??? ???????????
????????? ?????????
???????
??????? ?????????
???????
????????????
???????
??????
??????i ?????????
????? ?????

 ????????
???? ?i?????????
???? ??????? ?????????
???????? ???????? ?????????? ??????
???? ??????

Uniter

???? ??i??? ???i????

?????? ? ?????i: i???????i???-????i?????? ??????
???????????? ??????
 ????? ??????????????? ?????????
 ????? ??????????????? ?????????
 ????? ??????????????? ?????????
??????? :.

?????

?????????? ??????????? ?? ???? "??????? ??????? ?????????????? ??????????? ????????: ???????? ? ??????????? ????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?? ?????????? ??????", ?? ??????????? ? ????? 22 ?????? 2002 ????, ? ???? ???????? ???????????? ???????. ?????????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????????? ???? ?????. ?o-?????, ?????????????? ??????? ???????? ?????????????? ??? ???????????? ????????????? ?? ??????????? ????????. ??-?????, ?????????? ????????? ????? ??? ????????? ?????????? ??? ????????????? ???????????? ?? ?????????? ???????? ? ?? ???????? ????????, ??????????? ?? ???????????? ??????????, ??????????, ?? e?????????? ???? ????? ??????????????? ???????????.

???? ??????????? ???????????? ???????, ???? ?????? ?? ????????????? ???????? ??? ??????, ?????????? ??? ??? ?????? ? ?????????, ????????????? ????????? International Policy Fellowship. ?? ????????, ??? ????? ? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ???????????, ????????? ??????????? ? ??????? ?????????? ???????? ? ??’????? ??????????? ? ????????? ????? ??????????? ?? ??????? ??????.

?????????? ??????? ???? ?????? ??????, ????????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?????. ?? ? ????????? ??????????, ??? ? ? ?????????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????, ???????? ???????? ?????, ?????? ????????? ????, ?? ?????????? ???????????, ???????? ? ??? ??????? ???????, ?? ???????????? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ?????????, ?? ?????? ??????????? ??????????? ????? ????????????? ?????????, ?????????????? ?????? ????????.

???????? ?? ????????, ??????????? ?????????? ??????????? ????? ?? ? ????? ????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ? ?????? ????? ??????????. ???? ????? ?????????? ??? ????? ????????????? ????????? ????????? ??? ??? ???????????? ???????? ????????? ??????????. ?????? ???????? ??? ???? ? ????? ?????????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????????? ???????? ? ???????? ???????. ???????? ???? ? ????? ?????? ????? ?????????????? ???????????, ? ???? ???????????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????????????? ???????, ? ?????????? ????????? ???????? ????????, ??????? ????????? ???????????? ???????? ?????????? ??? ???????????? ????????????? ?? ??????????? ????????.

? ???????? ?????? ??????????? ????? ???? ????????? ?????? ????? ???????? ????????? ??? ????, ??? ??????? ????, ???? ?? ?????????? ?????????? ???????? ??????? ?? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ? ?? ????????????? ????????? ?????. ???????????? ?? ????????? ???????????, ????? ?????, ?????? ????? ????????? ???????? ?? ????????? ???????.

?? ???????????? ????, ????????? ?????? ??????????? ???????? ???????? ? ???????? ??????? ???????. ??’????????, ?????, ? ???? ??????????? ????????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ? ??????????? ?????, ?? ??????? ?????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ??????????? ??????????? ? ??????????? ????????. ???? ????????? ? ????? ? ???????? ????????????? ?????????? ????????? ?????? ??????????? ??????????? ?? ????????? ??????? ? ??????? ?????????????????? ???????.

“??????? ??????? ?????????????? ??????????? ????????:
???????? ?? ??????????? ????????? ??? ? ??????????? ????????”
??????????? ??????

??? ??????? ????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ? ????????? ??????? ??????? ? ????? ???????

I. ?? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????? ??????? ???? ? ?????????? ????????? ?????????????? ?????????:

  • ?????????? ?? ?????? ? ?????????? ????????;
  • ?????? ?????? ? ??????????? ?????????????;
  • ?????????? ?? ????????? ? ?????????? ??????????? ???????;
  • ?????????? ???????? ????? ?????????;
  • ???????????? ?????????????? ?? ??????????? ????????? ????????

? ???? ? ????????????? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ??????????? ??? ???????? ????????/??????? ???????? ????? ????????? ??????????? ?????? ?? ????????

?????????? ???????: ?????? ??????????? ?????????????? ? ?????? ???????? ??????????? ????????; ????????? ??????????/????????? ?????? ????????????; ?????????? ? ???? ??????? ??? ????????? ??? ?? ??????, ?? ?????????? ?????????????? ?????????.

????????????? ???????: ????????? ???????? ??????????? ? ???????????? ?????????????? ???????????; ???????????? ?????????????? ???????? ? ?????; ??????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????????.
     ?? ???????? ?????? ??????????? ??????????? ? ???????? ????????? ?????????????? ??????????

??. ??? ? ????????? ??????.
     ?? ????? ??? ???????? ????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????? ?? ????:

  • ????????????? ??????????? ? ??????????, ??? ???????? ?? ?????????? ??????, ? ??????, ?? ???????? ???;
  • ?????????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ????????? ??????, ??? ???????? ???, ?? ?????????? ??????;
  • ???????????? ????????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ? ???????;
  • ????? ???????? ?????????? ???????????? ? ?????????? ???????;
  • ??????????? ?? ??????????? ?????????? ?? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????? ???????????? ??????

???, ???’????? ? ?????????, ??????????? ? ??????? ?, ?? ???????, ???????? ?? ?????? ????????? ? ??????????? ????????. ??? ??????? ????????? ?? ????? ????? ? ???????????? ????? ?? ???? ? ???? ????????? ?????????????

???? ???? ???, ?? ?????????? ????? ????????, ?????? ??????????? ? ??????????? ???????? ???? ? ??????? ????????. ??? ???????, ???? ???? ??????? ?, ??? ????????? ??? ? ??????????? ????????? ??? ?????? ????????? ????????? ? ??? ????-????? ???? ??? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ? ??????????? ????????? ??? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ??? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????????????? ?? ? ????????????? ?????? ??????????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ??????????? ??? ???????????? ????????

??????????? ??? ????-????????????? ????? ? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????????? ??????. ?? ????????????? ????????? ?? ?????????? ?????? ? ???????? ??????? ??? ????????? ???????? ???????

???. ?????????? ?????? ? ????????? ??????.
?? ???????????? ????????? ??????????? ???????, ? ??? ????????? ??????? ??? ??? ? ??????????? ???????? ? ????? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ????????????, ???????? ?????, ?? ????????? ????????, ?? ????????? ???????????, ???’????? ? ????????, ????????? ? ?????????? ??????????? ????????

??????? ?????????????? ??????????? ??????? ? ????? ??????: ????????? ???????? ??????????? ???????, ???? ????????????? ??????????????, ??????? ????????? ??????????????, ??????? ??????? (?????????, ??????????? ????????? ?? ?????? ????????? ??????????????; ????????? ??????; ???; ????????? ??????).

??? ???? ???????????? ????????? ????? ????? ??? ???????????? ???????? ? ??????????? ????????? ?? ???????? ??????????? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ??????
?????????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ???? ???????:

  • ????????? ?????? ?? ?????????? ? ?????????? ??????;
  • ? ???????? ???? ??? ????????? ?????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????????;
  • ???????? ???????????????? ??? ????????? ????????????, ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ????????? ???????, ??? ? ???????? ????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ? ?????????????? ??????.

?? ? ?????????? ????????, ??? ? ? ??? ???????, ?? ????????????, ?????????? ??????, ?? ???????, ? ??? ??????????? ?????????????, ??? ??????, ?? ???’????? ? ????????. ???? ???? ????????? ? ????? ????????????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ??????????? ? ????? ??????? ?? ?????????????? ???????????? ? ??? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?? ?????????, ??? ? ??????????? ???????????, ?? ???????????? ???? ??????????? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ???????

?V. ??????????? ???????????? ??????? ?? ????????????? ??????????? ? ???? ???????? ? ??????????? ????????.
     ?? ???????????? ???, ??? ? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ????? ? ????? ????????????????? ??????????. ??? ??????? ??????? ????????? ?? ??????????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ? ??????? ???? ????????? ? ??????????? ?????????

  • ????????? ??????????? ???????? ????????????? ?????????? ? ???????????? ??????????;
  • ????????? ????????? ???????? ????, ??? ??? ? ????????? ?????? ?????????? ? ?????????? ???????????;
  • ????????? ??????????/????????? ?????? ????????????;
  • ?????????? ?????????? ???? ??? ??????????? ?????????????? ??????????? (????????? ??????, ???????? ????????? ?????????? ????);
  • ???????????? ????????? ???????, ??? ???? ???????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ? ?????????? ????????;
  • ????????? ?????????? ???????????? ??? ?????????? ??????, ?? ?????????? ?????????? ???????? ??? ????????? ?????????? ?????? ? ???????????? ???????? ? ?????????????? ???).



"Making Civil Society Concerns Heard:
Prospects and Problems of NGOs' Cooperation with Political Parties"

Analytical Framework

     What are the primary forms of engagement of civil society organizations into political process in your country?

     I. Do civil organizations play a prominent role in promoting the principles of democratic governance by:

  • encouraging political participation;
  • contributing to political education;
  • advocating accountability and transparency of political process;
  • exposing political corruption;
  • ensuring the fairness and openness of electoral process;

In which of the above-mentioned areas the contribution of civil society organizations was the most substantial/least significant? What factors explain successes and failures?

Context-specific factors: the level of public interest in certain aspects of political development; the availability of domestic/external funding; the government-created incentives for the NGOs' engagement in democratic governance-related issues.

Agency-specific factors: the presence of strong leadership in civil society organizations; well-established organizational structures and networks; high level of expertise and academic involvement.

     How the involvement of civil society organizations in promoting the principles of democratic governance can be magnified?

     II. NGOs and political parties.

Do the NGOs have a substantial impact on how political parties function? Do they:

  • directly interact with the party politicians on the issues that are central to the NGOs;
  • rely on media or other indirect forms of communicating the NGOs concerns to political parties;
  • consult political parties when the latter develop policies and political programs;
  • have mechanism for the regular consultations with party politicians;
  • get involved in lobbying efforts on the levels of national and local legislations;

NGOs dealing with the issues discussed in Section 1 are most likely candidates to seek close contacts with the political parties. What factors affect their success in securing the attention of party functionaries? 

Other types of advocacy NGOs may have only sporadic interactions with the political parties. What is the nature, if any, of these NGOs' contacts with the political parties? 

What are the typical difficulties that any types of NGOs face while trying to establish communication with the political parties? What factors determine the NGOs and political parties' willingness to cooperate? Is there variation in intensity of cooperation across the political or civil society spectrum?
     There is a low level of trust towards political parties across the postcommunist region. Do the attitudes towards political parties found in the third sector differ from the attitudes of the general public?

     III. Think tanks and political parties.

How does the think tank community is organized and what is this community's relationship with the political parties in your country? Do the think tanks primarily function as independent institutions or do political party-affiliated organizations dominate the think tank community?

Basic characteristics of think tanks in your country: the number of major think tanks, their functional focus, the average number of employees, major clients (executive, legislative, or local governments; political parties; NGOs; private sector).

What are the informal patterns of relationship between the think tanks and political parties? Are the major think tanks known to be informally affiliated with one or another political force?

What services do the think tanks provide to the political parties:

  • provide expertise and information on policy matters;
  • serve as a source of ideas for parties' political programs and policy initiatives;
  • provide formal employment for party functionaries (allowing both prominent party leaders and valuable party cadres to have secure and high-status jobs).

Think tanks both in the developed and developing countries are usually organized either as independent or party-affiliated organizations. What will be the tendency in terms of the think tanks' affiliation in the foreseeable future in your country? Will the newly created and old think tanks stay both formally and informally independent or will they seek formal affiliation with the political parties?

     IV. Long-term sustainability of non-government sector and its relationship with the political parties.

Both advocacy NGOs and think tanks started to occupy a prominent place in the life of postcommunist societies. What are the major factors that affect the viability of civil society and the nature of its engagement with the political parties?

  • the growing societal acceptance of civic activism and voluntary work;
  • the growing understanding of a critical role that both NGOs and political parties play in well-functioning democracies;
  • availability of domestic/external funding;
  • favorable regulatory framework for civil society organizations (tax breaks, simplified registration procedure, etc);
  • consolidation of party system ( which can strengthen a role that the political parties play in political process);
  • the availability of budget financing for political parties ( which can provide more resources for political parties' engagement with the think tanks and advocacy NGOs).

???????? ???????????

?????? ??????,
?????????? ???????????
“??????????? ???????????? ?????????” (???????)

????????? ??????? ?? ???????????? ???????????: ???????????? ?? ?????????????

???????????? ??‘???????? ???????? ??????? ?? ???????? ??? ?????????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ?? ?????????? ??????? ? ????????? ?????????, ? ?????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ??? ??????, ? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????????. ???????? ???????? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ?????? ?? ?????????? ?????????? ???? ??????????? ?? ????????, ?? ??????????, ??????? ???????? ?? ?????????????? ??‘????? ??? ????. ? ??? ???????? ???????????? ??????????? ? ???? ????????? ??????? ?? ???????? ?????. ??????? ?????????????? ??????????? ? ????????? ????????????, ??????? ?????, ????????? ?????? ????????? ?????????????, ??????????? ????????? ?????, ???????? ??? ??????????? ???????? ????????. ???? ?????????????? ??????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ???????????, ??????????? ?? ???????, ???????? ????????????? ?? ?????????? ???????? ???????????, ?????? ???????? ? ?????????? ?????. ???? ??????????? “????????” ???? ?????????????? ???????????, ????????????? ?????????? ????????? “?????” ????????? ????? ????? ????????? ????????, ? ?????????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ?? ?????????? ?????. ??, ? ???? ?????, ??????????? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ?? ?????????-????????? ?????????. ?????????? ????????? ????? ??????? ????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ?????????? ? ???????? ??????, ???? ????????????? ????????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ?? ????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????, ???????????? ????????????? ????, ????????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ??????????? ????????????? ???????. ??? ??????? ????????????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????????? ?????? ? ???? ????????? “?????” ???????? ?? ?????. ?????? ??????? ????? ??????????? ????, ????? ??????????????, ?????????? ?? ???????? ????? ????????????? ????????? ? ????????? ?? ??????????? ??????????.

????????, ?????????? ???????????? ??????????? ?? ??‘??? ?????????? ??????????? ?? ?????. ???? ????????? ??????? ????????? ????? ????????????? ?? ?????????, ?? ?????????????, ???????????? ????????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ???????????. ???????????? ????????? ? ?????????? ??????, ??? ?????? ??????????, ? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ?????????? ??? ??????? ?????????-??????????? ?????????????. ?? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ? ??????? ?????????? ?‘????????? ????????????, ?????, ????????? ??????, ?????????? ??‘??????? ?? “?????????????????” ???. ????? ?????????? ?? ??????????? ?????????? ?. ????‘?, ?? ???????? ????????? ?‘???????? ?????????, ? ???????????? ???????????, ???????????, ???????????? ?? ????? ????? ????????. ???? ????, ??????????????? ????? ????? ???????????? ?? ???????? ??????? ??????????. ??????? ???????????? ???????????, ??? ????? ?????????? ??????? ???????????????, ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ????????????? ?? ??????? ????????? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ???????????. ?? ?????????????, ????????, ??????????, ?????????, ?????????, ???????, ?????????, ???????, ?????? ?? ???? ?????????.

?? ????? ???????????? ?? ???????????? ????????? ?? ????????? ??????????? (????????????) ?? ?????????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???? ?? ??????. ?????? ???? ?????????? ????????? ??????? ? ???????? ???????? ??????? ?????????, ???????????? ????????? ? ?????????? ? ??????? ?? ?????????? ? ???? ??‘???? ?? ???‘???? ????????. ????? ??? ??????????? ???????????? ????-??? ???????? ?? ???????????? ?????????. ?????? ???? ???????????? ???????? ??????? ??????????? ? ???????, ??????????? ???????? ???? ? ?? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ??????, ?? ????? ??????? ??‘????? ???????? ????????: ???????? ?????????? ??????????, ???????? ????? ?? ??????? ???????, ??????????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ? ???????????? ??? ??????? ???????? ? ????? ???????? ???????? ????? ????? ??????. ????????????? ???????????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ????? ???‘?????? ??????????? ???????, ??????????? ???????????, ????? ?????? ? ????????? ?????????????? ???, ???? ????????????? ? ?????????? ? ? ???? ????? “????????????????” ???? ???????? ??????? ?? ????????. ??????????? ??????? ????? ???????? ??????????, ? ????? ???? ??????? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ??? ????????? ??? ???????. ????????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ??????????? ?? ???????????? ?????????? ?????????, ???????? ?? ???? ???????????? ?? ?????? ????????? ?????? ??????? ???? - ???????? ?? ???????. ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????????? ???????? ?????????? ?????? - ???????? ???????? ?????????? ??????, ?? ????????? ?????? ??????.

???????????? ?????????????? ???????????, ???????????? ?? “?????????????” ????????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ???? ????? ??????????? ??????, ??? ?????????? ?? ??????? ????????? ?????. ???????? ???????? ??????? ?????????? ????????? ?? ??????? ???????? ??? ????? ??????, ???????? ? ????????? ????????????. ??????????, ???????? ???????? ??????? ???????????? ????? ??????????? ???‘????? ??????????? ???????. ?????? ???????: ?? ??????? ??????????, ????????? ??????????, ??????????, ??????-?????????????? ?????????? ?? ?????????, ????????????? ??????? ????????? ????, ?????????, ???????????, ??? ????????? ?? ????? ?????? ???????????. ?? ???????? ????????? ????? ???? ????????????? ??????? ????????????? ??????????? ?.?????, ?? ???????? ????????????? ?????????????? ?? ??????? 90-? ????? ???????? ????????. ??????? ????????? ?????????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ?? ????????????, ? ????????? ???????????? ???????????, ???????????? ?? ?????????????? ????????, ?? ???????????? ??????????? ???????? ????????????? ??????????????.

???????????? ??????? ??????????, “????? ??????”, ? ????? ???? ?????????? ?????, ?? ?????????? ???? ??????????? ??? ????????. ?? ?? ?????, ??? ?????? ??????????????? ?? ????? ???????????? ??????????? ??????????, ?? ????? ????????? ?????????????? ? ???????? ????????? ????????????? ?? ????????? ????????????? ??????. ??????? ? ?????? ????????? ?????????????? ????? ??????????? ??????? ???? ??????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ????????????? ??????, ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ?????????????? ? ???? ???????? ?????? ????????, ??? ?????? ????? ????????. ????, ? ?????????? ????????? ?????????????, ???????? ??????????? – ????????, ????????? ?????? ??? ????????? ????????, ??? ?????????? ???? ???????????? ? ?????????????? ?????????????.

????????? ?????????? ?????????, ????????????? ?? “????????” ??????? ?? ????????? ????????????? ??????? ???????? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ????????????? ? ?????????? ??????????? ? ? ??????? ?????????????? ?????????, ?? ?????????????? ? ???????????? ????????? ???????. ?????????? ????????? ????? ????????? ???????? ?? ??????????? ???????, ?? ????????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ????? ?? ?????????? ? ????? ???????????. ??????? ?????????? ????? ? ??????????? ?? ???????????? ??????, ??? ???????????? ? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ????????????? ??, ???? ?? ????????, ??????? ???????? ????????????????? ????????, ???????? ???????? ??????? ? ???????????????? ????????? ?? ???????????? ????????? ?? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ????????????. ????????? ??????? ????????????? ???? ? ????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?????, ???????? ???? ???? ????????? ????????????????. ???? ????, ????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ?. ????‘?, ?? ????????? ??????? ???????? ?? ? ????, ?? ? ?????????? ??????????. ???????? ???????? ???????? ????????????, ??????? ?????????? ???????????? ?? ?? ??‘??????????, ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ????????. ????? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ???????????? ????????? ???????? ??????????? ??????? ????? ?? ???????. ??????, ? ??????? ????? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ?? ?????????. ????????? ???????? ?????????? ????????? ?????? ???? ?????????? ??????????? ? ???????? ?? ?????????? ????????????? ????????? ?????? ??????????? ?????????? ???? ???????????? ?? ??????????? ???????? ?????? ?????. ????????, ?? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ? ?? ??????? ? ??????? ?????, ? ???????????? ??? ?????? ????????????? ?????? ?? ????????. ?????, ????? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ?? ????????, ??????? ???????? ???????? ??????????? ? ???? ?????????.

