL -#113
This press release was designed to draw attention to the HRW report “An Uncivil Approach to Civil Society: Continuing State Curbs on Independent NGOs and Activists in Russia.” In the release, they acknowledge that “President Medvedev has taken the first step to break from the increasingly authoritarian approach to civil society over the past nine years”. This downward trend has become the dominant assessment of western human rights observers. I have no doubt that HRW cares deeply about what happens to civil society in Russia and wants to help. I do question whether the tendency for human rights organization to focus on the negative is a winning strategy for promoting the change we all want to see.
The cacophony of bad news is increasing as President Obama’s visit to Russia approaches. In the press release, Holly Carter has characterized the situation in Russia as a “profoundly hostile climate for civil society groups”. The impression is given that the report will systematically document the basis for what, as one continues to read the announcement, does indeed sound like a truly horrible situation that has done nothing but backslide. I have 2 primary problems with this whole thing.
#1: The climate for civil society isn’t THAT bad
Those that have read the press release or the report would probably be surprised to hear that in 10 regions of Siberia there are 242 mechanisms for supporting the development of civil society and increasing the role of citizens in governance. It is a hugely diverse group of instruments displaying a multi faceted approach to generating increased citizen participation. It includes: City of Irkutsk “School for Active Citizens”. A training program to increase the level of citizen participation in the governing process. The program was designed by the Irkutsk City Department for Relations with Citizens in partnership with local NGOs. The Citizen’s Council for Federal Prison Service in Kemerovo Oblast. The council consists of 24 people including representatives of NGOs, media, business and religious organizations. The initial objectives for the Council were identified as insuring human rights are respected and to organize the provision of support (food, clothing, medical care) for those incarcerated and after they have been released. 4 year Omsk Municipal Program “Increased Citizen Culture for Legal Rights”. This was designed to provide residents with increased knowledge of their rights and access to legal help. A draft Program was developed by City government officials together with NGOs. This draft was presented to the general public at a Hearing that was organized and conducted by an NGO and recommendations taken into account before the Program was finalized and funded.
When this database of mechanisms is completed it will include information on when the mechanism was created (it will clearly contradict the downward trend during the last 9 years as identified by HRW). It also includes who initiated the mechanism (government, citizens or a partnership of the two). The next phase of the project will be to develop assessment tools to measure how effective these mechanisms are. My personal experience with a number of them indicates it is a very mixed bag but it is certainly a better bag than the one described in the HRW report.
There is no doubt the anecdotes presented in the report are true. However, the time has come to go beyond anecdotes and be more systematic in our approach to measuring and characterizing civil society and its trajectory over time. We hope the project described above will provide a template for systematically and comparatively charting civil society support on a regional level. On a national level, the Center for Research on Civil Society and the Non-commercial Sector at the Higher School of Economics is doing excellent work (www.hse.ru/org/hse/civil/index.html). For the last three years this has included preparing an annual Status Report for Civil Society in partnership with the Russian Federation Public Chamber. This is rapidly becoming a valuable resource for charting change. Starting in 2008 preparation for the Status Report includes conducting a Hearing on Empirical Research for Civil Society. Participation is open to researchers and experts from all over Russia.
Thus, a new standard for quantifying the situation is being set by our Russian colleagues. Anything less is going to be vulnerable to charges of promoting a set political agenda or an attempt at influencing fundraising preferences that correspond to the mission of the report authors. More rigorous quantitative analysis will give more certainty, force and direction to our arguments as we all continue to promote change. From a development perspective, it can lead to drawing attention away from issues that NGOs and activists would characterize as more urgent. I am also concerned that ignoring the positive developments in the two Siberian Network regions included in the report could threaten what we have worked 15 years to establish. Regional and city governments officials who read the report could conclude that the grant competitions, committees, volunteer events, educational and other programs they are now supporting are irrelevant. They are not mentioned in the report and despite these efforts the situation for civil society is deemed as increasing bad. What’s the point, easier to just eliminate them, a leading western NGO has found them to be meaningless.
#2: Being listened to is not the same as being heard
The methodology used for the report is described as “based on in-depth interviews conducted in nine Russian cities”. I was interviewed by SKYPE and the organization I helped to found was interviewed and helped to organize interviews with other NGOs in our Region. Nothing that I said, or that the President of the Siberian Center said, made it into the report. It is too early to argue the ultimate historical significance of the Novosibirsk City and Oblast grant competitions that distribute over $1 million a year to civic activists or the government supported NGO Fair. Still, it is impossible to imagine a rationale for not including them in a comprehensive report on the civil society environment. It is fine to say that the wonderful AIDs group in Tomsk finds the reporting requirements burdensome. Why is it not equally important to report that the President of the Siberian Center does not agree and that a village based NGO felt the process increased professionalism that could lead to increased trust and funding for her organization? Why is it not important to explore, or at least allow a reader to think about the paradox of the HRW identification of a hostile rhetoric towards NGOs who’s “efforts appear aimed at discrediting NGOs, especially those that are foreign funded” and government inviting such NGOs to provided training and programs aimed at changing how the government works? Here again it appears that among many other anecdotes described during the interviews, Siberian Center brokering a partnership between US AID and the Krasnoyarsk Krai Administration was considered irrelevant.
A couple of months ago we prepared a list of recommendations to be presented at a Hearing on the federal grant competition 2009. Our colleague, along with several other NGOs from the regions, spoke about the need for increased transparency, improved decision making processes (69% of the money stayed in the Central Region that includes Moscow in 2008) and evaluation to insure the money was being spent effectively. Shortly thereafter the official competition announcement appeared and it did not reflect any of the changes recommended. Obviously we felt we had been exploited to add a patina of legitimacy to a process much in need of improvement.
That is how I felt when I read the HRW report. The only difference in being exploited by the government or an international NGO is that we were able to design a coherent response for the government. We are currently conducting a campaign that has been supported by 510 NGOs from 43 regions. Mounting a campaign to get the west to care about the silencing of the voices of NGOs that are saying, “Life isn’t easy, it never has been, but we are doing things today we never dreamed possible 10 years ago.” If we did develop a campaign, we wouldn’t ask for respect or that western human rights organizations value what we do or agree with the way we have chosen to promote change. We would ask only that they not make us disappear.
- Back to the Top -