?. ???? ?????? ?? ?????????? ????????? ?????????? ????????? ???????? ????????????? ??????????????, ?????? ????????? ??????????? ???????? ? ??? ??????? ?????????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ??? ??? ???????? ????????. ??????????????? ?????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ????????. ?????????? ?? ????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ???????????, ??????????????? ?? ????????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????????, ? ???? ????????????? ?? ???????????? ?? ?????.

????????? ??????????????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ????????????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ??????????, ????????, ??? ????????? ???????????? ? ???? ??????????.

????????????? ???????? ?????????? ????????????? ?????????????? ?? ?????????? ???????? ?????????????? ???????????, ?????? ???????? ??????????? ???????, ??? ???????????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???, ????????? ??? ????????? ?? ??????????. ?????????? ????????? ?? ????? ????? ?????????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????. ?????? ?????? ?? ???????? ???????????? ?????? ???????? ???????, ????????, ?? ?????? ???? ????????? ?? ????? ????????, ????????? ?? ????????? ?????????? ?? ???. ????????????? ?????????? ??????? ???? ???????????, ?? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ???????? ?? ???????????? ????????? ?? ?????????? ????????????? ????????? ???????? ?? ??????????? ???????????. ???????????? ???????? ????????????? ?????????? ????????? ?????? ??????????? ? ??????? ??????????, ????????????? ?? ??????????? ??????.

Serhiy PANTSYR,
Agency for Legislative Initiatives (Ukraine)

POLITICAL SYSTEM AND CIVIL SOCIETY: OPPOSITION OR COEXISTENCE?

It is not an easy task to formulate objective scientific judgments or theses on the correlation between civil society and political system in view of heterogeneity of origin and styles of comprehension of these notions, and a too high level of their abstractedness. The tradition of political system studies is characterized by attention to specifically historic forms of statehood and politics, to political, authority structures and functional correlation between them. In that tradition, the civil society is merely a base-level element of the system. The notion of civil society is a product of philosophical, ethical teachings, a product of idealism logic of intellectuals, social idealism of lower classes that is remote from pragmatism of real politics. The civil society idea is characterized by the principles of equality of an individual, society and state, the principle of progressive and comprehensive development of an individual, involvement of citizens in the shaping of power. Such ideological "aesthetics" of the civil society idea, correspondence to the archaic understanding of "virtue" shaped a new manifestation of the binary archetype in the opposition of civil society and political authority. This, in its turn, gave an ideological impetus to social tension and socio-political conflicts. Historically, such tension resulted in the formation of a new concept of democracy in Western Europe, which reconciled the conflict between civil society and authorities through the principles of the rule of law, sovereignty of civil rights, division of power, and procedure of periodically held democratic elections. This concept is enhanced through rather abstract constitutional law and becomes the official "language" of politics and authority. The ruling elites' ability to reflect their frequently non-democratic activities or practices with the democratic values-based vocabulary is a guarantee of their political longevity.

Generally, one should not regard civil society as an object of political manipulations. Whereas the political system is fairly well structured vertically, the civil society is characterized by horizontal, non-hierarchic stratification. Civic structures are a more complex phenomenon than official bureaucracy, while their nature and forms frequently change under the influence of socio-economic transformations. At various stages of development, relations with the authority vertical were elucidated by universities, towns, religious communities, trade associations and "post-modernist" NGOs. One may agree with French sociologist P.Bourdieu that redistribution of political, social, economic and other capitals is the main subject of sorting out relationship. It is for that reason that decentralization of power is also determined as a fundamental principle of democracy. Modern democratic society, being characterized by decentralization processes, is a mosaic of autonomies, various in their content, with a list of rights and powers. They are territorial, sectoral, vocational, religious, social, ethnic, cultural, gender, age and other autonomies.

Could it be asserted that civil autonomies or structures coexist/cooperate with political system? They cannot coexist in parallels. Even with political system interpreted in the narrow sense of the authority vertical, civic structures are involved into the system either as an object or a subject of politics. The authorities have a prerogative to politicize any problem or any civic structure. Even if ethnic minority representatives are integrated into a community, being innumerous and expressing no particular requirements, they can be made an object of ethnic policy through establishing a relevant department, allocating funds for their spiritual needs, encouraging their ethnic awareness and reporting to the Council of Europe about successful policy in the field of ethnic relations. Formalized civic structures are more likely to become subjects of political process and social partnership, to take part in meetings of coordination councils, to have their representatives in parliament, and to that end they will "politicize" their particular needs and interests. Politicizing problems of such structures is justified from the standpoint of the need to attract necessary resources to address these problems. Political parties will readily agree to integrate into or represent civic autonomies, to share economic or other resources with them for the sake of a single goal - their victory at elections. Many experts are well aware of the pre-election problem of political parties - the problem of scarcity of social problems not resolved by the authorities.

Fragmentation of civil society, stratification and "specialization" of autonomies in different vectors of politics erodes and undermines it before the electable central authority. State politics require coordinated strategies and programs of development for the whole country, especially in the context of globalization. Accordingly, state politics require an appropriate level of competence of subjects of political process. The question is whether an individual, being concentrated exclusively on his personal, local, narrow corporate interests and views, is able responsibly to elect a political force, strategy, methodology affecting the whole society. In the early 1990s, this problem was rather clearly stated by R.Dahl, a well-known American political scientist, as a problem of civic competence. The concept of classic democracy is again undergoing a sustainability test in the context of globalization of political, economic and information space and relevant aggravation of the civic competence problem.

Adequacy of the notion of democracy, "the power of the people", from the standpoint of technology has been questionable until the present day. Astonishing as it is, this doubt is proved at the level of utmost opportunities of democracy, at the level of local government in involving the public into executive decision-making. Experts on local governments often doubt the ability of ordinary citizens to have any positive impact on quality of executive decisions, as effective decisions require competence in all aspects of a certain problem, which a community is facing. For that reason, the public involvement procedures include mediators - experts selected by the authorities to address the problem, who agree their recommendations with representatives of the public.

Engagement of independent experts, advisors or think tanks into solving various problems has been practiced in developed democracies for nearly 100 years being an indication of open-mindedness of politicians and their interest in availing themselves of the scientific experience. The indisputable authority of science continues to affect an ordinary voter despite considerable depreciation of scientific knowledge and information in the era of post-modernism. The lasting crisis of theory in the natural sciences and humanities, which is manifested in the quantitative growth of specializations and so far unsuccessful attempts to develop an interdisciplinary approach gives rise to serious doubts as regards responsibility of researchers for prognosticated social or economic consequences of research projects and practical recommendations. Narrow specialization of sciences is defective because of the trend to extrapolate particular methodology to complex systemic phenomena, with their development being practically uncontrolled. In addition, let us recall P.Bourdieu's remark that the world of science has the same defects as social institutions. Trying to resolve the problem of financing, research institutions orient themselves at the needs of their clients or sponsors rather than objectivity. Most progressive scientific schools and projects are frequently the losers in this fight for grants and budgetary funds, hence - the drop in the level of educational background of experts and researches. Enormous differences in the views and practical recommendations of experts of various international institutions as regards economic and social development of poor countries can serve as an example of the aforementioned negative tendencies. Certainly, these crisis phenomena are neither the first nor the last ones in the history of science, and it would hardly be wise to reject advisory services. However, one should set up more serious requirements for the quality of scientific recommendations and projects, and promote development of a competitive environment among experts.

R.Dahl points to the way the classic democracy addresses the problem of civic competence through disseminating cheap information in mass media by political parties during the election season about political problems and ways to resolve them. Ideality of such competence-raising instrument is obvious. It goes without saying that such short course of education is oriented at political advertising with its attributes of emotionality, tendency for effects and value-based rhetoric; and one should not therefore expect it to be effective. It appears that the growth of intellectual potential and quality of information activities of political parties depends on higher demands on the part of the electorate.

It seems appropriate to increase the level of civic competence and political standards of civil society through development of think tanks oriented at rendering of NGO services, regardless of their specialization. The biggest problem here is still the quality of the cadre potential. Professional requirements to a third sector think tank expert cannot obviously be similar to those required from research, state or private institutions or mass media. Methodological background should be practically perfect that will allow adapting complicated analytical materials to peculiar interests of and perception by various categories of individuals or public organizations. Quite promising is the use of modern information technologies in rendering educational, informational and analytical services.



???? ???????,
??????????? ?????????? ????
??????? ???????????? ???????????? (??????)

??’???? ??? ??????????? ???????? ? ??? ? ??????

? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ???????, ????????????? ?? ??????? ???????, ??????? ?????? ??????????? ?? ?????????? ??????. ???? ? ??? ?????????? ??’????? ??? “?????????? ????????????” ? “????????????? ????????????”.

? ????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ??????????? ????? ???????????? ? ??????????? ???????? ? ???????????, ?? ? ??????? ??? ??????. ???????????? ???????????, ? ???? ?????, ????? ?????? ?? ????????? ??????????? ????, ??? ?????????? ?????????, ?? ????????????? ?? ?????????????? ?????????? ??????????? ???????.

???????? ? ??????? ?????????? ??????????, ??????????, ?? ?????????? ????? ???’????? ? ?????????? ??????????? ?????????????? ???????????, ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ????????? ?????? ? ??????????? ??????. ?????, ??? ??’???? ????? ?????????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ???????? ? ???.

????? ??????? ????? ? ????????? ? ?????????????? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????, ??????? ?????????????? ?????????? ?????? ?????????? ????????? – ??????, ?? ? ??????, ???????? ?????????? ????? ? ???, ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ????????? ??????. ???? ?????????? ? ????? ?????? ????, ?? ?????? ????????, ?? ? ???????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????? ?????????? ? ??? ??????????? ????????????? ?????????. ??, ? ???? ?????, ???????, ?? ??????, ?? ??????????? ??????, ???????????? ?? ??????????????? ? ???, ??? ?????? ?????? ????????? ???????, ??? ? ?????? ?????????????? ??? ??????????? ????????.

? ????? ??????? ??????????? ? ?????????????? ???????? ????????, ????? ? ???????? ???????? ??????? ? ????? ?? ???? ??????????? ???????. ?????? ???????? ? ?????, ?? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????????????? ????????? ????? ?????? ? ?????? ????????????? ?????? ????????, ?? ??? ??????????? ??? ????????????? “????????? ??????” ? ??? ? ??? ? ?? ?????????. ??? ????? ????? ???????????? ???????? ? ?????? ??????????? ???????, ? ????, ?????? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ?????????? ??????? ??????. ????? ??? ???????????? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ????? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????????, ? ??????????? ?? ? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ????????? ????????? ?????????. ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??????????, ?? ?????????? ???????? (???????, ???????????? ????), ?????????? ????? ????? ??????? ????????? ?????????? ???????????.

???????? ? ??? ?????????, ????? ??????????, ?? ??????????????? ??? ??????????? ???????? ? ??????????? ????????????? ???? ????? ?????????? ? ??????, ???? ??????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ? ?????? ?????????????. ???????? ?? ?????????? ????????, ???? ??’???? ??? ? ???????? ?? ? ????????? ?????????, ? ????????? ?????????? ???????????? ????????? ??? ?????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ????????? ???????????????? ??????.

? ?????? ??? ????????? ????????? ????? ????? ???????? ? ??????????? ????????? ???? ??????????? ??? ? ?????? ???????? ??? ???? ? ??????????? ???????? ? ????????? ???????? ???. ???????? ??????????? ?? ???? ?????????? 1999-2000 ??., ? ????? ?? ????? ????????? ??????????, ???????????? ????? ?? ??????’? ? ?????????????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????? ??????.

?????????? ??????????? ? ??????: ??????, ??????????? ?? ?????????

????? ??? ?????????? ??????????? ?? ?? ??’???????, ????????? ??????????? ??????????? ? ?????? 1992 ????, ??????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????? ?? ??? ???????? ?????????????? ?????????? ?????? . ???????, ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????????? ??? – ????????? ???????? ? ???????, ???????????? ?? ?????????? ?????? ???????????, ????????????? ???????? ???????????? ?????????????. ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ?????, ?? ??????? 16 ?????. ??? ?????????? ??? ?? ???????? ???????? ??????????? ????????? ???? (?? ?? ?????????? ?????????? ??????, ??? ?????????? ???? ????????? ????????? ? ????, ?????????, 200 ???????? ????????).

?????? ??????????? ?????? ?? ?????????? ? ?????????? ??? ?????? ????????? ????????? ??? ???????????:

????????? ??????????? ??????????? (?????? ?? 15 ?????? 2002 ?.)

??? ????????????? ???
1990 1 1
1991 52 51
1992 17 17
1993 963 921
1994 576 552
1995 468 455
1996 731 700
1997 610 596
1998 664 651
1999 672 656
2000 897 889
2001 767 759
2002 404 404
Total 6822 6652

???????: Lursoft IT, LTD

?? ?????, ????, ????????????? ?????? ?????????? ???? ???. ???????? ???? ??????????, ?? ??????? ? ????? ?????? ???????? ???? ???, ? ?????? ?? ??, ?? ????????? ???????????, ??? ??????? ??????? ????????? ??????????, ??????????? ??? 55 ? 60%.

?? ????? ? ?????????????? ???????, ??? ? ?????? ?????????????? ?? ????? ???????? (?? ?? ?????????? ??????????????). ???? ??????????, ?? ??? ??????? ???? ??????????? ????????????? ? ??????? ????, ??????????? ?????????????? ?????? 40% ?????????.

??????????????? ??? ? ?????? (?????? ?? 15 ?????? 2002 ?.)

??? ??????????? ?????????
?????????? ??????????? 4113
????????? ??????????? 1193
???????? ?????????? ????? 925
?????????? 125
?????????? ??’??????? 96
??’??????? ?????????? ??????????? 82
????????? ?????? 61
??’??????? ??????????? ??????????? 43
?????????? ?????? ??????????? 14
??????? 6652

???????: Lursoft IT, LTD

????????

?????? ? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ?????, ??????????? ? 1999 ?., 22% ????????? ? ??????? ????-?????? ???????????? ???????????, 14% ? ????????? ?????????? ? 3% ????????? ?????? ? ????? ????????????. ????? ??????? ???? ????????? ??????????? ? ??????? ??????????, 21% - ??????? ?????????? ????????? ? 15% - ??????? ??????????, ????????, ???????????? ??? ??????????? ?????????.

????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ????????? ?????? (????? 15-24 ?????) ?? ?????????? ???. ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ? ???????????????? ? ?????????? ??????? ????? ???????????? ????????? ?? ????????? ?????? ???.

?????? ? ????????????, ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ??????????? ? ????, ????? 43% ??? ????? 10-13 ??????. 14% ??? ????? ?????, ??? 10 ??????. ? ?????? 4% ????? ????? 500 ??????. ?? ???????? ??? ??????? ???????????? ???????? ???????.

????????????

? ??????????? ? 1999 ???? ??????????? ??????????? ???????????, 60% ???????????? ???????, ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????????? 5000 ????? ($8200). 27% ??? ???????? ? ?????? ???????? ? 100-1000 ?????. ?????? 3% ??? ???????, ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????????? 50000 ????? ($ 82000).

?????, ?? ??????????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ? ??? ????, ?? ??????? 70% ??? ?? ????? ??????? ??????????????, ??? ????????? ????????. 14% ??? ?????????, ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ?????????????, ? ???? 10% ????? 2-3 ??????????? ?????????????? ? ?????? ?????.

?????????? ??? ??????? ???????????? ??? ? ???????? ? ???? ????????????, ???????? ???? ????????? ??????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ?????????????: 18-80% ??????? ?????? ?????????? 1990-? ?????. ????, ?????, ?? ?????? ??????????? ???????????? ????????????, ?? ?????????? ?? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ???, ??? ?? ??????????? ???????? ? ??????? ????????????? ??????? ????????????. ??????? 20% ??? ??????????, ?? ???? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?? ???????????? ?????, ??? ???????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????????. ???????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ???????????? ??? ????????? ???, ???????? ??????? ?????????? ???????????? ????????? ??????????.

??? ? ??????????? ???????

?????? ? “??????????? ?? ??????? ???????????”. ? ?????? ???????????? ????????????? ??????? ? ????????? ????????????? ?????????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????. ?????? ????, ????????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ????????????? ?????????????? ????? ??????? ??????. ???????? ?????? ???????????? ?????? ?????????????? ?????????? ???????????? (???????), ? ????????????? ??????? ? ?????? ????????. ?????? ????? ????? ? ????????? ????????? ??????????? ?? ??????? ???????????.

?? ?????? ?? ?????????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ? ??????? ????????? ?????? ? ??????. ?????, ?????? ??????????????? ??? ? ?????????? ?????? ? ??????? ??? ????????.

???????????, ????????? ? ??????? 2000 ????, ??????????, ?? ?????? ???????? ??????????? ?????????????? ????????, ?? ???????? ????????? ??????? ????? ?????? ? ??????? ????????? ?????? ? ???????? ?? ?????. ?????, ?????? 27% ???????????? ?????, ?? ????????? ?????? ???????? ?? ????????? ?????? ? ??????????, 3% ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?????, ??? ????? ? ???????????? ? ?????????? ?? ??????, ?? ????????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???????????.

??????? 70% ????????? ???????, ?? ????? ?????????????? ? ????????????? ????????? ? ??? ? ??????? ??????. ?????, ???? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ? ?????????? ????????? ??? ????? ???: ??????? 75% ?????, ??? ?????? ?? ???????? ? ????????????, ? ??? ??? ?? ????? 70% ????????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????????????? ? ???????????? ???????????.

????? ?????, ????????????? ??????? ?????????? ???????? ??? ? ??????? ????????? ??????: ??????? 60% ? ??? ???????, ?? ?????????? ??????????? ???? ????????? ??? ???????? ????? ?? ????????? ??????, ? ????? 90% ????????? ?? ? ????, ?? ?????????? ?? ????? ???. ?????? ????, ????????????? ?? ???????? ??????????????? ? ??? ?????? ?? ?????????? ??????????? ????????? ??????.

????, ?? ?????, ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????????????????? ??????????????? ? ???. ?????, ??? ?? ???????? ?????????? ??????????????? ? ????????????, ??? ? ?????????? ??????????? ???????????? ? ?????? ?? ????????? ??????. ????? ????????? ??????????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??’???? ? ??? ? ???????? ??????, ??? ?? ??’???? ?? ? ???????????????.

????? ???????? ??????? ? ????? ???? ??????? ??????????? ????????? ????? (?????????? ?????????????). ??????? ?? ????????? ??????????, ???? ???? ?????? ? ????????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ?????? ? ??????. ????, ????? 50% ???????????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ???????????? ? ???????????? ??????????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ? ?????? ?????????? ???????????, ??? ? ? ?????? ?????????????? ??????. ?????, ???? ???????????? ?????????? ????? ???????????, ???????? ????? 60% ???????????? ????????, ?? ?????????? ????????? ????? ????????? ??? ???????? ????? ?? ????????? ??????, ? ??????? 90% ????????? ?? ???? ?? ?????????? ?? ????? ???. ?????? ? ???????? ?????????? ?????????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????????????? ? ??????????????? ???, ?? ???????? ??????? ????????? ????????????.

? ?????? ????, ????? ??????????? ??????????? ? ???? ???????, ?? ??????? 500 ??? ??????? ? ???????? ? ?????????? ??????????, ?? ??????? ????? 10% ?? ????????? ?????????. ????????? ? ??? ? ???????????? ???????????, ?? ??????????? ?? ???????? ???????? ????????????? ?? ????? ???????? ??????????. ? ????????? ???????? ??????????????? ? ?????????? ?????????? ? ????????????, ???????????????? ?? ???????????. ? ??? ???????? ?????????????????? ??????????????? ??? ??? ? ????????, ????????? ? ???? ?????????????? ? ????? ?????????. ?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???????? ?????????? ????????? ???????????? ?????? ??????????? ??????????? ????? ?????? ? ??????????? ??????????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ?? ???????????? ??????.

???????? ??????????

?????? ??? ????????????? ???????, ? ???? ????????? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ???? ? ????????? ?????? ? ?????????? ??????????. ??????????? ?????????????? ???????? ?? ????????? ???????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????????? ? ??????? ????????? ?????????? ???????????, ????????????? ? ??????????. ? ????????? ? ??????????? ??????????????, ?? ???????? ?????????? ????? ??? ???????? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ???????????.

?????, ??????????????? ??? ???????? ? ??? ? ?????? ???????, ? ?????? ?? ????? ??????. ??????? ??????, ??? ? ?????? ? ?????? ?????????? ?? ????????? ??????. ???? ?????????, ? ????? ?????????????? ??????? ????? ????????? ????????? ?????????, ???? ?? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????? ????????? ??????????? ?, ?????? ?????, ??????????.

???????? ???????? ? ????? ?????????? ????????????? ? ?????????? ? ?????????? ?????????. ??????????, ???? ? ????? ????????? ? ?????? ????????? ??????. ?????, ?????? ?? ?? ????????, ?? ????? ????? ???? ???????. ?’???????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ?????? ? ?????? ? ??????????? ???? ??????????? ???????.



Janis IKSTENS,
Department of Political Science
Vidzeme University College (Latvia)

LINKAGE BETWEEN POLITICAL PARTIES AND NGOS IN LATVIA

Transition to competitive political regimes in Eastern Europe has raised numerous normative and empirical issues. One of them concerns a linkage between "political society" and "civil society".

In its crudest form, one could equate political society with political parties and office holders who are members of these parties. Civil society, in turn, can be conceived of as a variety of non-governmental groups concerned with issues directly or indirectly related to policy making.

Based on the experience of advanced democracies, it is believed that democracy is closely linked to the existence of a vibrant civil society that influences decision making in the respective country. However, this linkage can be seen as a function of exchange between parties and NGOs.

Despite profound changes in the strategies and organizational appearance of political parties since the World War II, the basic characteristic of political parties has remained unaffected - parties still strive for political power to decisively influence decision making. If one concedes to this observation, it follows that, in a political democracy, parties are inter alia concerned with mobilization of voter support. That, in turn, implies that parties - as rational actors - are encouraged to cooperate with the NGOs that can provide most resources for voter mobilization. However, these resources appear to be rather diverse.

In the era of mass communication and televised election campaigns, one of the most important resources is money and other material resources. It may well be possible that some NGOs possess high mobilization potential of their members and are capable of delivering votes in a manner that was characteristic of machine politics in the USA in 19th and 20th century. Thirdly, NGOs often possess expertise in a field of policy making, thus they may contribute to shaping programmatic stances of a party. Fourth, certain NGOs may have gained high reputation due to their agenda and activities and their association with a certain party may also boost the latter's support. Fifth, some NGOs may be able to apply sanctions against government and other policy making institutions (strikes, demonstrations etc.) thereby undermining the positions of governing political organizations.

Based on these considerations, one could hypothesize that cooperation between political parties and non-governmental organizations will be more developed and closer if resources at the disposal of the latter are larger. This appears to be particularly relevant in situations when ties of NGOs to parties do not have a lengthy history and political democracy is a recent introduction or re-introduction after a longer period of non-democratic regime.

In light of these general considerations, the aim of this paper is to explore resourcefulness of Latvian NGOs and to analyze relations between them and political parties in the context of NGO resources. The paper is based on several surveys carried out in 1999 and 2000 as well as official statistics, legislative acts and interviews with a number of representatives of leading Latvian political parties.

PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS IN LATVIA: LAWS, NUMBERS AND TRENDS

The Law on Public Organizations and Their Associations was adopted by the Latvian parliament in December 1992. This law regulates activities of non-governmental organizations and a number of aspects of political party functioning . In particular, this describes registration requirements of NGOs - program and statutes adopted at the founding meeting of the organization, compliance of program with the Latvian legislation. Natural persons of at least 16 years of age can become members of NGOs. There is no minimum number of persons to establish an NGO (this does not apply to political parties, for founding of which support of at least 200 adult citizens is necessary).

The rather liberal approach to establishing and registering an NGO has been conducive to a growing number of these organizations:

Number of public organizations (as of June 15, 2002)

Year Registered Alive
1990 1 1
1991 52 51
1992 17 17
1993 963 921
1994 576 552
1995 468 455
1996 731 700
1997 610 596
1998 664 651
1999 672 656
2000 897 889
2001 767 759
2002 404 404
Total 6822 6652

Source: Lursoft IT, LTD

One should not, however, overestimate the level of activity of all NGOs. It is seems appropriate to assume that slightly more than half of all NGOs are active as the number of organizations submitting their annual financial declarations oscillates between 55 and 60%.

As the following table shows, there is a notable diversity of NGOs by format (as stipulated by the legislation). It must be stressed that two thirds of all organizations are registered in the capital city of Riga while only 40% of residents are concentrated here.

Variety of NGOs in Latvia (as of June 15, 2002)

Kind of organization Number
Public organizations 4113
Sports organizations 1193
Open public funds 925
Trade unions 125
Professional associations 96
Associations of sports organizations 82
Political parties 61
Association of public organizations 43
Professional creative organization 14
TOTAL 6652

Source: Lursoft IT, LTD

Membership

According to a 1999 public opinion survey, 22% of population have a membership in any voluntary organization, 14% are active in their participation and 3% have a position within organization. More than one third of all involved in the organizations are members of trade unions, 21% - those of sports clubs and 15% - those of cultural, musical, dancing or theatre societies.

There is a fairly strong tendency for younger people (15-24 y.o.) to get involved in NGO activities. Also, higher level of education and employment in the public sector tend to be better predictors of NGO members.

According to a survey commissioned by the NGO Center in Riga, more than 43% of NGOs have 10-30 members. 14% of NGOs have less than 10 members and only 4% have more than 500 members. This signals about a rather fragmented NGO sector.

Funding

In a 1999 survey of NGOs, 60% of respondents claimed their yearly budget did not exceed 5000 Lats (USD 8200). 27% of NGOs survived on a yearly budget of 100-1000 Lats. Only 3% of NGOs admitted that their yearly budget exceeded 50'000 Lats (USD 82'000).

What appears to be an indirect indicator of dispersion of financial resources is the fact that nearly 70% of NGOs do not have paid staff. 14% of NGOs claim to have one paid staff member and another 10% say they have 2-3 paid staff members.

Information about the sources of NGO funding is incomplete and somewhat contradictory as the role of foreign donors is estimated with notable differences: 18-80% of yearly income in the late 1990s. What is clear, however, is that the amounts provided by foreign donors are decreasing, which undercuts the activities of many NGOs as they have been unable to find and utilize alternative sources of funding . Some 20% of NGOs say they have been able to attract state or municipal funding but the actual amounts are unknown. Membership fees appear to be the prime source of funding for most NGOs while the importance of donations of local origins seems to be growing.

NGOS IN THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS

Latvia emerges as a party-based democracy. The country has adopted a parliamentary system with formal parliamentary supremacy over other branches of government. Moreover, the parliament is elected by the system of proportional representation on the basis of candidate lists. Only registered political organizations (parties) are allowed to submit the lists. Hence, the government is also composed of party representatives and a rare exception would be a non-partisan minister. Many other positions in state agencies are filled on the basis of partisanship.

This description points to a central role of political parties in the decision making process in Latvia. However, the degree of cooperation of NGOs and parties appears to be far from strong.

A September 2000 survey demonstrated that more than half of Latvian parliamentarians believed that ordinary citizens are willing to participate in and contribute to the decision making process. However, only 27% thought that the citizens are able to affect decision making in the parliament, 3% thought it was possible at the governmental level but none of the parliamentary respondents believed citizens could affect decisions of single ministries.

Some 70% parliamentarians asserted that they frequently consult with stakeholders and NGOs on a particular decision. However, they clearly separated trade unions and industrial associations from other NGOs: some 75% would rarely or never consult with trade unions while more than 70% of parliamentarians would frequently or always confer with industrial associations.

Consequently, parliamentarians attached a rather low importance to NGOs in the decision making process: nearly 60% of them said that industrial organizations had little or no influence on decision making and more than 90% said the same with regard to other NGOs. Moreover, parliamentarians did not view a cooperation with NGOs as a way to improve the results of decision making.

Therefore, it is hardly a surprise that major parties a very few instances of institutionalized cooperation with NGOs. It seems that all of them are related to cooperation with trade unions, which are largest NGOs in the country in terms of membership. Some political organizations may have closer ties to NGOs with similar agenda but these ties appear to be not formalized.

The picture appears different from the viewpoint of upper middle level bureaucrats (directors of departments). Similarly to parliamentarians, they have a low trust in the ability of ordinary citizens to influence decision making in the country. Yet, more than 50% of respondents in this group claimed to consult with industrial associations and other NGOs on both defining policy priorities and finding alternative solutions. Nevertheless, these consultations appear to be pro forma as more than 60% of respondents thought industrial associations have little or no impact on decision making and nearly 90% said the same about other NGOs. Many of the bureaucrats surveyed complained about a low level of competence and expertise of NGOs, which may partly explain the outcome of consultations.

From a different perspective, the NGO Center in Riga claims that some 500 NGOs are involved in advocacy and policy making, which is less than 10% of the total. Most of them are industrial associations providing their input for drafting legislation and similar activities . In most cases, cooperation with state institutions tends to be irregular, short-lived and informal. There are few instances of institutionalized cooperation between NGOs and the state and most of them are concentrated in the sphere of economics. Only a few months ago, the State Chancery invited a representative of the NGO Center to participate the final stages of discussions about draft decisions of the Cabinet of Ministers on a weekly basis.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Latvia has a parliamentary regime where political parties play a key role in decision making and state administration. Proportional representation has given rise to numerous parties outside the parliament and a notable number of political organizations represented in the parliament. Coupled with a liberal legislation, this has created favorable conditions for a steadily rising number of non-governmental organizations.

However, the cooperation between parties and NGOs is rather weak for a number of reasons. Generally speaking, NGOs in Latvia are rather small in terms of membership. Their financial and also intellectual resources tend to be notably restricted, therefore, their potential to mobilize segments of society appears to be equally insignificant.

Trade unions and industrial associations emerge as major exceptions to this general observation. Hence, their deeper involvement in the decision making process. However, even that does not guarantee their voice to be heard. Reasons for this weak influence require further studies of the whole decision making process in Latvia taking into account all relevant actors.



???? ????????,
???????????? ???????????? ????
"??????????? ??? ??????????" (???? ?????, ??????)

??????????????? ???????????? ?????? ? ????????????? ??????? ? ??????????? ??????

? ?????? ?????? ????????? ????? ????????????? ???????? ? ?????????????? ???????? (??????????, ???? ? ??, ? ?????? ??????? ? ???????) ???????????? ??-??????. ? ????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? ???????????????? ?? ???????? ?? ??????, ? ??????, ????????, ???????????? ??????????. ???????, ?? ??????? ???????? ???????????? ??? ??? ???? ???????, ? ?????? ?????? ?????????????, ??????, ????? ??? ????? ???????? ? ???????, ????? ??? ???? ???????.

????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????, ?? ? ????? ????????????? ??????? ???? ??? ? ???? – ????? ????? ???????????? ????????????? ??? ??????????? ??? ???????. ??????, ?? ? ??? ?????? ???????????? ??????, ?? ??????????? ???????????, ??-??????, ??????? ?????, ? ??-??????, ???? ???????????? ????? ?????????? ??????????????, ????????????? ? ?????????? ???????????? ????????, ???????????? ??????????? ????????? ? ??????? ????????????? ????????, ??????????? ???????????? ?????????? ? ??????? ???????????? ??????, ??????, ?????? ??? ?????????? ? ??? ?? ????, ??? ? ????? ?????????????? ??????????????.

?? ? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????, ??? ????????????? ?? ????? ? ???????? ??????? ????????????? ????????????????. ?? ????????????? ?????? ????? ?????????????? ??????? ?????? ???????????????????? ???????????? ?????, ??????? ??????? ?????????????????? ????????. ????? ???????????? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ????????, ? ???????? ????? ????????????? ????????????? ?? ??????? ??????????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????-??????? ????????????? ???????, ??? ??????? ????????????? ? ??????????? ???????, ?????? ??????? ??????????? ? ???, ????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ? ???????????? ????????. ???????? ? ??? ? ??????? ????????? ? ????????, ? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ? ?????-????? ?????? – ??? ??, ??? ???. ?? ????? ?????, ???????????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ? ??????? ???????????? ?????????? ?? ????? ??????????????, ??????? ??????? ???????????? ? ???????????????? ??????, ?? ?????????? ????????????? ??????.

????????, ????? ?????? ???????????????????? ???????????? ????? ?????????, ? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ? ????????, ? ???????????? ???? ???????? ?????????? ?? ??????? ?????????, ??????? ?????, ??? ?? ????????? ????? ?? ?????? ????????????, ????????? ??????????? ???????????? ??????????? ???????? ???????? ????????? ? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ??? ????? ? ????? ????????????? ????. ??? ??????? ????????????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ????????????? ????????????????.

????? ?? ??? ?????? ???????????? ???, ????????, ???????? ??????? ? ?????? ???????????? ??????? ???????????? ??????, ?? ? ????????? ??????? ??????? ?? ????????? ?????? ??????. ???????????????? ???????? ??????, ?????????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??? ???? ? ???, ???????? ? ????, ????? ??????? ????????????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????????. ?, ????????, ?????? ????????? ????, ??? ?????? ????????????? ? ????? ???????? (??? ???????, ??????????????) ? ??? ????????? ???????????, ????????????? ? ??????????? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ????????????, ???????????? ???????????? ? ???????????? ?????????????? ????????.

????? ????, ????????????? ????????????? ??????? ???????????????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????????, ? ????? ???????????? ??????? ???????????????? ???????????? ????????. ???????????? ???????? ???????? ? ??, ?? ????? ??????? ?????????? ? ??????, ?????????? ?????? ?????? ? ?????????. ?????? ?? ???????????? ??????? ?? ???? ??????????? ????????????? ???????, ?????????????, ? ?????? ???????, ?????????? ? ?????? ?? ?????? – ??????. ?????? ?? ?? ???????????????? ???????, ????????, ???????????? ?????????? ??????????????? ? ????? ???????????? ??????? ???????????? ???????.

??? ???????? ??????????? ??????, ?? ????? ? ???????? ??????????????? ????? ???????? ? ?????????????? ???????? ????? ???????? ??? ???????? ?????: 1) 1989-1991 ??. – ????????? ???? ???????? ????????????????, ????? ??????-?????? ????????? ????????????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??????? ???????? ????????????? ?????, ??????? ???????????? ???????????, ??????????????? ? ????????????? ???????? ?? ???????????? ??????; 2) 1992-1999 ??. – ?????? ??????? ?????? «?????? ?????», ????? ???????? ??????????? ??????? ????????????? ????????????????; 3) ? 2000 ?. ?? ??????????? ???? – ??????, ????????????????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????? ????? ???????????? ????????????? ?????? ? ????????? ?????????????? ????????.

?? ?????? ????? (1989-1991) ?????? ??????????? ???????????? ?????? ?? ????? ??????????? ??????? ??? ????, ????? ???????? ? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ????????????? – ?????????, ? ???? ??, ??? ?????? ?? ????. ???? ? ?????? ??????? ???????????, ??????? ????????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ????????????? ??????. ???? ??????, ? ??????????? ?????, ???????? ??????? ????????????????, ??? ??????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????? ?, ???????? ?? ?????????????? ????????, ???????????? ????? ???????? ???????????.

?????????????? ???? ??????? ????????, ??? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ? ???????? ????????? ???????????, ??????? ? ???????????? ??????????? ???????????? ???. ????????? ???????? ?????????? ??????? ???????????????????, ? ???????????? ????????? ??? ??????????? ??????? ?????????????? ?????. ?????????????? ????????? ?? ????? «???? – ?????????», ? ??????, ??? ??????? ? ????????, ????? ????????????? ?????????? ? ??? ??? ?????? ??????.

? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? ? ??? ?????? ????????????? ?????? – ????? ??? ??? ? ????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????????? ????? («??????????? ??? ??????????») – ??? ????????? ??????? ??????? ??????????; ?????????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????, ????? «?????????????????? ??????????? ??????» ?????? ?????????. ??? ????, ?????????????? ??????????? ????????????? ??????? ? ????????????? ???????? ???????????, ??? ???????, ?? ????????????? ??????. ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?????????? ??????? ???????????? ???????? (? ????????, ???? ??? ? ?????????? ??????????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ??? ??????) ??? ??????????? ??????, ? ?? ?????????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ? ?????????????? ???????? – ? ???????????? ?? ?????? ????????????? ?????????????.

?????? ???? (1992-1999) ???????????????? ???????? ???????? ????????????? ???????? ? ????????, ??????????? ??????? ? ???????????? ????????, ?, ?????????????, ? ????????? ??????? ???????????????????? ???????????? ?????. ???? ?? 1991 ?. ??? ???? ????? ?? ???????, ??????? ????? ???? ???????? ???? ??????????? ?????????? ? ??????????? ????, ??, ??????? ? 1992 ?., ????????? ? ????????, ????, ??????????? ? ??. ???????????? ???????????? ???? ?????????? ? ?????????? ???????????? ???????????. ?? ????????? ????? «??????? ??????????????» ? «???????????? ??????????».

???????? ?????? ?????? ????????????????? ????????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ??????? ????????????? ????????????????. ????? ??????? ????, ??? ??????????? ????????????? ??????, ? ?????-?? ????, ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ? ???????? ?????????????????? ????????, ?????????????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??????????. ????????? ???????????? ?????? – ??????????????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????????????? ?????? ??????, – ????, ?? ????, ???????????? ? ????? ??? ??????? ????????????? ????????????????, ??????? ?????????????? ????????????? ???????? ??????, ? ???? ???? ??????.

? ????????? ?????? ?????? ????????????? ?????? ???????? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ? ? ??????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????????, ? ?????? ? ????????? ?????? «??? ????». ????? ???????? ????? ???????? – ???????? ??????? «?????????» ? ????????? ???????????-???????????? ???????????? (?.???????) ? ???????????? «??????» (1993); ????? «????????», ?????? ???????????? ?????????? ? ??. – ? ???????? ?????? ??????????? ???????? ? ???????? (1993), ???????? «??? ??? – ??????» (1995) ? ????? «????????? – ??? ??????» (1999); ?????? ???????????? ??????????? ? ????? ??????????? ???????? – ? ???????????? «????????» (1999).

??? ???????? ???????? ?????? «??? ????», ?? ?????, ? ???????? ???????, ????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ????? ? ???????????? ?????????????-?????????????? ???????? ?????? «????». ?? ????, ?????? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? «?????» ??????? ???? ???????? ?????????????, ????????? ??? ????? ???????? ????????, ??????????? ??????????? ? ???????? ?????????, ? ????? ??????????? ??????????? ?? ?????????? ????????????? ????????. ? ???, ??? ??? ???????? ????????? ?? ???????? ???????, ???? ??????????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? – ??????????? «?????» ?????????? ?????????????? ? ?? ???????, ? ???????? ????????????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?????????????.

??????? ????????, ??? ?? ?????? ?????, ? ?????? ???????? 90-? ??., ???????????? ??????????? ?????????????????? ?? ???? ????????????????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ?????????? ????????, ? ????????????? ?????? ???? ???????? ?????? ???????? ????? ? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???????????. ?????, ? 1997-98 ??., ???? ???????????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ???????? ?????????, ? ???? ??? ????????????? ?? ?????? ??????, ?? ?????? ?????????? ????????? ????????????? ????????? ? ???????????????? ? ??????????? ??????? ? ??????????? ???????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????????. ?? ????????????? ??????, ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????????, ?? ?????, ???????, ?? ?????????? ? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ?? «?????????????????», ????????? ????? ??????????????? ?????????.

??? ???????? ????????? ????? ???????-?????? ???????????? ???????? ? ?????????? ?????????????? ????????, ?? ??? ????? ????? ??????????????????? ? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ??????? ???????????????????? ??? ??? ???? ???????????? ????.

???, ???????? ?????????????????? ??????????? ???? ???????????????? ???????? ??????????? «???????? ???????», ???? ?????????? ?????????????? ? ?????? ???????? ?????????????? ??????????? ?? ????????????? ??????: ???? – ? «???-???????????» (?.???????????) ? ??????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????? ?????? (?.?????????), «??????» – ? «??????????» ? ????, «??????????????? ????? ?????? – ? ?????????? ????????? ??????????? ??????? (?.??????) ? ??????? ??????????????? ? ????????????? ?????? (?.????????).

???????????????????? ?? ??????????? (?????? ????? ?.?. «?????? ??????») ? ?????? ?????? ????? ????????? ????????? ? ??????? ???????????????? ?????????????????? ?, ??? ????, ?? ????? ??????????? ???????????? ??? ?? ???????, ? ?????????????, ?????????? ??????. ????????? ????????? ???? ??????????? ????????? ? ???????? ????????? ????????? ???? ?????????? ?? ????????? ??????, ????????????, ??? ??? ????? ???????? ? ???? ?????????? ? ??????????, – ??? ???????????? ??????????????????? (????????? ??? ?????????? ????????). ? ???? ???????, ???? ?????????????????, ?? ??? ?????????, ???????? ?? «?????? ??????», ??? ?? ?????? ??????, ? ??????? ? ?????? ????????? ????? ????? ? ?????? ?? ?????????.

?????? ???? (? 2000 ?. ?? ???????? ?????) ??????????????? ????????????? ?????????, ???????????? ??? ???????, ??? ? ??????? ?????.

? ????? ???????, ??????????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????? ??-???????? ?????????? ?? ???????????? ???????, ? ????????? ?????????? ? ??????? ????? ??? ???????????? ?????????. ? ????? ???????? ??? ??????????? ????????????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ??????. ?????????? ? ???????????? ? ????? ??????? ??????????????? ???????????? ?????? ????? ????????????? ?????????????????? ???????? ????? ????????? ???? ???????????? ?????????.

? ?????? ???????, ??????? ???????????? ?? ??????????? ? ??????? ?, ??????, ?? ?????????? ????? ?????????? ? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? – ????, «?????? ??????», ???? ?????? ???, «??????» ? ????. ????????????? ??????, ?????????? ? ?????????? ?????????????, ????, ????? ???????, ?? ???????????? ????? ???????? ? ?????????? ?? ??????? ???????? ???????????? ?????????????????, ??????? ??? ?????????. ?????? ?????????????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ? «??????????? ?????????», ???????? ???? ????? ?????????? ????? ?????? ??????.

????????? ?? ????? ???????????? ????????????? ???????? ? ?????????? ?????????????? ???????? ????????? ????? ?????????????????? ????????. ???????????? ????????? ? ????????? ????????????? ???????? ??????, ??? ???????, ????????????? ???????????? ??????, ? ? ??????? ??????????? ???????? ?????????, ? ????????, ??? ??????? «???????????» ????????. ???????, ?????? ??????? ??? ??????????? ? ?????? ????.

???, ???? ?????? ??? – ???, ? ????? ???????, ?????????? ?????????????????? ??????, ?? ???????????? ?????????? ? ??????????????, ????????? ? ???????????? ????????? ????. ????? ????, ? ?????? ?????? ??????????? ????? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????????????, ? ????? ????? ??????????? ????????????? ???????, ??????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ?? ?? ??????, ? ?? ????. ??? ??? ???????? ???????? ??? ? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????? ? ????????????? ????, ??????? ? ?? ????????????????? ?, ?????????????, ? ?????????????? ?? ??????????. ? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??????????? ????? – ?????????? ?????. ? ?????? ???????, ??????????? ??? ?????????? ???? ???????? ?????????????? ???????? «?????? ???» ?, ??? ???? ???????????? ????????????? ? ?????????????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????????, ?? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ?????????????????? ????????????? ???????. ??????? ???????, ??? ? ??????? ????????????? ????????, ????????? ? ??????? ???????????? ?????????? ??? ????? ??????? ????????. ? ????? ??????, ????????????, ? ???????, ????????? ?????? – ????, ????????? ??????????? ?????? ? ??????.

«??????», ???? ?? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ?????????? ? ??????????, ?????? ? ???, ?????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????, ? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ???????????? ??????????, ? ? ??????? ???????????? ?? ??????? ????? ????????? ?????? ??????????????? ? ?????? ????????????? ????????.

????????? ??, ?? ????????, ???????? ?? ??????????? ???????????? ?? ??????? ? ??? ?????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????????? ??????, ????????? ? ??????? ?????? ??? ????????????? ???????, ??????? ?????? ???????????? ?? ?????? ?? ????????????? ??????.

?????? «?????? ??????» ?????????? ???????? ??????????????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????????? ????????, ?? ? ??? ?????????? ?????????????? ????????. ??? ????, ??? ????????? ? ??????? ????? ?????????? ????????????? ????????????? ???????, ???? ? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ????????? ??????????? ?? ???????????????? ??????????. «?????? ??????» ???????????? ????? ??????????? ??????? ? ????? ?????? ? ????????, ?????? ???? ???????????, ???? ?? ??????? ??????, ????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????, ? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? – ?????? ???????????? ?????????. ?????????? ????? ?????, ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ???????????? ?????????, ? ??? ????? ??????????? ????????????? ??????????. ????????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ???? ? ??????, ??? ????, ? ???????? – ??? ???????????? ??, ??? ????? ?????, ?? ???????? ????? ????????, ??? ????? ??????, ?? ?????????????, ??? ? ????????????? ?????????, ??? ???????, ?? ????????? ?????? ????????, ? ???????????? ?? ??????? (????, ??????????, ???? ?? ? ?????????? ???????????, ?, ? ??? ??? ???? ???????, «?????» ????????????).

???????, ???? ?????? ?????? ????????? ? ???? ?????????? ??????. ? ???? ?????????????? ? ?????????????? ???????? ??? ????? ?? ???????? ????????? ? ??????? ?? ???????????? ?? ? ?????? ???????????? ???????????. ? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ?.????????????, ? ??? ???????????????? ?????? ????????, ? ????????, ?? ????????????. ???? ?? ? ???????? ?????????? ????????? ????????????? ? ????????????, ?? ????, ??? ???????, ???? ?????? ?? ????????? ?????, ? ?? ? ??????????????? ??????????.

* * *

??? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????????? ???????????? ?????? ? ????????????? ???????, ?? ?????????? ????? ???????? ?? ????, ??? ? ????????? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ???????????????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????, ????????? ????? ??????? ? ??????? ?? ??????? ????????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ???????????????? ???????? ??????. ???? ??????, ? ???? ??, ??????????????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ?? ???????????????? ???????, ?? ????? ??????????????, ??? ?? ???????????? ???????????? ???????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??? ???????????? ??????????? ????????????? ???????, ?? ??????????? ? ????? ???????????? ???????? ??????? ??????.


Yury KORGUNIUK,
The regional public foundation
"Computer Science for Democracy" (INDEM Foundation, Moscow)

THINK TANKS AND POLITICAL PARTIES IN RUSSIA

In every country think tanks have had their specific relations with political parties. In some cases think tanks are independent of parties, in some cases the former are affiliated with the latter. The reasons different in each case, but one may discover certain common factors.

When parties just appear on the political scene there are no think tanks because the 'political market' is still non-existent. The parties and other political actors (except the government) are too poor. Besides, at that moment the parties are just groups of intellectuals who draft political platforms and elaborate strategies and tactics of electoral campaigns on their own. And sometimes they do it better than any professional.

But even when parties mature it doesn't mean that think tanks would 'automatically' flourish. They can fail to achieve prosperity because society is too politicized. When the political maneuvers resemble the military ones, there is no need in specialized agencies the task of which is to attract attention of the general public to political issues. Besides, political parties can always resort to volunteers who are ready to work without remuneration.

On the contrary, when the public loses interest in politics, demand grows for experts who possess sophisticated technologies for attracting people's curiosity and who are able to invent non-trivial tricks. Thus think tanks find fertile soil for their activities.

Whether think tanks would be independent or, on the contrary, affiliated with large political parties, depends to a considerable degree on the nature of these parties. The centralized mass parties are inclined to make think tanks just a subdivision of their apparatus. On the contrary, the parties of cadre type where power is concentrated in the hands of 'notables' (as a rule, parliament members) prefer to work with independent think tanks.

Struggles between factions and clans in the party's leadership and a high degree of political uncertainty also contribute greatly to think tanks' independence. The electoral system of the country also has a decisive impact on the think tanks. The one-seat district system develops independent think tanks which assist first of all individual candidates and the parties in the second place. Under the proportional representation system the think tanks tend to gravitate to the sphere of influence of 'Big Brothers', that is major political actors.

It is possible to distinguish three stages in the history of relations between parties and think tanks in present-day Russia:

  • 1989-91: the initial stage of new Russian parties' evolution when think tanks had just appeared not as agents at the 'political market' but rather as groups of enthusiasts who cooperated with the parties free of charge.
  • 1992-99: the period of crisis of the 'first-wave' parties and of a boom of independent think tanks.
  • 2000 till today: the period of stable relations between the most influential parties and the most respectable think tanks.

In the initial stage (1989-91) the newly-born political parties had not had enough money to hire professional political experts, and besides, such experts were virtually absent. But their shortage was compensated by abundance of enthusiasts who were ready to do the same work free of charge. At that time, political parties were in most cases nothing more than clubs of like-minded intellectuals who were selflessly engaged in politics and achieved good results despite lack of resources.

It would be right to note that the main reason for success of these new parties was not political genius of their leaders but the political situation itself. Society was politicized to the very great degree. The main controversy had developed between the Communists (the CPSU) and democrats and everybody who entered politics had to join one of the camps.

The greater part of the newly-born think tanks (the Center for Applied Political Research INDEM among them) took the democratic side without hesitation. The independent think tanks had got no money for their services to the parties and earned their living through contracts from business enterprises (opinion polling or data base maintenance) or grants. Think tank experts helped the parties mainly because they shared the same political beliefs.

The second stage (1992-99) was characterized by obvious decrease of public interest in politics, growing mistrust in politicians and lessening role of ideology in the political life. Until 1991, the best way to be elected had been to declare oneself an advocate of democracy and an opponent of the CPSU, since 1992 the candidates preferred to emphasize their pragmatism, professionalism and absence of political beliefs.

Such political environment encouraged appearance of independent think tanks. More than that, to a certain degree the independent think tanks had replaced political parties as specialized entities the task of which is to place their candidates to elected offices. Some parties, for example the Republican Party of Russian Federation or the Democratic Party of Russia, became a kind of camouflage for think tanks which would handle an electoral campaign for everybody able and willing to pay.

At that period many think tanks obtained possibility to take part in establishment of political parties, sometimes from the very outset, and to get their fees for it. For example, the EPI-Center led by Grigorii Yavlinskii and Viacheslav Igrunov's Institute for Humanitarian and Political Research participated in creation of 'Yabloko', the 'Politika' Foundation with Viacheslav Nikonov at the head and Igor Bunin's Center of Political Technologies were actively involved in creation of the PRES (Party of Unity and Accord of Russia) (1993), 'Russia Is Our Home' (1995) and 'Fatherland - All Russia' (1999) movements. The Center of Political Situation and the Foundation for Effective Policy helped in establishment of 'Unity' ('Edinstvo') party.

The Center for Applied Political Research INDEM took part in creation of the Constructive Ecological Movement 'Kedr' ('Cedar') in 1992-93. In particular, it was INDEM's experts who convinced the 'Kedr''s founders to make it an environmental organization. They invented the party's logo and drafted its Program and Charter. Also, the INDEM's experts prepared an electoral platform but 'Kedr''s leaders discarded their advice and turned to another think tank. As the result, 'Kedr' lost the elections.

It's worth to note that the independent think tanks work in the field of 'party construction in the early 90s was of a creative nature, and experts were able to contribute to electoral successes of political actors. However, in 1997-98, importance of the think tanks fell and many of them evolved into mediators between ambitious people who wanted to have their own party and the Ministry of Justice officials who were ready to accept bribes for registration of fictional organizations. Those think tanks which valued their reputation stopped their participation in such "party construction".

As to relations between the largest parties and the most respected think tanks, they had become more differentiated and more and more depended on the degree of ideologization of each party.

The most ideologized parties either used their own experts or continued cooperation with like-minded think tanks free of charge. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) closely worked with Alexei Podberezkin's RAU Corporation and the Center for Research of the Political Culture of Russia led by Sergey Vasiltsov. 'Yabloko' cooperated with the EPI-Center and the Institute for Humanitarian and Political Research while the 'Democratic Choice of Russia' party was assisted by Egor Gaidar's Institute for the Economics of the Transitional Period and the Center for Legislative and Parliamentary Activities headed by Yulii Nisnevich.

Deideologized parties, first of all the so called 'party of power', needed the help of professional experts from the very beginning but had to pay big amounts of money for this help. No experts would agree to work free of charge for such parties.

The third stage (2000 till today) can be described as intertwining of the trends typical for the first and second stages.

For the most part, the elections in Russia, as before, are held in accordance with the one-seat district system and the voters treat the parties skeptically. Thus the independent think tanks will have plenty of work for a long time. Besides, according to the new legislation, all political parties have to re-register and the think tanks also benefit from this.

On the other hand, only five parties have real chance to win elections: the CPRF, 'The United Russia' ('Edinaya Rossia'), the Union of Right Forces (Soiuz Pravych Sil - SPS), 'Yabloko' and the Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia. Think tanks which work with other parties deliberately deceive their clients.

Nowadays, the most influential think tanks provide more specialized services to the largest political parties. As a rule, the parties draft their platforms and work out plans for electoral campaigns themselves and resort to think tanks only when solving technical problems. However, the parties do it in different manner.

For example, the SPS is a quite ideologized party and therefore has sufficient number of its own 'highbrows' who are able to generate fresh ideas. The party also has many adherents among the intelligentsia who are ready to work without remuneration. In fact, the main problem of the SPS lays not in production but in overproduction of ideas. Selection of workable ideas is the task of a special party body, the Creative Council. On the other hand, the SPS leaders cooperate with think tanks when they need more specialized services - informational, technical, etc.

"Yabloko" has enough experts and too little money. Because of this the party resorts to outside experts and think tanks only during electoral campaigns.

The CPRF traditionally relies on its own intellectual forces and cooperates with like-minded think tanks only when they work free of charge.

"The United Russia" invites think tanks to take part not only in solution of technical problems but in drafting of platforms and preparation of plans for electoral campaigns. As the party is a conglomeration of big and small clans and clienteles, it cooperates not with a single think tank but with several ones, and every clan tries to enlist help from 'its own' think tank.

The LDPR invites only individual experts and not think tanks.

* * *

It seems likely that the independent think tanks will survive on Russian political scene for a long time in the future because the political life will unlikely become ideologized too much, the voters will unlikely treat parties with much greater respect, the elections will unlikely be carried in accordance with only proportional system, and new mass centralized parties will unlikely appear.


????? ????????,
???????? ??????????????? ???????? (???????)

???????? ? ??????????? ???????? ????????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ???????

????????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ? ?????????? ??????? ?????????? ?????????????. ???????? ????? ??????? ????????? ????? ??????? ? ?????? ?????? ???????????.

?????? ?? ?????, ???? ?? ??????? ????????, ??????? ????? ????? ??????????? ????????? ? ????? ??????, ???: ????????? ?? ??????????, ???????????? ?????? ??????, ???????????? ??????? ?? ??????? ??????????????, ??????????? ????????? ???????? ? ?????????? ????????

? ?????????? ?????????? ????????????, ????? ?????????????? ??? ????, ??? ? ????? ?????? ?????????????? ??????????? ?? ???????? ?????????? ????????? ????? ???????, ???:

  • ??????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????;
  • ??????????????? ???????????? ????????????;
  • ????????? ????????? ????????????? ?????????.

???? ????? ????????, ??????? ???????????? ?????? ????????? ?????. ????????, ????????????? ??????????????? ????, ???????? ??????????? ?????????????? ? ?.?. ?? ? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ??????, ??? ??????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????????? ???.

????????? ?????? ???????? — ??? ?????????????? ? ?????????????? ??? ???????????? ????????. ? ??????????? ?????, ????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ? ?????. ? ???? ?????????? ???????, ? ?????????, ??????? ???????????? ???????? ????? ??????, ? ? ???????????? ??? ????????? ??????????? ?? ?????????????. ?????? ?????????? ???????????? ??????????? ??????????? ? ???????? ???????????? ???????? ????????? ?????????, ??????????? ??? ??????????? «???????? ? ?????». ?? ???? — ???????????? ???????????? ?????????. ????????? ?????? ???????? ? ???? ????, ? ??, ??? ?? ????? ???-?? ???????? ? ??????.

??? ???????? ????????? ????????????? ??????? ? ???????, ?? ????? ????? ???????? ??? ???????: ????????????? ? ????????????.

?? ????????????? ??????, ?????? «think tanks» ???????????? ?????? ? ????? ????? ?????????????? ???????? ???????.

?? ???????????? ??????, ??? ???????, ??? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ?????????? ???????.

????????????? ?????? ???????????????. ????? ??? ????? ???????? ????? ????????? ???: Institute of Public Policy (???????? ?-? ??????????), ????? ???????????? ? ??????????????? ???????????? CAPTES (???????? ?-? ?.???????), ????? IST (???????? ?-? ?????). ? ?????????? ? ????????, ? ??????????? ??????? ??? ????????, ?????? ??? ???????? ????? ????????????????. ? ??? ?? ???????????? ???????? ??????????? «think tanks–??». ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ????????? ????? ??????? ? ???, ??? ? ????? ?????? ??????????? «?????», ?? ??????? ????? ???? ???????????? ????????????? ??????.

??, ??? ???? ?????????????? ??????? ??? ?? ??????????????, ???????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ????????????? ???????. ?? ?? ?????? ???????? ???????, ? ??? ????, ??? ??? ???? ?????????????? ?? ????????? ???????????. ????? ????? ???????? ? ??, ??? ?????? «think tanks–??» ?????? ?? ???????????? ????????????.
    ?????????? ?? ????.



Igor BUCATARU,
Association for Participatory Democracy (Moldava)

PROBLEMS OF AND PROSPECTS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THINK-TANKS IN THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

The situation of third sector structures in the Republic of Moldova is rather problematic. Problems became especially numerous following the Communists coming to power.

In view of that, one of the major problems that the civil society is facing in our country is whether the third sector components have any significant effect on democratization and development of the law-based society in the Republic of Moldova.

As a result of the conducted surveys, it could be stated that non-profit organizations in our country are unable effectively to perform such functions as:

  • ensuring transparency of political processes;
  • promoting political socialization;
  • encouraging active political behavior.

There are quite a few aspects contributing to such situation. The include, for instance, the ineffective legal basis, problems of domestic financing, etc. However, I would like to outline one point, specifically that NGOs are practically completely illegitimate.

A peculiar feature of our society is the outdated and subservient type of political standards. Most of the population in the republic lives in the rural areas. There, regrettably, the political standards are very low, and the public has practically no idea of NGO activities. The task of NGOs in Moldova is to raise the political standards of the rural population through the so-called "going to the people" aimed at political socializing of the population. A citizen should have faith in himself and his ability to change things in the country.

     As for the status of think tanks in Moldova, there are two aspects here: a theoretical one and an empirical one.
     At the theoretical level, the term "think tank" is used only within the narrow circle of third sector representatives.
     At the practical level, as a phenomenon, it is not a new thing for the Republic of Moldova.
     Think tanks are not numerous. Among them one should mention such structures as the Institute of Public Policy (headed by Mr. Barberoshie), CAPTES Center for Political and Sociological Studies (headed by Mr. V.Moshnyaga), and IST Center (headed by Mr. Dorosh).
     They are mostly dependent in their relationship with parties. It is because the society is too indoctrinated, which is not conducive to development of independent think-tanks. Another reason for such state of affairs is the fact that there is no market for think tank services in our country.
     The fact that our multi-party system is still in the phase of shaping is the main reason for inadequate development of think tanks.      The fact that they seek for financing abroad is another sign of their underdevelopment. It should also be indicated that think-tank services are in no demand of the state at all.
     The result is quite obvious.



????????? ????,
???????? ???????? ????????????? ?????? (??????)

???????? ? ?????? ? ??????. ??? 21. ?????? ????? ?????

?????? ? ????????????????? ??????????? ? ?????? ? ???? ??????????? ????? ??????? ? ??????????.

??????????? ??????????????? ????? ????????????? ???????? ? ????????????? (??????????????????) ????????????? ? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????????? ??? ?????????, ??????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??????????? ?????. ? ??????? ????????? ????????? ???? ??????????? ???? ? ????????????? ???????????????? ??? ???????, ????????????? ??? ??????, ???????????? ??? ??????????. ??? ????? ???? ????????? ???????????? ????, ??????? ????????? ?????????? ?????????.

? ??????????, ?? ?????? ??????? ????, ?????? ?????????? ????????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ? ??????????? ???????????? ?????????. ????????? ??????, ????????? ?? ?????????? ????????? ???????? ??????????? ????????????, ???????? ? ?????????? ???????????? ????????? ???????? ? ???????????????? ??????????, ? ?????????????? ???????????? ????????????, ??? ??????? ????????????? ? ??? ????????? ???????????????? ?????????, ????????????? ???????? ???????? ??? ???? ??????, ??????????? ??????? ? ??????????, ??????-???????????? ??????????, ??????????? ???????????? ??????????? ?????????????, ???????????????? ? ???????????????.

?????????, ??? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ? ??????? ??????? ????, ?? ????? ????? ??????, ??????? ??? ?????????? ??????.

??????? ?????????, ??????????? ?????????? ?????? ? ???????????, ???????? ?? ???????????? ???????? ? ??????? ???????, ??? ???? ????? ???? ???????. ????????????????, ???????????? ??? ? 1989 ????, ?? ???????? ????????, ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ??????, ??? ? ????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????????? ??????. ????????????????? ???????????, ??????? ????? ??????????? ???? ??????, ??? ??????, ?? ????? ???????????? ?????? ????????. ??? ?? ???????????? ?????? ????????? ??? ?????? ? ?? ?????????? ?? ????????? ???? ???????????, ? ??????? ?? ??????, ???????, ? ????????, ???? ????????????? ???? ????.

??? ??????? ????????????? ? ???, ??? ?????? ?????? ????????????? ?? ?????, ? ??????? ???? ??????????. ?????? ????????? ???????????????, ??????? ???????? «??????????» . ?? ??????????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ???????? ? ?????? ???? ??? ???????????? ?????????? ???????. ???? ???????? ?????????????, ??????? ?? ??????????, ??????????? ????????????? ? ?????????; ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????????, ???? ??? ?? ???????????, ????????? ??????????? ??????????? ???????.

?? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ????????, ??????????? ?? ???????????????? ?????????? ? ????????? ? ??????? ???? ???????? ?? ????, ???? ??????????? ??????. ?????? ??????????????? ????????????, ??? ????? ????????? ?? «???????????», ?????? ???? ??????????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ????????? «???????????», ?????????????? ?? ??????????? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????. «?????????» ?????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ? ??????????? ?????, ?????? ???????, ?????? ???????????? ?????, ?? ??????? ?? ??????????? ????, ??? ?????-?? ???? ???-?? ????????, – ??????????? ???????????? ????????????, ???????, ????????????? ??????????, ?????? ???????. ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????????? ????? ? ????? ????????????? ????????, ? ?? ??? ???? ????????? ? ???????? ?????? ???, ??? ????????? ? ????????????? ???? ????.

??? ???????????? ????? ???? ???????? ? ?????????? ?? ???? , ? ????????? ???????????, ???????? ?? ??, ??? ? 1992 ???? ?????? ????? ???????????.

?????????? ??????????? ???????, ?? ??????? ??????????? ????????? ? ???????? ?? ?????????. ? ????? ??????? ??????????? ? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????????, ? ????? ??? ?? ???????. ???????????, ??????? ?????? ???? ??????? ??????????? ??????????????????? ????????, ?????????? ??????, ??? ???? «? ????». ? ?????-?? ?????? ??? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ?? ????????, ????????, ??? ????? ???????? ? ??? ????.

?? ? ????????? ??????? ??? ??????????? ?????????? ?????????, ??????? ? ?????? ???????? ? ??????????? ????????????? ????????? ?? ?????????????? ????. ?????????? ??????, ????????? ??????? ???????????? ?? ?????????? ????????? ? ????????? ????.

?????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????????, ???????? ????? ???? ?? ????????????? ? ????, ????? ??? ????? ??????????????? ???? ?????. ????? (?? 1992 ????) ??? ??????? ?????????????? ????????, ??? ?????????????? ????????????? ??? ??????? ???????? (?????????????? ?? 1976 ????), ? ????? – ??? ????, ????? ??????? ??????? ??????????????, ????? – ??? ????????? ??????? ?????????? ?? ?????. ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ???????????? ???????? ????????, ????????? ??????? ?????, ?????????? ?????????????? ???????? ??? ??????????? ?????????. ????? ???????????, ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ??????????? ???????? ?????? ?? 5-10 ??? ?????? ? ?????? ?????????, ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?????, ?????????? ? ????.

????? 1992 ???? ???????? ?? ?????????? – ??????? ?????????. ?????? ??????????? ?????, ??? ?????? ?? ???????, ??? ?? ??????? ???????? ???????? ??????????, ??? ????????? ??? ???????, ??????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????. ?????????? ???????? ????? ????? ?????????? ? ???????, ?????????????, ???? ???-?? ???????? ?? ???????????? ? ????????????? ????????? ???????, ???????? ? ????, ??? ?????? ????? ????????????? ????????????? ??????????????? ???????? ? ????? ?????????.

?????? ? ???? ????? ??????????????? ??????????, ??? ??????, ????? ?????? ? ???, ????? ????? ??? ???????? ? ????? ? ????? ?????????? ?????? ???????????. ???? ?????????? ????????? ??????? ? ?????? ??, ??????????, ? ????? ??????????? ???????, ?? ????? ???????? ? ???? ????????? ??????????, ???????????? ??????? ? ?????? ? ??????????? ????????? ???????.

???? ????????? – ???????????????, ??????? ????? ?????????? ???????????. ????? 17 ????????? ??????? ? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?? ?????????? (?????? ? ? ?). ???? ????? ?? ??? – ???????????, ?? ???? ? ???????, ????????? ???, ???????, ?????????, ??????, ????????? ????????, ??????? ??????????. ????????? ???????? ??????????????, ????????? ??? ?? ????????? ? ??????? ??????????????? ?????? (???????? ???????????), ?????? ?????????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ? ? ?. ?????? ????????? – ???????????. ???? ????? ????????? ????? ????? ??????????? – ?????? ? ?????? ? ?????????? ?????? (????????? ?????????, ??????????????? ??? ????? ????????).

?????? ? ? ? – ??????? 17 ????????? ???????;
    ?????? ? – ???????????? ????????(35-40 ?????????), ???????? ? ?????????? (????? 30 ?????????);
    ?????? ? – ???????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????????? (????? 50 ?????????)
    (?????? ????? ???????????????, ??????).

? ??????? ??????? ????, ????????? ???????? ? ????????????? ??????????? ??? ?? ??????????????? ??????????? ???????????; ???????? ????????? ????????? ???? ???????????. ????????? ? ???????? ????? ? ?????? ????????????????? ????? ??????? ? ????????? ???????? ???????, ????? ????????? ?? ????????? «???? ?? ???? ????», ?? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ? ???????? ??????.

???????????? ? ?????????????? ????????, ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????????? ????????, ????????? ????????? ?????? ? ????????. ??? ??????????? ?????? ??????????????? ??????? ??????? ????????? ?????????? ????????? ???????????????? ??????????, ??????????? ??????? ????????? (?????? ?), ?, ? ????????? ? ????????? ????????, ??? ????? ???????????? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ??????????????? ??????. ?????? ? ??? ???????????? ??? ????, ??????? ? ????????????????? ?????? ?? ??????????????? ??????, ? ??????? ?? ??, ??? ??? ?????????? ?????????? ? ??????? ????? ????????? ? ??????; ???????? ? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ?? ?????????. ????? ?????? ????????? ?????? ?, ??????? ?????? ???????????? ??????????????? ???????? ? ?????????? ??????? ??? ??????? ? ?????????. ?????? ? ???? ??? ???????????? ??? ???? ? ?? ??? ??? ????????, ???????? ?? ????? ??????????? ?????????????.

??? ????????? ? ?????????? ?????????, ? ?????? ???????, ???? ?????????? ?????????? ?????, ????????? ??? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ???????. ? ????? ???????? ???????????? ????? ???????? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ? ?????????????????. ???? ?????, ? ?????? ????, ?????? ??????? ??????????, ????????? ??? ?? ????????? ??????? ? ??????????? ????? – ????? ?? ????? ???????? ???????, ?? ?????? ???????, ?? ?????????? ??????????? ?????????? (?? ??????? ?? ??????????), ????? ?? ??????? ? ??????? ????????? ???????? ? ?????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ???????????. ????????????, ??? ??????????? ????????? ?? ????? ?????, ??????? ????? ?? ??????????? ???????? ??? ????????? ????????? ? ??????? ????????? – ??? ?????? ? ??????????? ????? ? ??????? ? ???????????.

?? ????? ????????? ????????????????? ???????, ??????????? ???????????? ??????? ? ?????? ??? ????, ????? ?????? ???????? ??????????????? ????????? (????????????????, ??????, ? ?.?.). ?????? ? ???, ????????? ??? ??????? ?????????????, ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ? ??????

?? ?????????? ?????????? ????????????? ?????? ?? ????????? ????????? ??????????? ?????? – ?? ?????? ?? ???????????? ?????? ?? ????????? ????????? ??????? ?? ???????, ???? ? ???????? ??????. ?????????, ??? ?? ???????, ??? ???????? ??????? ????????? ??? ????? 10 ???, ?? ????? ???????????? ?????? ????????? ????????????????. ??? ?? ?????, ????? ??????????? ????? ????, ? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ?????? ? ???????? ?????????.

???????????? ???????, ??????? ??????????? ????????????? ???????????, ??????????? ? ????????????? ???????? ????. ??? ?? ???????????? ???????? ? ???????? ?????? ??? ???????? ??????????. ????????? ??????? ?? ???????? ????????????? ???? ?? ?????, ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? ???????????????? ?????? ?????????????? ???????. ????????? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????? ? ??????????????? ??????? («?????????», «????????», ???), ????????? ?? ??????? (????), ???? ??????????????????? («??????»).

??????? ????????????, ??? ??? ??????? ???????????? ? ????? ???????, ? ??????? ???? ??????? ?? ????????????? ??????-???? ???????. ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????????… ??? ????? ??????????? ? ??????? ?????????? ??????????? ??????? ?????????. ??????, ????? ?????? ? ????????, ???????????? ? ?????????, ????????? ??????????? ????? ???????????? ? ???????????????? ?????????????…

???????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????????????? ? ????????? ? ???, ???? ?? ??? ?????????? ????? ????????? ? ???????????? ? ???????? ??????? ??? ????????? ?????????. ??, ??? ??? ????????? ??????, ???????, ??? ????? ?????? ???????, ???? ??? ???????? ????? ???????????-???????????????. ?? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????, ?????????, ? ????? ??????? ? ???????????? ???????, ??????? ????? ?????????? – ???? ?????? ???????????????????????? ? ????? ?????? ???????, ?????? ???????? ?? ?? ???????. ?????? ? ??????, ?????????????? ? ????, ??? ?????? ???????? ? ?????????? – ?? ??????? ???????? ??????????.

???????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? 10-12 ???:

  1. ????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ???????, ???? ?????? ????????? ????????? ? ??? ???? ??????? ??????.
  2. ?????????????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ????????????? ?? ????????.
  3. ? ?????????? ?? ??????? ????????? ?????????? ?????????? ? ?????????????? ?????????, ?? ?????????? ???????? ?? ?????????????.
  4. ?? ?????, ????????, ????? ? ???? ?????????? ??????????? ????? ?? ????????.
  5. ?? ???????????? ??????????? ? ??????????? ????? ?? ???????? (?????????? ?????????? ?????).
  6. ?????? ?? ??????? ??????????? ???????????? ?????????? ?? ???? ?????????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ????, ???? ?????? ???? ????????? ??????????? ?? ????????? ???????.
  7. ???????????? ???????? ?????????, ? ??????????? ?????, ?? ????? ?????? ? ??????? ?????????, ?? ??????????? ?????? ?????????????.
  8. ??????????????? ?????????? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ????????????? ????????? ????? ????????, ???????????? ? ???????????.
  9. ??????????????? ?????????? ??????????, ????????????? ?? ???? ????????????????? ????????? ?????, ? ?? ?????????????? ? ???????? ???????????? ????????? ???????, ????????? ??? ????????????, ??????????????? ????? ????????, ??????? ????? ? ?????? ?????????? ???? ????? ??????.
  10. ? 1999 ???? ??? ???????? ???????????????? ??????? ?????????? ?? ???????????, ???????????? ???????? (establishment) ????? ???????? ??? ????? ???????????? ???????? ???????????: ???, ??????, ???????? ??????????????, ???????????????? ???????? ? ???? ????????.
  11. ????????????? ????????? ?????????? ??????? ????????. ????????? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ??????? ???????????? ????? (?????????? ???????????). ??? ????????? ?????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????? ??????.
  12. ??????????????? ?????? ????? ??????????? ????????? ?????? ????? ??????????? ?????????????? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????????????? ???????? ??? ??????? ? ???????? (????? ????????????????? ????????).
  13. ????????????? ????????????????? ???????????, ??????????? ?? ????????? ???????, ??????????????? ??????????????; ??????????? ?????????????? ? ???????????????? ???????? ???? ??????.
  14. ???? ???????????? ?????????? ???, ????????? ??? ????????????? ????????? ???? ????????????? ???????, ? ??????????? ??? ????????? ???????????.
  15. ?????????????? ????? ????????????? ???????? ? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ??????? ? ????????.
  16. ?????? – ?????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ???????? ? ????????? ??????, ?? ?????? ?? ???????????????? ???????. ?? ??? ????????????? ????? ???????? ?????? ? ?????????? ??? ?????????????????? ?????????????.
  17. ??????? ??????? ??? ?????????????? ????????? ???????? ? ?????? ?? ?????????.
  18. ? ????????? ????? ???? ??????????? ??????????? ????????? ?? ?????????????? ????.
  19. ??? ? ?????? ????????? ???????? ????????, ??? ?? ?????, ????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????????? ????? ?????????.
  20. ??? ????? ????? ? ?????? ?????????????? ????????? ?????????.

??????:

? ?????? ??? ??????, ??????? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ???????????? ?? ???????. ??????????? ????????? ???????? ?? ????????????? ???????????? ?????? ???????????, ? ???????? ?????? ?? ????? ????????? ????????, ????????????? ????? ??????, ???????????? ???????????? ????????. ?????? ????, ????? ??????? ????????? ??????????? ????????? ????? ?? ?????????? ????? ??????, ?????, ???????????????, ??? ??????? ???? ?? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ??????????, ????????? ? ?????? ????????????? ?????.

??????? ????????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??????????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???????.

???? ????? ???????? ?????????? ??? ? ??????? 5-10 ???, ?? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ? ???????? ?? ?????????? ???? ? ???????????? ??????????? ? ???????? ???????? ? ????? ????? ??????? ? ?????, ??????? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ???????? ?????????.

??? ???? ????? ????? ?? ?????????, ?????????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????????? ???????? ? ???????? ????? ???????? (??????????) ?? ?????. ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ?????, ?????? ? ?????? ?? ????????? ?????, ????????? ?? ????????? ???????? ????? ? ???????????????? ????????????? ???????????, ??????? ???????? ?? ????????? (???????????????, ??? ?? ???? ?????? ????????). ????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????? ? ??????????????????? ? ??????? ????????, ???????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????????? ??????????? ???, ?????, ?? ??????, ???????????? ? ??????? ???????????.

????????????????? ??????????? ? ???? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????, ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ????, ??????? ??? ??? ?????????? ??????? ??????????????? ?????????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ? ??????, ???? ?? ? ????? ?? ????????.



Alex YURIN,
Institute for Election System Development (Moscow)

POWER AND SOCIETY IN RUSSIA. A DIALOG OF THE DEAF AND THE BLIND

Parties and NGOs in Russia as Connectors between the Power and the Citizens

Today's relationship between political parties and non-governmental (public) organizations is haunted by the legacy of the past. Generations of Soviet citizens had been raised brainwashed about superiority of the state over the private, of the public over the personal, of the abstract over the concrete. The entire life had been compelled to service the ideas that substituted normal human values.

At the moment of dissolution of the Soviet Union different republics ended up with a different degree of preparedness for radical social changes. Population of Russia had served the object of unhealthy social experiment for generations. It had inherited a warped social structure and a system of governance with irrational economy. With no private property and no recognition of human values, totalitarian control and no feedback from the citizens, with military build-up out of proportion, the society was haunted with a combination of complexes of inferiority, superiority and exclusiveness.

Russia is believed to have walked a long way since the moment the Soviet Union split up and it's important to understand how many more miles are still to go.

External repairs that allow calling Russia a democracy have influenced social development to a smaller degree than it could have been expected. Multiparty system born in 1989 did not flourish regardless of the attempts by the power or the opposition to create political parties with real field structures. Non-governmental organizations had come into existence even before political parties but failed to become an integral part of the society. They represent little problems to the state and do not pretend to express voter's will. So they were left to their own design.

Funny how the power identifies the environment it exists in. It continues to be a state within the state! The classic Freudian slip of the power is when they call the society "the population" . In today's Russian civil society there are not enough citizens. The society is atomized and fragmented, divided geographically and socially. Connections between different parts are either destroyed or inexistent.

The society is paying back with the same money - withdrawing from the governance and relying on whoever is in power to solve all problems. The power is viewed by the majority as something separate from "the state", but the majority itself doesn't feel they owe anything to "the state", subconsciously not counting on getting anything in exchange. There is a certain contradiction though: the "population" is trying to evade military draft, taxes, paying utility bills, but demands things that once were proclaimed as available to everyone - free medical insurance, public transportation, free apartments, law enforcement, etc. Many of these should operate on an absolutely different basis and are available for free only to those who are in charge of distributing the public wealth.

This contradiction is also a Soviet heritage and it has preserved perfectly despite all the years passed after the deceased Union.

There must be explanations as to why the Russian social structure didn't suffer radical changes. By the end of the millennium old Soviet society had decayed but nothing was created to replace it. The state that is meant to be an outer form of a self-organized society now exists as a thing-in-itself. At a certain moment this part fell off the society believing it can live on its own.

To a considerable degree this is explained by the unique situation that may conserve the state of things in Russia for indefinite period. It is important to see, however, whether social changes may happen over the next decade.

Russia owns the richest natural and mineral resources that should be used wisely as they belong not to us but to our grandchildren. Before mid-seventies these resources had been used to finance insane ideas of a superpower, later - to cover the deficit of inefficient economy, and then simply in a desperate effort to stay afloat. Unfortunately, none of the above had social development as a priority, or such things as improvement of living standards or conservation of natural reserves for the future generations. All this leaves the feeling that the power never tried to plan the nation's development for 10 years in advance and was only trying to stay in power...

The situation didn't change after 1992 - the resources are being sold and now the power is not sure they will be able to keep the territories they manage. Hence they are trying to sell as much as possible now. Lack of communication between the citizens and the power, inability to influence the budget or its distribution allows the power to manipulate redistribution of the budget in their own interests.

The role of democratic institutions and parties is closely connected with their place in real life and with what social groups they service. While trying to simplify the picture we come to a graphical "fried egg" design. When we try to focus on the fried egg we get two major social groups with different functions.

One group is "the state" (or the governmental, as having the income directly from this source and servicing the state, and supposedly, the society), with some obscure structure. About 17 million people officially get their income from the state (Sectors A and B). Only Sector A is what can be called "public servants" although in Russia this would be an insult, so let's call it "Management". Sector B allocates other officials - local self-government, rank and file military, police and the customs officers and also scientists, education, state and municipal medical staff, kindergartens and other former socialist state structures. In other words, Sector B shows how much the society can afford to spend for its maintenance.

The other group is the civic one (non-governmental), with Sector C producing enough income for the entire society and Sector D dependant on state or directly on other sectors (supported by relatives or charity).

What links all the sectors is the money and access to social benefits that ideally should reach each citizen.

The yellow indicates the amount of state (government) funds and social benefits available to each sector. The white indicates that some people are left out of this social process (alienated from the society or marginalized).

The dotted line indicates the approximate place of the state/public (governmental/nongovernmental) sectors in the Soviet Union.

This is roughly the division per sector in today's Russia:

 

This figure illustrates sources of income and allocation of public wealth in today's Russia.

As a point of reference, the place of the Soviet distribution system by late '80s is indicated in dotted line. (As the state, the public and the social were all blended into one, under communism any life outside of these boundaries was next to impossible. The division was vertical and sectors B and D oriented on equal misery and state support hated sectors A and C. Misbalanced social structure and irrational redistribution of resources led to total economic insolvency of the regime.)

Horizontal axis divides the governmental and non-governmental sectors; the vertical axis shows dependence or independence of citizens in generating their income.

The white indicates the current Russian population; the yellow indicates the amount of public wealth redistributed to different sectors.

  • Sector A - Government, state and other top officials from federal and regional structures; army, police, KGB, the Customs, tax police officers, etc;
  • Sector B - Local self-government staff, military, police, KGB, customs, tax police rank-and-file, etc. Social workers, education, public health, public transportation, culture, etc.
  • Sector C - Citizens generating public wealth;
  • Sector D - Non-working youth (younger than 18) and students; retired and disabled citizens.

This is roughly the division per sector in today's Russia:
    Sectors A (Management) and B (Maintenance) - about 17 million people.
    Sector C (Production) - working age citizens (about 50 million).
    Sector D (Reproduction) - non-working youth (35-40 million), retired and disabled (about 30 million).

The horizontal axis indicates citizens' dependence or independence in terms of income generation. It shows that Russian society is in need of change as the yellow is accumulated in the state managerial sector and other sectors are neglected. What this leads to is problems in each sector - decay for Sector A, corruption for Sector B, poverty and pauperization for Sector D, mafia crime and no stability for Sector C.

Noticeably, the distribution of public funds is totally out of proportion, as citizens have no say in it.

By the time the Soviet Union collapsed its social structure and state efficiency could not respond to the challenges of global competition; the planned economy had exhausted itself. The defeat suffered in the cold war, the disintegration of the socialist camp allowed some redistribution of resources but it already couldn't help the nation's development.

The predominantly paternalistic society was very slow to react and while the state was trying to optimize the costs the society started disintegrating. After more than ten years of living in new conditions the state managed to keep basically intact the structure of governance and absorbed most of the Soviet Union federal government structures in Sector A. Compared to other sectors it now represents a much bigger burden on the state budget. Sector B was left without funding in hopes that people will simply drift to other sectors (meaning primarily Sector C); no money was going towards science, new hospitals kindergartens, etc. As Sector B continued shrinking, it left a lot of people outside - mostly those who couldn't adapt or protect themselves. It was too dangerous to do the same with the army, which also belongs to the same sector as servicing the entire nation. Other officials and social workers from this sector found a way to survive by converting their positions into cash.

Sector D suffered more than any other since those people have no means to protect themselves and rely on the rest of the society to take care of them. Sector C is still surviving and trying to adapt regardless of the new inventions of the government.

To be able to shift the income to themselves, the Government destroyed the savings accumulated by generations of Soviet people - they exceeded by far the system resources, initially not available for money. Such a shift could have been justified only if the funds were directed to social and economic reform, but it didn't happen. In new conditions a big portion of the society was left out of the process and became marginalized. These people are not fully citizens as they abstain from social life - they barely have income and don't pay taxes, they don't use social benefits for lack of those, they are not linked with other sectors of the society and don't hope to get anything from the state (or the society). The government remembers about such citizens only when it needs them for the army or on election day.

Without changing the structure of redistribution of public wealth the government adapted rules and laws to ritualize democratic procedures (multiparty system, elections, etc). How viable is this construction if no changes take place in it? That is the question.

We have observed how the Kremlin has changed its priorities several times during the past election cycles - from no need for political parties to imposing mixed election system even at the regional level, where people don't know what a party looks like. Curiously, the regions where similar system is operating for about a decade can't boast flourishing political systems. Nevertheless the law was pushed through the Duma in hopes to get better positions for Kremlin in bargaining with local chieftains.

The only party that has local structures, activists and volunteers is the Communist Party. It's almost entirely placed in sectors D and B and apparently has some support from Sector C. The party is used to scare western creditors but has no real influence over the government as the Duma is under full control of the executive. Other parties are entirely in the governmental sector (Otechestvo, Edinstvo, SPS and other "center" parties), between A and C (LDPR) or beyond the margin in B, C and D (Yabloko).

Logically, an NGO would prefer to cooperate with a party that has resources for a project that interests both. Unfortunately, such a party has to be the ruling one… or must have the will and possibility to conduct projects important for the public. However, any cooperation with opposition parties even on social projects damages future opportunities for cooperation with the state-controlled structures.

Political parties should be interested in contacts with NGOs for sheer need to adapt their platforms with issues of importance for the citizens. The fact that you can't tell one party platform from another tells that they do have such practices, or similar jobs are done by contracted PR companies. With the new law on political parties some of them got institutionalized and now don't need to worry about platforms or talk to the citizens - their future in Duma is more or less guaranteed.

In a scoop, these are the observations of what Russia has reached in the last 10-12 years:

  1. Public wealth is not enough to reach everyone, or it is simply pointless to waste it on all Russian citizens.
  2. The government can't optimize management over such a big territory.
  3. The government fails to reduce the number of officials or to make them more efficient or responsible - in a democracy they would be hired by the society, in Russia they are hired by the state… The bureaucracy has even grown during the last decade.
  4. No funds are available to spend on the science, culture, public sports and social projects.
  5. The government can't finance social benefits - its major function.
  6. The government prefers to finance projects in Sector B (like defense budget) from Sectors C and D, or simply wait for changes in the oil market.
  7. Sector C has little connections (other than economic) with any other sector of the society while in fact it should take care of everything (hire and fire managers and maintenance staff).
  8. The government in no way depends on existence of other sectors; it is not transparent and not subordinate to any part of the society.
  9. The governance in general exists thanks to redistribution of public wealth that is formed primarily from exporting oil, gas and raw materials.
  10. The government objectively is not interested in developing Sector C as the only independent part of the society that can and may one day ask for an account or total audit to see how efficient public servants are.
  11. Since 1999 all activities of Sector A are directed to consolidation of existing situation through total control over potentially dangerous institutions: media, courts, military and law enforcement bodies, legislative bodies of all levels and even political parties.
  12. Any opposition is declared destructive and is pushed out to the margins of social life. Remaining parties compete to please the powers.
  13. Sector A has a way of buying off (through redistribution of resources) the most noticeable critics and most disgruntled representatives from other sectors to prevent dangerous developments.
  14. Independent NGOs with funding from sources outside of public funds are viewed disapprovingly.
  15. Coordination of projects with the government is encumbered by eagerness of the power to control everything.
  16. Certain number of NGOs was created with the sole purpose to use budget or municipal funds; even when not, they still are strictly controlled by the state.
  17. Cooperation between political parties and NGOs depends on their access to funds and resources.
  18. Parties are foreign element in the current Russian landscape; they are created by the government and don't leave Sector A. They have no need to conduct fieldwork or cooperate with NGOs.
  19. No conditions to reform the Russian social structure are created.
  20. Existing structure is being cemented to stay as is for indefinite time.
  21. NGOs and socially active citizens can still use the contradictions within sectors in the interests of the whole society, and they can use political parties wisely.

Conclusion:

Russia has no stockpiled reserves that could guarantee undisturbed future. The current social structure is behind the requirements of the new millennium. The exports of our natural resources have become a drug addiction that our economy can't get over with. The warped distribution system is preserving the situation.

Instead of investing money from selling our grandchildren's resources in preparing new and qualified personnel, in science and public health, they go to finance bureaucracy that grew out of proportion, maintain inefficient defense and law enforcement and ensure security of the regime.

We have seen no clear strategy for the nation's development for at least 20-30 years.

Unfortunately, if this situation is conserved for another 5-10 years Russia will be left behind the civilized world and will eventually become a raw material base and a buffer between Europe and Asia that will protect themselves by a new Iron Curtain.

If we don't want this happening we should knock down the walls between the government and non-government sectors and shift the priorities to the people. This should be done not in a traditional Soviet way that doesn't fit anybody else because it's authentically and indigenously Russian - such a way will inevitably lead back to paternalistic totalitarian state based on geographical expansion or abuse on natural resources. What needs to be done should encourage popular initiative and businesses. With laws and independent courts we should accumulate enough energy to compete in the third millennium.

An important role in this process belongs to NGOs as conductors of popular will, but much more will depend on how many more years the public servants that were never elected by us are planning to live here. They will never start acting unless they are forced to do it.



???? ?????,
????????? ?? ?????????? ?????? “?????” (???????)

??????????????? ??? ??????????? ????????????? ? ??????????? ????????

??????????????? ??? ??????????? ????????????? ? ??????????? ????????, ????????, ?????? ????????, ???????? ? ??, ? ???? ? ???????????? ??’????????? ? ????????????? ??? ????? ???????????? ???????????. ? ????? ?????????? ??’??????? ????? ??????, ?? ??????? ?????? ?????????, ????? ? ???? ??????????? ???????? ??? ????????? ?????????????? ???????????. ????? ???? ? ??????????? ??? ?? ?????????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???????????. ??? ??????????? ? ???, ??? ????????? ????????????? ????? ?????? ?? ??’??????? ? ??? ?????????????? ?????, ?????????? ?? ???????????? ? ?????????????. ???, ????? ?????, ???????????? ??? ???????????, ??? ???????? ???????. ???? ????????? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ??’??????, ?? ????? ? ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ?????? ????? ????????????? ????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ????? ??????????. ???? ????, ???? ?????, ????????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????????? ????? ??? ???????????? ? ?????????? ????????.

???????? ????????? ?????? ???????????? ????? ????, ?????? ???????, ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ?????? ????????????? ???????????, ???? ???? ????????????????? ? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ????????? ?????????, ???????? ???? ??????????? ?????? ?????????????? ?????????? ???????. ???, ?? ?????????????? ??????? 1996 ???? ????? ? ???????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ? ????? ?????? ???? ????????? ? ???? 60-70 ???. ? ??? ??? ??????????? ????? ??????? ???????? ?? ???????????? ???????????? ???? ??? ????????? ? ???? ??????? ??????? ????????? ???. ????? ???????? ?????-??????? ?????????? ?????????? ????????????????, ?????? ? ??? ???????????? ??????? “?????????? ?????????????? ???????????”.

????? ? ??????????? ????? ??????? ????????? ?????????? ?? ??????? ? ???? ??? ????? ????????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ??’??????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ???????. ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????????-????????? ????????????? ? ????????????? ???????? ??????; ??????? ???????????? ??????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????????. ?????? ? ???? ????????? ??????? ?????????-????????? ??’???????, ???? ????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????, ? ?????? ???????? ????, ?? ????????? ??????????? ???? ????????????? ? ?? ???????? ????????? ????????? ????-????? ????????? ?? ??????? ? ????????. ????????? ???????????, ??? ????????? ????????? ?? ???????, ???? ??????????? ?? ????? ???????? ?????? ????, ???? ??????????? ???????? ???????? ?? ???????, ? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????????? ????????????????? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ?? ???? ? ???? ?????????. ? ???? ???????? ????????? ?? ???????? ???? ????????? ?????? ??? ?? ????????????? ???????????. ????? ???????? ????????? ?????????? ?? ?????????????, ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ???????????? ?? ?????? ?????????-????????? ??’???????. ? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????????? ????????????? ???????? ?????? ???, ??? ????????? ????? ????????? ??????.

????????? ?????? ???? ????????? ????????, ?, ???????? ????????? ????? ???????? ????????, ??? ???????????? ??? ??????? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ???????. ? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ??? ?? ????????. ??????, ?????????? ???, ???????? ?? ?????????? ? ???, ??? ??????? ?????????? ????????, ???? ??: ?????? ????????????? ??????????, ????? ??????, ???????? ??????, ???????? ??????? ????. ?? ??????????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ? ??????????? ??????, ??? ??????????? ?????????? ????????, ? ?? ?????? ?? ???????????? ???? ??????? ???????? ???? ????????, ???????? ???? ??????? ????????? ????????. ? ?????? ?? ??, ??????? ??? ?????????? ??? ?????? ??????, ??? ???? ?????????? ? ????????? ???????????. ????????, ? ?????????? ??????????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??? ???????????? ?????????? ??? ?????????? ??? ?? ????????, ?????? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????, ? ????????? ? ???? ??? ????????? ???????? ????? ??????????? ???????? ??? ????-???? ???????????? ??????????. ?????? ????, ???????? ? ?????, ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ????????? ?????????, ???? ???? ? ?????? ??? ??????, ?????????????? ??????????? ??????????? ????????? ? ?????? ??????????? ?????, ???????? ? ?????? ?? ??, ?? ????????? ? ????? ??????? ?????????. ? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????? ???? ? ????????? ???? ???? ? ??? ???, ???? ????? ????? “?????????? ???????????? ??????????? ? ?????????? ???????”. ? ?????? ????, ?????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????? ????????, ?? ????? ???????? ??????? ??? ?????????? ?????????? ? ????????? ?????????? ????????? ????????. ??????? ??? ??? ? ?????????? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ? ????????? ??????, ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???????, ? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ? ???’????? ???.

? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ??? ??? ? ??????????? ???????? ?? ? ????????? ???????????. ?????? ? ????? ?????????????? ??????? 2001 ????, ???? ????????? ????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????? ??????? ???????, ??? ???, ?? ??????????? ?? ?????? “??????????”, ? ? ????????? ? ??????????, ???????, ?? ???????? ????????????? ?????? ??????? ??????? “??????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ? ?????????? ???????”. ?? ???????????? ???????????? ???? ??????? ?????????? ???????????, ???, ???? ? ???????????? ?? ??, ??? ???? ???????? ?????????????? ???????????, ???? ?????? “??????????? ???????”. ????????, ? ??? ????????????? ? ???? ??????, ??? ?????? ????????, ???????? ??????? ????????????? ?????? ? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???????????.

??? ????????? ???????? ??????????? ? ??????????? ???????? ?’??????? ??’??????? ?? ???’??????? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ?? ??????? ?? ????????? ???, ??? ????????? ?????????, ? ???????? ????????? ?????????????? ???????????.

???? ?? ???, ?? ?????????? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ? ???????????. ?????? ? ????????? ???????????? ????????, ????????? ????????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????????? ???????, ??? ?????????? ????????????. ???, ?????, ????? ????? ?????????? ????? ? ???????????, ??? ?????? ?? ??????????. ?????????? ?? ????? ??? ????, ??, ?????? ? ????? ???????, ????????? ??????? ??????, ?? ??? ????? ?????????? ??? ????, ?? ???????????? ?????? ????????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ????? ????????, ?, ???????? ?????, ??????? ??????? ???????? ??????????.

???? ????, ????????????? ??????????? ???????? ??? ????????? ?? ??, ??? ???????? ??????-????????. ? ?????????? ?????????? ????? ???? ?????????? ???????. ????? ?? ????????????????? ??????? ????????? ?? ???? ?????????? ??? ???????????? ????? ????, ???, ? ????????????? ????????????, ?????????? ????? ?????????? ? ???, ??? ????? ?????? ? ??????? ????????????. ?? ?????????? ?????? ???????, ?? ?? ???????????? ? ????????? ???????? ??????????, ? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ???????????? ?????????, ??????? ???????????????? ?????????.

??-?????, ???????????? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????????????? ??????? 2000 ???? ????? ??, ?? ???????? 11 ????? ???????????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ????????, ?????? – ?????????? ?? ????????? ???????????? ? ?????????? ?????????? ?????. ???????, ????????? ? ?????????? ????????, ?? ?????? ??????? ????????????? ??????, ??????? ???, ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ????????????? ???, ???? ??? ??? ????? ? 1998-2000 ??., ?????? ????????? ????? ?????, ???? ? ?? ???? ????????, ?? ?? ???????????? ???? ??????????????. ?????? ??????? ? ??, ?? ? ?? ???????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????????, ??? ? ???? ?????? ??????, ???? ?? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ??????????. ???? ????????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???????, ???, ?? ??????? ?????????, ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ????????????????. ??????????? ????? ???? ???? ????????????? ????? ???????. ??? ??? ????????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????????????? ??????? 25 ?????? ?? ?????????? ? ??? “??’??????? ????????????? ???” ????? ???????? ????????????? ??????, ????? ??????????? ??? ???? ???????? ???????.

?? ????? ????????, ?? ???????? ????????? ??????????, ? ???????? ?????????? ?????????? ? ????????? ?????? ?????. ???? ?????? ???? ??????, ??? ???????? ????’?????? ?????????? ???????, ?????? ???????? ???????? ???’?? ? ???? ???? ??????????????. ?????????? ????????? ????????? ?? ??????????? ?????????? ?????, ???? ? ????????????? ??????? ??????? ????????? ????????? ?????????, ?????????? ????????? ???????????? ? ?????? ? ??????? ?? ????- ?? ????????????????? ??????. “???????? ????” ???????????? ?????????? ?? ???????, ?? ???????????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ? ????? ???????? ???????. ???????? ????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ? ????????? ? ?????? ?????????? ????????, ????? ????????????, ?? ?????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ?, ????????, ???????? ?????????? ????? ?, ??????????, ????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ??? ????-?-???? ? ????????? ?????????? ?????.

???????? ????????? ????????? ?? ????????? ?????????????? ??????????? ? ?????????? ???????, ???? ??????? ????????????? ??? ????, ?? ???, ?? ???? ?????? ?????????, ? ???????? ????, ?????????? ? ?????? ????????? ?? “?????? ?????????”. ???????????? ?????? ?????? ? ?????? ????? ????????? ????????????? ??????, ??? ??? ????? “????????? ? ???????????”, ?? ????????? ??? “??????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ? ????????? ?????????? ?????”. ?? ???????? ????????, ?? ? ?????????? ??????? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ???????? ?????????, ?? ????? ???????????, ????????? ??? ???????. ???? ?????????, ??? ?????????? ?????, ? ???????? ???????? ??? ?????????? ? ???????, ??????-?? ????????? “?????????”. ????, ???????? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????, ?? ?????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????????, ??? ???? ?????????? ?????????? ?????. ??????????? ????????? ??? ??????????? ???????????? ?????? ?, ??????, ???????? ????? ????????. ???? ????? ??????? ?? ???????????? ????????? ??????????? ????? ?????, ??? ???? ???????????? ????-??? ??????, ?? ????????? ?? ?????. ?? ???????????, ???? ????????? ???????? ??? ????????, ?? ??????????? ???? ?????????? ????????. ?????????? ????????? ????????, ????? ??????? ?????????? ? ????? ?? ??????, ????? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ? ????? ????????.

????? ???? ? ???????, ? ?????? ????, ????????? ??????? ????? ???????? ?????????? ?????, ???? ?????????? ???? ????????? ? ?????????? ???????. ?????? ?? ??????????? ?????????? ?? ??????????? ????????, ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ???. ? ?????? ?? ??, ? ????? ? ???????? ?????, ???? ????? ??????? — ?? ???????? ??????????? ? ???????????? ?????????, ? ?? ???? ?? ??????, ? ???? ????????? ??????????? ? ????????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ?????????????.

??-?????, ??? ?????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????? ? ?????????? ? ????????? ?????????? ????????????? ? ?????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????? ????. ????????, ??? ??? ?????????? ???? ??????. ?????? ????????? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ??? ???????? ???????? ????????? ?????, ??? ???????????? ???. ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????????? ? ????? ????????? ???????. ?????? ?? ???????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ????, ????? ?? ???? ?????????? ???????? ??????. ????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ????????? ?????? ??????, ?????? ????????????? ??????????? ?? ??????????? ???????? ? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????? ????????. ????? ????? ?????????? ?????? ? ????????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????????. ? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????? ????? ???????? ? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????????? ????????. ????????? ?????????? ??????????? ?????? ??????????? ??? ?????? ? ???????? ????????? ?? ???? ?????????? ??????, ??????? ????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ?????????? ??? ????’?????? ??????????? ??? ???????? ???????. ? ???????? ????????? ????? ???????, ??? ???????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ????? ????’?????? ?? ???????, ????????? ???? ?????????, ????? ????????? ???? ???????? ????????, ?? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????????. ? ??????? ????? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ??????? (?????????? ????????), ???, ??? ?????, ???? ???????? ?? ????????, ???, ?? ???????, ?? ???????????. ? ????? ?????????? ???????? ????????? ???? ???? ????? ????????. ?????????, ????????? ????????????? ??????????, ?????????? ?? ??????????? ??????? ?? ????????? ???????? ??????? ????? ??????? ??????????? ????????? ?????. ?? ???? ???? ??????? ????, ?? ???????????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????.

??-?????, ?????? ?????? ????????? ??? ?????? ???????? ???????? ? ?????????????? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ? ?????? ??????, ????????? ?????????? ????? ? ?????? ???????. ???? ????, ????? ?????? ??? ? ??????? ??????????? ??????? ???? ?????. ?????? ??? ??????? ???, ??? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ? ??????? ????????????? ? ????????, ?? ???????? ?? ? ?????. ?????????, ???????? “??????-???????” ?????????? ? ??????????? ???????? ??????-????????????? ??????????. ???????? ?????????? ?????????? ????? ???????? ?????? ? ??????????.

?????? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ????-???? ?????????? ????????, ? ????????? ??????????? ? ?????????? ? ????????????? ??????? ???????????. ?? ? ???? ?????????, ??? ??? ??????????? ??????? ?????????? ? ????????? ??????? ??????. ?? ????? ??????????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ??????????? ????????, ? ????? ???, ?? ????? ? ?????????? ??????: ???????? ?????????? ????????? “Viitorul” – ???????? ??????????; ????????? ?? ?????????? ?????? “?????” – ??????, ????????? ??????, ????????? ???????????. ?, ??????, ?????????? ?????? ????????? ????? ?????? ??? ???, ????? ???? ????? ????? ??????.

????????????? ??????? ??????? ????? ???????? ??? ??????????????? ???. ?? ??????? ???? ????????? ??????????? ???, ????????, ??????? ????? ????? ??????????????? ? ????????????? ?????? ???????? ???????. ????????, ? ??????? ??????????????? ?????????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??????, ?? ? ?? ?????? ? ????? ??????????? ?? ??????? ??????. ??????????? ?????? ???, ????? ???? ? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ??? ? ???????, ?????????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???????????????. ???????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????????????, ?????????, ????? ???????????????? ???, ?????????? ???, ????????? ??? ????. ??????????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???????????????. ? 1997 ???? ???? ??? ???????????? ??? ???? ??????. ???????? ?????? ????????? ?? ?????? ??????????: ????????????, ????????? ? ?????? ??????????. ????? ?????????????? ?? ???????? ????????? ?????????? ???, ??????? ??????? ?? ???????? ?????????, ???????????? ??’????? ? ?????????, ??????????? ?????? ????. ???? ????, ?????? ???????? ???????????, ????? ????? ???? ?????????? ???????????, ???????????? ?????????? ??????? ??????, ? ????? ???????????? ???????? ??????? ? ???????????? ???? ???????? ? ?????????? ? ?????? ????????. ? ????? ?????????? ????? ???? ????????? ???????? ????????? ???????? ? ???????? ?? ???????????? ???????. ?????? ???? ?????????? ? ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ???????. ????? ????? ???????????? ??????? ? ???? ???????????? ???????, ????????? ??????????? ?????? ????????, ?? ???? ??????? ???????????? ?????? ?? ???, ??? ?????? ?????? ? ??????, ??? ???? 2700 ??? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???????????????. ???? ??????????????? ????????? ?? ????????? ????????? ????????, ????? ??????? ??? ?????????? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????????.

???????? ???? ? ?????????? ??????????? ??? ??????? ???? ??????????? ?????????????? ??????, ? ?????? ????? ????????? ???????????, ????????? ??????, ?????????? ?? ???? ????? ? ???????????? ? ???????????? ??????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????? ???????. ?? ? ??????????? ??????? ????? ???????????????, ????? ?? ?????????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?????????. ????????? ?????? ???? ??????? ???????????? ???, ????????? ??? ??? ????????? ???????? ????????. ????? ?????? ?????????? ????????? ?? ?????????? ?? ??????????, ? ?????? ?? ??, ?? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ????? ?????????? ? ????? ??????? ?????????, ?? ??????????. ?????????? ????? ?????? ??????, ???? ?? ?????? ??????????? ? ?????? ? ??????? ???????????? ?? ?????? ???????????. ? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????????, ?? ? ??????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ?????? ??????? ???? ??????????? ?????, ? ?????? ????? ????? ??????????? ????????, ??????? ?? ???, ?? ????????????? ??? ?????????????? ??????, ? ????? ???? ?????????? ???????? ????????? ?? ?????????? ??????, ??? ? ??????????. ?? ? ???????????? ??????, ????? ? ?????? ?????, ?? ???? ? ?? ? ?????????? ?????????????, ???? ???? ???????? ??? ???, ? ?????????????, ???? ???? ???????? ??? ????????? ??????.

????? ?????????? ????? 2002 ???? ????????? ?????? ????? ?????????, ?? ?? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???????????????. ?? ?, ?? ????????????? ?????????????? ???????? ???? ?????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ????, ????????? ??? ???? ?????????? ?????? ? ???. ??????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ? ???????? ?????????? ? ??????????? ?????????? ? ????????? ????????? ????????????? ????????? ? ??????????, ??? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ???????????. ? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ???? ?????????????? ?????? ????????? ??? ??????????? ???????, ???????? ???????? ???????? ????? ???????????? ????? ????. ?????????? ??????????? ?????????, ?? ???? ????????? ?????? ???? ???????????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????. ?????, ???? ???????? ????? ??????? ? ????, ?? ??? ??’????? ??????, ??? ????????? ???? ???????? ? ?????????? ?? ? ???? ????? ????’?????? ???????, ?? ?????? ????? ????????????; ?????? ??????? ?????? ????????? ?? ??????? ???????? ??? ??????. ???? ????, ????????? ??????-???????? ???????? ????? ????????? ?? ????????????? ????????? ? ???? ???, ????? ????? ????????????, ?? ??????????????? ? ???? ? ?????? ????????.



 

Igor BOTAN,
Association for Participatory Democracy "ADEPT" (Moldava)

COOPERATION BETWEEN NGOs AND POLITICAL PARTIES

The cooperation between NGOs and political parties is in fact very natural, as both are public associations and represent the so-called civil society. In this respect joining their efforts according to certain principles might prove extremely useful in strengthening civil society. Nevertheless, the goals and methodology of NGOs and political parties differ a lot. NGOs are established for citizens to exercise their right to association and to pursue goals set by the founders and proponents. Thus, NGOs pursue either a public or a mutual interest. Although political parties are established under the same right to free association, their goal is to legally accede to power by selling their governing programs to the electorate. That is exactly why very frequently political parties are considered to be some sort of interface between the society and state bodies.

As the goals pursued by political parties are different one may wonder if by cooperating with them NGOs may impair their image of unpartisan organizations? This is not mere a rhetoric questions as it is provided for in the incumbent legislation of the Republic of Moldova. Thus, in the 1996 presidential race the major players Petru Lucinschi and Mircea Snegur enjoyed the support of 60-70 NGOs each. Back then the society witnessed a race for securing public declarations of support from as many NGOs as possible. By this, candidates' image-makers were looking to highlight which of the candidates enjoys a greater "support of the civil society".

One of the results of such a massive NGO support to electoral contestants was the adoption of the Law on Public Associations several months latter. The law distinguished between public and mutual benefit organizations; the latter enjoying larger fiscal and other incentives. One of the criteria for receiving public benefit status, issued by the Certification Commission of the Ministry of Justice is for the NGO to be non-partisan with no previous records of publicly supporting electoral contestants. The NGO, which supports an electoral contestant might be entitled to some privileges as long as the relevant contestant wins elections, otherwise loses elections the NGO might expect a discriminatory treatment from the winner. Both ways, involvement in politics may impare NGO's image as non-partisan. However, open support of contestants isn't prohibited, just that those NGOs could not claim public benefit status. In such a case they are regarded as organizations of mutual benefit of those, who support a certain political party.

The Law had a positive impact, so that in the next 3 electoral campaigns NGOs refrained from publicly supporting political parties. At the same time the Law was an occasion to speak about ways of NGO involvement in politics. Indeed, Moldova NGOs organize themselves around their field of interest so as to jointly solve problems, such as environment, human rights, youth, gender, etc. Those organizations may not ignore public policies in the relevant fields promoted by the parties in governing and cannot refrain from expressing their standpoint on those policies as long as those policies affect public interest. Therefore, NGOs positions are the more credible the less partisan NGOs are. It seems that the Moldovan NGO community has reached the conclusion that a difference should be made between NGO's involvement in politics, by publicly supporting political parties and governing programs, and NGO promotion of public policies for the public interest without any ideological implication. On the contrary, if guided by the assumption that NGO should have nothing to do with the public policies, then NGOs would have to forget about the dialogue initiated by President Vladimir Voronin within the Social Pact, especially as the president is also the Chair of the Communist Party. In such a case NGO would have to isolate themselves, just at the time authorities are willing to "edify a civil society in the Republic of Moldova". Though, many skeptical analysts claim it is hard to distinguish between political involvement and promotion of accountable public policies. The difference between a NGO and political party is that between a miss and a Mrs., the former is still free to choose, the latter has already made its choice and is bound to it.

In the Republic of Moldova relationships between NGOs and political parties are not exactly perfect. Immediately after 2001 parliamentary elections when the great majority of democratically oriented parties failed, a series of pretended "independent" media outlets, but in fact partisan ones, claimed that the victory of the Communist Party is due to "the absence of civil society in the Republic of Moldova". Those allegations were addressed to the 2,000 NGOs, which although claimed to be part of civil society, were mere "devours of grants". Of course there is some truth in those allegations, but just a little, as the collapse of democratic parties is the fault of the parties themselves and their leaders.

To avoid such allegations in the future it would be appropriate to clarify the objective and subjective factors of the democrats' loss in elections and actions to be undertaken in view of strengthening civil society.

Firstly, it's the image NGOs and parties enjoy in the society. According to the recent polls, the great majority of citizens trust neither political parties, nor NGOs. However, NGOs enjoy a more positive image in the society than parties and trade unions. Noteworthy, immediately after elections Vladmir Voronin stated that he was very much aware of the fact that the Communist Party won elections not because of its program but rather due to the protest vote of the electorate.

Further, media controlled by political parties worked to denigrate opponent parties. As a result the image of all political leaders had to suffer. Left wing and center-left leaders are accused of coming from URSS nomenclature, which upon the proclamation of independence have turned into democrats so as to take part in the privatization process. As for the right-wing leaders, they are accused of limiting their electorate due to their option for national values instead of generally accepted ones.

Secondly, democratic parties failed in the 2001 parliamentary elections due to the fact that in the 11 years of independence living standards had considerably declined, so that the nostalgia for the relative stability and welfare of the soviet times. Finally, the political and corruption scandals involving leaders of democratic parties, especially those of the Alliance of Democratic Forces in governing between 1998 - 2000 greatly eroded their image, although it wasn't proved that those allegations were grounded. Interestingly enough not only citizens believe those allegations, but the leaders of parties themselves share the same believe with regard to their political rivals. That is why political leaders keep calling for alliance of the parties of the same spectrum, but with rare exceptions those alliances never happen. An illustration of this may be the Democratic Forum of Moldova. It was establish three months after the February 25 parliamentary elections, as a self-defense and "unification of democratic forces" reaction against the policies of the Communist Party, however it only survived for several months.

Another factor dictating the electorate behavior is the democrats' failure to speak on the voters' language. That is why only left-wing parties, which promise to solve social problems are able to pass the threshold of representation. Domestic analysts explain this by the absence of a middle class, which in democratic countries account for the great majority of the population, ensure political stability in the country, and vote for center-left and center-right parties. "Middle class" is distinguished according to its income, which may entitle them to a certain living standard and to certain personal freedom. As the basic values of the civil society are pluralism and citizens' free initiative, one may claim that civil society values are in fact those shared by the middle class, consequently strengthening civil society goes hand in hand with the development of a middle class.

As the Communist Party claims to edify a civil society in the Republic it should be aware of the fact that what they intend to edify is a middle class, defined in the Marxist theory as the "small bourgeoisie". Marxist leaders wrote in the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto entitled "Bourgeoisie and Proletarians" that the bourgeoisie was the one to "awake the great majority of citizens from the stupid somnolence of the rural life". Needless to say that in the Republic of Moldova at the beginning of the XXI century rural population outnumber urban population. As for the bourgeoisie, or middle class, in the last century it was annihilated in Moldova whenever it managed to full-fledge. Consequently a major goal for the Moldovan political elite striving to edify a civil society, should be boosting middle class. Leaders of the Communist Party have already announced the modernization of the party and even revision of their program. They also pointed to the need of revising the Constitution in such a manner so as to satisfy any party acceding to power. It is encouraging that Communist Party is talking about values shared by the entire political spectrum. International political situation, i.e. integration processes worldwide and in Europe, has also pushed the governing party towards the same direction.

However, it would be naive for us to expect that a strong middle class aware of its political and economic needs might appear soon. Even under favorable political and economic situations, it would take quite a time. In this respect some of the major challenges to be met would be social culture and civic education. And this is exactly the field where NGOs and political parties could efficiently cooperate.

Firstly, NGOs may assist political parties in identifying and educating community leaders on leadership, communication skills, etc. In fact NGOs are already doing such kind of work. Quite a number of grassroots leaders benefited of the community development projects undertaken by NGOs. Those models may be replicated in other rural communities. It is too early to speak about a mass community movement, however success stories should not be neglected. After addressing community problems often enough those leaders start looking for parties able to offer national and regional programs addressed to grassroots social problems. Thus, community leaders and political parties might find common grounds. An example in this respect was shared by Serbian youth organizations with Moldovan counterparts in May. NGO leaders of Serbia refrain from electioneering in favor of political parties, rather they promote successful initiatives in solving community or neighborhood problems. In electoral campaigns, it's enough for those leaders who managed to gain the trust of the community by addressing its problems, to hint the candidate they regard as reliable, for that candidate to be in the top of electorate's preferences. In Moldova also, political parties are looking for would-be grassroots leaders, but by doing so they resort to promises, which as a rule are not kept. In this respect Serbian strategy may prove more successful. For instance, Communist party launched an initiative aimed to identify leaders for the upcoming local elections from among the entrepreneurs popular in the community. This may be an indication that the Communist party understands the importance of reviving middle class.

Secondly, there is quite a number of NGOs able to provide assistance and consultation to political parties on various issues. NGOs could provide trainings in other fields as well. Further there are several think-tank NGOs, in fact two types. The first type includes NGOs favoring a certain political doctrine and preferring to cooperate with parties embodying such a doctrine. For instance, Socium-Moldova Foundation cooperates with social-democratic oriented political parties. Institute of Social Technologies prefers to work with the Communist Party. The second type does not give preference to any political doctrine, while conducting studies and polls on the most important problems society is facing. As is to be expected this type of think tanks are confronted with the lack of funding. Illustration of such think-tanks is Institute for Public Policies, as well as NGOs working in specific fields Institute for Social Initiatives "Viitorul" - public administration; Association for Participatory Democracy "ADEPT" - elections, political parties, NGOs. It's true there are think tanks within the parties themselves or within media outlets, however they have a different status.

The above factors greatly depend on the self-organizations of NGOs. In the last years Moldovan NGO community seems to have found a certain form of self-organization and launch very good projects. Certainly, in self-organizing Moldovan NGOs follow the same path as their Central and Eastern European counterparts. The regional NGO Forums aiming at identifying the most active NGOs in the region embody the first level of self-organization. The Sector Forums are becoming a tradition as well, for example Forum of the Environmental NGOs, Youth NGOs, Gender NGOs, etc. National NGO Forums embody the second level of self-organization. Since 1997 three such forums have already been organized. Delegates to the forum were selected based on the following criteria: performance, territorial, and field of activity. The Forums focus on the major challenges of the NGO community, decides on joint initiatives, partnership with government and business, etc. Further, via a secret vote the Forum elected the NGO Council entrusted to implement the Forum Resolutions as well as to monitor the development of the sector and represent its interests in relations with other parties. In their activity Council members are guided by a Code of Best Practices and do voluntary work. The Council Chair is elected by rotation from among the Council members. After three National NGO Forums and two NGO Fairs, NGOs reached the conclusion that the Council should represent only the NGOs participating at the Forum, so as to enable the rest of NGOs out of 2,700 to find other ways of self-organization. If self-organization is based on best practices' standards, the risks of scissions or conflicts within NGOs are very slim.

Last year Moldovan NGO community launched the idea of organizing a Civic Forum, a framework for NGOs, political parties, trade unions, and government meet and talk about prospects of the Moldovan NGO sector development. This would have embodied the highest form of self-organization, however the initiative failed to gain support. Political parties were busy healing the wounds of the last electoral campaign. Some of the trade union leaders viewed the initiative as premature, on the grounds that NGOs haven't yet gained the right to talk to such a strong partner as trade unions. Trade unions have thousands of members, they are equal partners to Government and employers' unions at the negotiation table, and who are NGOs? Noteworthy, in the middle of political crisis the President of the country launched the idea of a Social Pact and within it's framework host reunions similar to those envisaged in the Civic Forum, however this time the initiative gained the support of both political parties and trade unions. This is encouraging, but there are some risks at stake when the very same initiative is rejected when it comes from NGOs and supported when it comes from the governing party.

After 2002 political crisis, political parties too realized they need some sort of cooperation mechanism. Thus, at the recommendation of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly a Permanent Round Table, open to all political parties and NGOs, was set up. The Round table aims to defend and promote democracy and political pluralism in the context of Communist majority in Parliament, which entitles them even to amend the Constitution. There are to many skeptical opinions on the sustainability of such a mechanism for political dialogue. Participants to the roundtable pursue different goals. The skepticism is coupled with suspicions that one political party might take advantage of the roundtable. Nevertheless, the strength of the roundtable is that it joins parties sharing the same values and issuing the same solutions to the problems society is facing, both may lead to sustainable alliances or fusion. Further, political parties participants to the roundtable have appealed to the informational assistance of NGOs, thus proving that cooperation with them is a real advantage.



 

?????? ??????,
?????-????????????? ?????
???????????? ? ???????????? ???????????? "?????????" (??????)

?????????????? ???????????? ??????????? ? ???????????? ?????? (???? ??????)

1. ? ???????????? ? ?????????? ??????????? ??????? ? ???????????? ???????, ?? 1 ???? 2002?. ???????????????? 20 ???????????? ??????, ? ?.?. ??? ??????, ??????? ????? ??????? ? ??????????????? ???? (?????? ??????, ????, ????, ???, ??????).

????????? ????????? ? ???????????? ??????? ? ??????????? ?????? ?????, ??? ?????????. ?? ??????????? ???????????? ?????, ???????????? ? 1999-2001??., ?? ?????? ??? ?????????, ??? ? ???????????????? ???????????? ?????? ????????? ? ????? ???????????????? ????????????, ?????? ????? ????????? ? ???????????? ??????. ?? ??????????? ???????????????? ?????? , ???????????? ? ?????-?????????? ? ??? 2002?. ??????? ???????? ? ??????????????? ?????????? ?????????, ????? ????? ?????????? ?????? ?? ???????????? ????????????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ? ???. ????, ??? ????????? ???????????? ??????????? (????? ????? ???????? ?? ??????????????? ????????????? ??? ???) ? ???????????? ??????? ???????? ????????? ????? ????????? ? ?????? ??????????.

? ?????? ??????? ???????????????? ????? ???????????? ???, ?? ??????? ? ??????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ???????? 10% ??? 50000 ???. ??????? ??????????? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ?????, ??????? ???????? ???????????? ? ????? ?????????????? ? ?????????? ????????????.

?????????? ??? ?????? ????????????, ??? ?? ?????? ????? ????????????, ??? ? ?? ?????? ?????? ????????, ? ?? ?????????????????? ?? ?????????????? ? ???????? ??????. ?????? ??? ????????? ????????????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????????????? ??? ? ???????????? ???????.

????????, ??? ??? ? ????? ???????? ???????? ??? ???????? ??????: ?????????, ???????????? ? ??????. ?????? ????????? (?? ???? ?????? ????????? ???????? 70% ?????????? ???) ??????????????? ??????????? ?????????? ???????? (?????, ?????????, ?????????), ??? ???????? ????????? ??????????? ????? ??????, ???????????? ??????? ????? ??? ? ???????????? ??????? – ??? ????????? ?????-???? ????????, ? ??? ??? ?????? ? ??? ?????????, ?? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ? ???????? ?? ???????????????. ?? ??????? ???????????? ? ?????? ??? ????? ?????????? ?????????, ???? ???????????, ?????????? ??????????????. ??????????? ?????????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????? ???, ?? ???????????????? ? ????????? ???????????.

?? ????????? ? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ????????? ??????:

  • ???, ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? (????? ?? ?????????, ???????? ????????? ???????, ??????????? ?????????? ? ??. – 5-10% ?? ?????? ????? ???). ???? ??? ?????????? ???? ??????????????? ??????? ? ?? ????????????, ? ?? ????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????? ??????? ??????? ??????. ?????? ??? ? ????????????? ???????? ??????????? ?? ???????????????.
  • ???, ??????? ?????????????? ? ????????????? ????????, ????????? ? ???????? ???????? (????????? ????????, ?????????, ????????? ?????? ? ?????? ?? ???????? ?????, ?????????? ????????? ? ?????????? ??????). ? ???? ?????? ????????? ??????????? ??????????? ??? (?? 90% ?? ?????? ????? ???). ??? ???? ???????? ????????? ???????? ?????????????? ??? ? ???????? ??????. ?????? ??? ????????? – ????????? «?????? – ??????», ????? ??? ?????? ? ???????? ??????????? ?? ?????? (???????? ????? ?? ??????? ???????, ????????), ?????? ???????????? ???, ?? ??????? ???? ??????? ? ?????? (???, ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ???????? ? ????????; ???????????, ????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????? ???, ??, ??? ?????????? «???????????????? ???»). ??? ??? ? ???????? ????? ????? ????????? «?????? ??????». ?????? ??? ????????? – ????????? ?????????????? ??? ??????????? ???????????, ????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????? ? ????????? ?? ???? ????? ????????? ??????? ??????, ?????? ????????? ?? ??????? ??????????? (? ?????? ??????? ???, ?????????? ? ?????????? ?????), ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ??????? ? ?????????. ??? ??? ? ???????? ????? ????????????????? ? ????????????? ????????.
  • ???, ?????????????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ???????? ???????? (1-2% ?? ?????? ????? ???). ??? ????? ??? ?????????????? ? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????????? ? ????????, ?? ?????????????? ?????????????? ???????? ? ?????????? (????????????? ? ????????????? ???????????). ?????????????? ?????? ??? ???????? ???????? ? ????????????? ????????, ???????????? ? ????????? ? ???????????? ??????.
  • ??? – ??????????, ?????????????? ???????? ?????? ??? ????? ????????? ??????????? (0.1-1% ?? ?????? ????? ???). ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???????????? ????? ? ?????? ????? ??????????? 3-?? ??????? (?????????????, ??????????????? ? ????????? ??????, ?????? ????????? ????????). ??? ??? ????? ????????? ????????? ? ???????????????? ??????? ? ????????????? ?????????? ? ?????????????? ???????, ????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ???. ?????????????? ?????? ??? ? ????????????? ???????? ???????? ????????.

????? ???????, ????? ??? ????? ?????????????? ????? ???, ??????? ????? ????????????????? ? ????????????? ????????, – ??? ???????? 1-2% ?? ????? ??????? ?????????? ??? (??????? 500-1000 ???).

2. ?????-????????????? ????? «?????????» ?? ????? ?????????, ??????? ???????? ? 1994?. ??????????? ?? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ??????? ???, ????????? ??? ? ???????????? ??????? ??????, ?????????????? ???????????? ??????, ???????? ?????????? ?????. ???? ??????: ??? ???? ???????????? ??????? ????? ???, ? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???????????? ??????. ????? ???????? ???????????? ?? ??? ?????????? ????????, ??? ???????????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????, ??? ???????, ? ????????????? ????????? ????????? ? ???????????? ???????. ?????? ????????? ?????????????? ??? ????????? ? ??????: «… ???????????? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ???, ?.?. ? ???????? ????? ??????????? ???????? ???».

?????? ?????????????? ???????????? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????????. ???????????? ??????? ??? ????? ???:

  • ?????????? ???????? ? ??????????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????
  • ?????? ? ?????????? ?????????, ?????????? ????????? ? ????????? ??????
  • ?????????????? ????? ??????
  • ????????? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ???.

??????????????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ?? ???????????? ?????????? ??? ? ???????????? ??????.
     ???????????? ???, ????????? ? ??????????????? ? ????????????? ????????:

  • ?????????? ???????????? ?????? ? ?????? ????. ?????? ???????? ??????????????? ??? ? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ????????????? ???????: ??????? ??? ? ???????? ???????? ? ?????????? ???????, ??? ???????? ???????? ??????? ? ??????????? ??????, ? ???????? ? ?????????? ? ?? ???????????? ? ? ?????????????, ?.?. ??????????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ???????. ???????? ?????? ? ?????????? ???????? ????????, ???? ????? ???????? ? ??? ???????????? ????????? ??????????? ???????????. ????????????? ? ???????????? ???????: ????? ? ???????????? ??????, ? ??????? ? ?????????? ?????????? ? ?????????? ??????, ??????? ? ?????? ?? ?????????. ???, ??????? ?????????? ?????? ????????????? – ??? ???? ????????????? ? ????????????? ???????????, ???? ????????????? ??????. ??? ?????????? ????????????? ??? ???????, «????????????? ????» ? ??. ???????????? ?????? ? ?????? ?? ?????????? ????? ??????? ???????, ?? ?????????????? ?????????? ?? ????; «???????????? ?????????» (??? ?? ???????????), ????? ????????? ? ???, ??????????? ? ?????????? ????????? ?????? ??????????????? ???????, ????????????? ??????? ?????????????? ?????????? ? ???????????? ??????? ??????, ??? «??????????? ????????» ?? ?????-??????????, ????? ???????? ??????? ? ???, ?????????? ??????? ????? ????????? ?? ?????????? ? ?? ?????? ? ???; ????????????? ??? «????????? ????? ???????? ???????????? ??????», ?????????? ? ???????? ? ????, ??????????? ?????????? ????????????? ????????, ???????????? ???????. ??????????? ?????????????? ???, ? ???????????? ??????? ????????? ???????????? ?????? (???, ??????, ??????????????? ??????), ???????? ????????, ????????????? ???????????? ??????, ???? «?????????» ? ???? ?????? ????????? ? ?????? ??????.
  • ?????????????? ?????????. ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ? ??????????, ????????? ?????????????? ????????? ??? ?????????? ?????? ??????????, ??????, ????? ? ?????? ? ?????????? ?????????? ? ?????????? ??????????? ???? ???????????? ??????, ? ??? ????? ? ?????? ?????? (? ?????? ?????? – ??? ?????? ??????). ??????????? ???, ??????????? ? ????? ?????? ? ??????????, ???????? ???????????? ??????????-??????, ?????, ?????-????????????? ????? «?????????». ?? ?????????? ?? ???????????? ????????? ? ??? ????? ? ???????????? ??????.
  • ???????????? ???????????. ?????? ?????? ???????????? ?????????? ???, ??????? ????? ??????? ? ??????? ???????????? ???????????, ??????? ????????? ????????. ?? ????? ?????????, ????????????, ???????, ?????????? ??? ??????? ???????????? ??????, ?????????? ? ????????, ??????????? ?????????, ??????????? ??????? ???????????? ???????, ??????????????? ??????????, ????????????? ????????, ????????? ????????. ???????? ????????? ???, ???????????? ??????? ?????????, ????????: ?????????? ????? ???????????? ????????????, ??????????, ???????? ????? ? ??.
  • ?????? ?? ???????. ???????????? ??? ??????????? ? ?????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?/??? ?????????, ??????????????? ?????? (?????? ? ????????????? ????????, ?????????? ? ???? ??????????? ? ??.). ?????? ????? ???? ???????????? ? ?? ??????. ???????????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ? ????. ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?????????, ??????????? ?? ????? ?????????? (???????, ?????? ???????????????? ????????????? ?????????????? (???)) ?????? ???????? ?????????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???????, ?????? ?????? ??? ?????????. ?????? ?? ??????. ?? ?????????? ??????????? ??? ???????????? ?????? (????? ????, ????? ????). ?????? ??????????? ? ????? ???????? ?? ????????? ? ?? ????????? ??????, ? ??????????? ? ?????????? ??????? ?????. ?????? ?????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????????? ???, ????????? ? ???????? ?? ?????????, ? ??????????? ?????? ????????????? ?????????? (????? ???, ????? ??????). ????? ?????, ????????? ??? (???? ?????????????, ??????? ????????????????? ?????, ????????) ? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ?? ????? ??????? ? ???? ??????????? ??? ????????????? ??????????? (?? ?? ???????????? ??????).

??????? ?????????????? ???????????? ?????? ? ???.

?????? ?????? – ??? ?????? ??????, ? ?? ???????? ??????? ? ??? ?????? ? ?????????? ?????? ??????. ??????????? ??????????? ???? ?????????????? ? ???????? ???, ??????? ??????? ? ?????????? ????????. ? ?????-?????????? ????? ???????? ???? ??????????, ???????? ? ?????? ??????, ?.?.???????, ?????? ?? «???????????» ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ????????????. ?????? ????? ???? ?????????? ???????????.

???? – ?????? ????????? ? ????????? (?? ??????? ???? ????????????? ???) ? ???????????? ??????. ???, ? ???????? ?????? ???????????? – ??? ????? ?????????, ???????? ??????????? (? ?????-??????????), ??????????? ??????? (???????, ???). ?????? ????? ???? ?????????? («????????») ? ??????? («???????») ???????????.

???? – ??????, ??????????????? ? ??????? ??????. ???????? ???????? ??????? ?????????? ??? («?????? ????????????»).

??? – ???? ???????????? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ??????????????? ? ??????-???????????, ? ??? ????? ? ???????????? ???????????, ??????????????????? ??? ???. ????? ?????, ? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ????????????? ????????? ????????????? ???????????. ???????????? ??? ?? ??????? ??????? ? ????? ?????????? ? ???? ?????? ???????????? ???.

?????? – ??????????????? ? ???????? ???, ???????????? ???, ?????????????? ???; ????? ???? ?????????? ?????????, ?????????????????? ??? ???.

????? ?????, ??????? ????????? ?????????????? ??????-??????????????? ?????? ?????? ? ????????????????? ???????.

?????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ?????????????? ?????? ? ????????????? ??????? (?????? ?????, ??????? ????????? ???????? ? ??.). ?????? ??? ??????????? ???????? ? ?????? ? ????????, ????????????? ???????????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????????. ????????? ????????????? ?????? ?????? ??????????????? ? ????????????? ????????, ????????????? ??? ??? ????????? ????????????? ????????, ????????? ????????? ? ??. ??? ??? «????? ?????????????? ??????????» ??? ???????????? ?.?????, ???????????? ????????? ?????????? ?????? ? ??????, ??????? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ??????, ????????? ????????????? ???????? ? ?????????? ? ?????? ?????? ???????????? «???? ??????????? ????????» ?.???????????; «????? ?????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????? ??????» ???????? ????????????? ?????????? ? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ?.?.????????, «???????? ????????? ??????????? ???????», ????????? ??? ???????? ?.???????, ???????? ???; ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????????? ????? ????????????? ? ???????????? ???????????? (????????).

3. ??????????.

  • ???????? ??????? ??? ? ???????????? ?????? ? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????????? ???????? ??????
  • ?? ??????????????, ??????? ????? ?????, ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ???????????? ?????? ?????? (?????? ??? ?????? ????? ???; ???????????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ??????), ???? ??????? ? ???, ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ??????, ??? ???????, ?????? ??????, ???????? ??????? ??
  • ???????? ?????????? ? ????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????????????? ??????.


Michael GORNY,
St.Petersburg Humanity and Political Studies centre STRATEGY (Russia)

INTERACTION OF PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS AND POLITICAL PARTIES
(RUSSIAN EXPERIENCE)

1. In accordance with the Federal law About political parties, there are 20 political parties registered as of June 1, 2002, including all the parties, that have fractions in the State Duma (Edinaya Rossiya [the United Russia], CPRF [Communist Party of Russia], LDPR [Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, SPS [Union of Right-wing Forces], YABLOKO).

Attitude of the population to political parties in Russia today is more than cool. According to the research carried out by INDEM Foundation in 1999-2001, both population and businessmen consider political parties the most corrupted organizations, hence obvious mistrust to their activities. According to the interview carried out in May 2002 in St.Petersburg by the Center for Research and Forecast of Social Processes, over one third of the interviewed are not interested in political parties at all, or not able to define their attitude to them. It's clear, that attitude of public organizations (hereinafter - non-governmental organizations - NGO) to political parties reflects attitude of the population to these institutes in general.

Over half a million of NGO are registered in Russia today, of which about 10% or 50000 are real working NGO. Real working NGO shall be construed as organizations that annually report on their operations and financial activities.

Russian NGO are quite diverse in terms of spheres of activities, level of development, and interest in interaction with authorities. The last two classifications determine extent of interest of NGO in political parties.

Let's remember, that NGO go through three major stages in its development: survival, stabilization and success. Survival stage (about 70% of Russian NGO are at this stage) is characterized by lack of stable resources (money, offices, personnel). NGO is prepared to carry out practically any work, and the only interest of such NGO to political parties is in getting some resources. Since the parties here are not rich, NGO at this stage do not interact with political parties. At stages of stability and success NGO are in possession of permanent office, staff, who get fees. Possibility of interaction with parties is conditioned by NGO's mission and its relationship with authorities.

In terms of relation to the authorities NGO could be split into the following groups:

  • NGO, for which authorities play no special role (service clubs, butterflies-lovers associations, self-help organizations, etc. - 5-10% of the total number of NGO). These NGO only need that authorities are not intervening into their activities, while the organizations themselves should perform decisions of authorities. These NGO practically do not interact with political parties.
  • NGO interested in use of resources available with authorities (budgetary funds, offices, tax and rent privileges, social programmes and social orders). The majority of NGO belongs to this group (up to 90% of the total number of NGO). In this case various options of interaction between NGO and authorities are available. The first type of interaction is "patron - client" type, when NGO ask for and get required resource (for instance, get grant from local authorities) and in return support, or at least, is loyal towards the power (NGO, leaders of which have personal contacts with authorities; organizations established by authorities themselves, or what is called "quasi-independent NGO"). These NGO in principle can become clients of the "party in power". The second type of interaction is cooperation and social partnership, when NGO gets resources from authorities, carries out some functions of power on this basis, and does this more efficiently (first of all, these are NGO in social sphere). Benefits are received by both parties of the process and by the population. Such NGO in principle can interact with political parties.
  • NGO supervising actions of authorities (1-2% of the total number of NGO). For such NGO cooperation in full meaning is not possible in principle, but constructive interaction is possible and desirable (environmental and law reinforcement organizations). Interaction of these NGO is more probable with political parties being in opposition to the existing power.
  • NGO - intermediaries, representing interests of other NGO to structures of power (0.1 - 1% of the total number of NGO). Here we deal with comparatively new for Russia type of organizations of the 3rd sector (analytical, educational and resource centers, centers of public politics). These NGO through individual deputies in representative bodies and responsible officers in executive bodies, as well as through mass media, lobby interests of other NGO. Interaction of these NGO with political parties is the most probable.

Thus, more or less likely number of NGO, which are to interact with political parties is about 1-2% of the number of virtually functioning NGO (about 500 - 1000 NGO).

2. St.Petersburg Center "Strategy" have carried out expert interview at the seminars which have been taking place since 1994 virtually in all regions of Russia. These have been held for NGO leaders, MSU deputies and regional authorities, as well as representatives of political parties. Over half of respondents, representing NGO, gave unambiguous answer, that political parties are not necessary, which is obviously corresponding to the attitude of population to political parties. Replies of the rest of NGO representatives resolved to the following thesis: "…political parties can be useful for NGO, because in principle they are able to lobby interests of NGO".
     Replies of political parties representatives were highly diverse. Political parties need NGO for the following reasons:

  • Agitation and voting for the party at elections
  • Assistance in programme drafting, ideology propaganda and programme of the party
  • Recruiting of new members
  • Getting money via grants for NGO.

Let's illustrate these replies with examples from the activities of Russian NGO and political parties.
     Activities of NGO, related to interaction with political parties:

  • Support to power transparency and protection of rights. Important aspect of interaction between NGO and governmental authorities is the problem of public participation: participation of NGO in decision-making and decision implementation processes. This problem is directly related to the openness of the power, to access to information about its activities and transparency, i.e. clearness of decision-making by governmental authorities. The most simple and effective way to solve the problem is to establish social partnership relations between authorities and NGO. In relation to political parties: thesis on power transparency, on access to information is included in programmes of the parties, which are not possessing the power. NGO dealing with these problems are either law reinforcement and environmental organizations, or analytical centers. Thus, Russian environmental NGO "Greenpeace", "Environmental Union", etc. support YABLOKO in their campaign against import of nuclear wastes, and for publicity of respective information; "Regional Strategy" (NGO from Kaliningrad) closely related to SPS participated in drafting of newly adopted law of Kaliningrad region, regulating order of information submission about activities of authorities. NGO "Civil Control" from St.Petersburg, also close to SPS, deals with protection of right for information and access to it for the population; NGO "Urban Center of Public Relations Development" functioning in contact with the CPRF, supports openness of electoral campaigns, and elections transparency. The largest law reinforcement NGO, in whose activities participate political parties (SPS, YABLOKO, Democratic Russia) are Memorial, International Helsinki Group, "Glasnost" Foundation and Glasnost Protection Foundation, and many others.
  • Corruption prevention. This subject is closely related to the previous one, since prevention of corruption is not possible without transparent power. However, thesis about prevention of corruption is included in programmes of practically all political parties, including the party in power (in this case it is the United Russia). The largest NGO, functioning in the sphere of corruption prevention, are Transparency International-Russia, INDEM, St.Petersburg Center "Strategy". Results of their research are referred to by political parties.
  • Political education. This sphere of activities is in scope of activities of NGO, which could be classified as centers of civil education, and centers of public politics. At their seminars, conferences, lectures, held for leaders of political parties, candidates to deputies, acting deputies, issues of political system, democratic institutes, parliamentary culture, party programmes are discussed. The most popular NGO dealing with these matters are: Moscow School of Political Research, INTERLEGAL, Institute of Law, etc.
  • Working at elections. Activities of NGO covers agitation for a party and/or candidate, organizational assistance (working in electoral commission, observations during elections, etc.). Work can be both voluntary and paid. Voluntary work is the best organized with the CPRF. Such NGO as Veterans' Unions, local organizations of residents (house committees, territorial public self-governance bodies (TOS)) eagerly support candidates of this party during elections, and do this free of charge. Paid work. This is used by virtually all the political parties (perhaps, excluding, the CPRF). The work covers collecting of signatures for a candidate and party list, organization and carrying out of field works. This sphere of activities is covered by youth NGO, mostly comprised of students, as well as special centers of electoral technologies (also NGO, by the way). On the top of that, some NGO (eg. Electress' League, Nevsky Research Center) based on the grants prepare observers over election procedure on the day of voting for electoral associations (the same political parties).

Examples of interaction between political parties and NGO.

United Russia is the party in power, its major interest to NGO is related to improvement of the party's image. The organisation declares its cooperation with TOS bodies, scientific and cultural representatives. In St.Petersburg Mr.S.M.Mironov, the leader of the movement called "Will of St.Petersburg", which is close to the United Russia, declared about "adoption" by this organization of a lion from the Zoo. The party has its youth organization.

CPRF - the party is in opposition (at least declares so) to the existing power. NGO, the party cooperates with are veterans' unions, Society of inhabitants of St.Petersburg during the Siege, residents' organizations (house committees, TOS). The party has its youth ("Komsomol") and children's ("Pioneers") organizations.

LDPR is the party associated with the party in power. The major attention is paid to youth NGO ("Sokols of Zhirinovsky").

SPS - scope of activities of this organization covers interaction with business-structures, including associations of businessmen, registered as NGO. Apart from that, this party is traditionally associated with some law reinforcement organizations. Activities of the SPS on reform of army recruiting attracts student's NGO to this party.

YABLOKO - interacts with women's NGO, associations of housing and construction complex (ZhSK), environmental NGO. The party has its youth division, registered as NGO.

On the top of that worth mentioning is interaction between social-democratic parties of Russia with professional unions.

Special attention should be given to interaction between parties and analytical centers (factories of thoughts, centers of public politics, etc.). These NGO analyze situation in the country and in regions, develop recommendations to governmental bodies concerning its improvement. Some analytical centers closely interact with political parties, develop for them strategies of electoral campaigns and party programmes, etc. Thus, NGO "Center of Strategic Developments" headed by Mr.G.Gref developed the programme for the President Putin and the party, which is now called United Russia. Ideology of electoral campaign for both the President and this party was developed by the "Foundation of Effective Politics" of Mr.G.Pavlovsky. "Center of Strategic Research of Privolzhsky Federal District" supports the representative of the president and one of the leaders of SPS Mr.S.V.Kirienko; "Institute of Economy of Transition Period" known as E.Gaidar's Institute, supports SPS; YABLOKO party uses developments of the Foundation for Economic and Political Research (EPICENTER).

3. Conclusion

  • Mutual influence between NGO and political parties in Russia nowadays is extremely mean and reflects weakness of the civil society institutes in general.
  • Interaction, that is taking place, is either based on direct material benefits of the parties (grants of parties via NGO; financial aid from parties to NGO), or related to the fact, that NGO is a direct client of a political party, usually being a party in power, particularly, established by this party.
  • Mostly effective in interaction with political parties are analytical centers.
 ????i? ??? ????? ??????  ??????
 ???i????? ?i??  ? ????????i? ????i?
? 2003 - 2012. ?????????? ???????????? ?????????
???????? ???????? Stearling Studio


 ?????
  RSS    

 

 ??????i ???????
??????? ?? ???? ?????????Ξ― ????? ??Λ²?????? ???Δ²?

??????? ?? ???? ????? ??????i??? ??????i?????







 ????????

??????:
?. ???, 04071,
???. ????i? ??? 33, ??. 8.

???: (044) 531 37 68;
????: (044) 425 25 33;

e-mail: info@laboratory.kiev.ua

?? ??????? ????i??? View English materials ??????? ?? ??????? ????i???