The problems, involved in the establishment
of the third sector in Russia, are really acute. First of all, because
the source of the counterposition has now shifted from the ideological
into the social sphere. And the social sphere is, largely speaking, an
area, where the overwhelming majority of non-governmental non-profit organizations
are functioning.
This theme is important for us also because the third sector's development
is directly involved in the interests of women. On the one hand, women
are the subjects of the third sector, for their number among the socially
unprotected citizens (the unemployed, the old-aged and the single parents)
prevails. On the other hand, they comprise the majority of the persons,
employed in non-profit organizations. Hence, the development of the third
sector may create jobs for a considerable number of the socially active
women. And the necessary condition for its development is the establishment
of closer ties between public organizations and the state authorities.
Now, are both the parties ready for a dialogue? On what principles will
their relationship rely?-These issues are pondered over by our interlocutors.
UNWANTED SECTOR IN A NONEXISTENT SOCIETY
By Sergei Turkin
The term "the third sector" is being used so widely and is
so important in the vocabulary and everyday work of charity professionals
that hardly anyone ever gives much thought to exactly what is meant by
it and what implications it has for us. Without answering this question
and defining this term, though, I doubt if the "third sector"
can be seriously considered as a social phenomenon, or its role and place
in relation to the other sectors be identified; first and foremost, the
frame of reference needs to be established.
Normally, by "the third sector" we mean the non-governmental,
nonprofit organizations active in the social sphere and promoting and protecting
the interests of society as a whole, as well as individuals and various
social groups. Most often this term is applied to non-governmental charitable
organizations, which form the basis of the third sector. This definition
is widely used in the legal context and removes some of the ambiguity as
to the meaning of the term; it still does not clarify sufficiently well
what "the third sector" stands for. And the question remains
if it is a sector of society, the state, or the economy, which is open
to debate.
LOOKING TO THE WEST...
In the West, the third sector emerged as an additional mechanism for
the state's regulation of social relations. The state became aware of its
inability to solve the existing social problems through the mechanisms
it previously used on both the national and regional levels. Faced with
a real threat to national security, the state as if told its citizens:
"If you want your problems solved, deal with them yourselves; and
we'll do our best not to meddle too much." Most importantly, it did
so only after providing organizational and financial support for the creation
of the new social institutions. The key element in this system was a "sharing
of power," including the financial resources, in addressing the community's
social problems.
The third sector came to be an efficient mechanism for redistributing
the material resources and channelling them into the social sector for
finding solutions to the most pressing problems. The third sector's emergence
may be called a social revolution comparable only to the gradual transformation
of the pre-monopolistic, "wild," "cutthroat" capitalism
into its "people's" variety. No less important is the fact that
from the very beginning, third-sector ideology blended harmoniously the
traditional "individualistic" values, personal pursuit of success,
and laissez-faire, with the Christian values, notably, "help thy neighbor."
It is important to note that the third sector developed in a society where
the mechanisms of the people's participation in social life had already
taken shape and been in existence for quite a long time; the degree of
an individual's personal participation in solving community problems was
sufficiently high. It was only necessary to fine-tune this mechanism to
the social and political situation at hand to get it moving. It is also
important that the state itself initiated the development of this sector
and in fact had a vested interest in it.
SOVIET-STYLE SERVICE
Non-governmental organizations were part of the scene under the Soviet
regime from its early days. Some of them, while officially being political
organizations, were nonetheless involved in efforts to solve social problems.
The party and Young Communist bodies and the trade unions were also addressing
such concrete issues as social security and aid. Were these organizations
a forerunner and a model of the third sector, or were they government structures?
They probably weren't. What is important, however, is that in the Soviet
period, the so-called public, i.e., non-governmental, organizations played
an auxiliary role with regard to the state, serving its political and ideological
interests. In principle, the Soviet Union needed and benefited from such
mechanisms and structures.
As for the charitable organizations proper, none of them existed as
legal entities. The underground human rights groups, as well as human rights
activities, were the rare exception that proved the rule. The state dominated
in all spheres of social life and controlled every aspect of life in this
country. What has changed since then?
FINE-TUNING FOR STATE AND SOCIETY
The post-Soviet state has lost many of its totalitarian attributes,
but its essence remains largely the same-it is still a "Soviet"
state. Its control over society and the individual has been deideologized
and is no longer that of a one-party state. But even so, no drastic changes
have occurred in property ownership patterns, and the struggle for resources
still has the character of a clan war.
The main objective of these "free-market reforms" is to redistribute
the resources and property in as bloodless a way as possible and taking
into account the coming on the scene of new pressure groups and forces.
The powers that be, busying themselves with redistributing property-the
task they give the highest priority-they take their time off to deal with
the other problems and issues only to an extent to which these problems
pose a threat to the physical survival of these powers. And one shouldn't
blame them for this; after all, one can't blame a spruce for not bearing
oranges.
While recognizing the role and mission of the third sector as a device
allowing fine adjustments to be made in the varied relations between the
state and society as a whole, we still need to make the point that so far
Russia has nothing like a deep-seated democratic tradition of the participation
of all the social groups from all the strata of society in decision-making
on social development. Society and the government structures exist as if
in parallel worlds; the independence of the latter from public opinion
and sentiments in society is well-nigh absolute.
Another important aspect of the relations with the authorities concerns
the methods of government, which were and still are purely administrative.
There is and never will be any competitiveness in the distribution of the
government's aid to charitable organizations. Personnel is selected on
the basis of personal loyalty rather than professional ability and skills;
the distribution of resources is based entirely on "good standing"
and mutual benefit.
That is why there's no use complaining that the bureaucrats work with
what might be called a "limited contingent" of charitable foundations.
It's far more productive to consider the question if one should get involved
in games with the state on its terms at all, and if such "synergy"
can create practical benefits for society.
The "third sector" in Russia shows a pronounced tendency
towards becoming a part of the government machine in that it assiduously
emulates and replicates all of its deficiencies. There are two ways one
can take in their dealings with the power structures: go along or go it
alone. If the powers that be are doomed in political terms, does it make
any sense to enter into an alliance with it-and get one's share of the
blame when the day comes, for what one did together with the authorities.
It doesn't make any more sense to create democratic institutions without
making a serious effort to reform the Soviet system. If we seek to avoid
integrating into this system, we need to clearly draw a line we wouldn't
like to cross, and keep our distance, deciding how to influence the government
and state from that distance.
The character of today's Russian state is such that any sharing-out
of power to anyone is totally out of the question. The distribution of
resources and privileges follows an administrative and bureaucratic pattern;
do not expect that the state will open the doors to this established system-for
instance, that of social security-wide for the nonprofit organizations.
The memory is sill fresh of the way a number of bills on the social protection
of veterans and retired people were moved through the State Duma. There
is still a very long way to go to real competition with the government
in this sphere.
That is why the non-governmental organizations need to be fully aware
of the fact that it's useless to speak of the creation of the "third
sector" in Russia. The state is not yet ready for it. It shows absolutely
no signs of recognition of the need to put in motion any mechanisms allowing
it to take into account the whole spectrum of social interests. By the
same token, it's not going to accept the model where the three sectors
occupy their own niches. A fully developed third sector is one of the attributes
of a democratic society. It does not exist in Russia though, and the authorities
have no serious intention of creating it. It should also be noted that
it is not altogether correct to conclude from this situation that a "third
sector" needs to be developed in Russia, on the grounds that Russia
has a parliament and president. It would also be inaccurate to develop
the theory of man's evolution from the ape only on the premise that there
is a certain resemblance between them.
THE SOLUTION: INDEPENDENCE
For the non-governmental organizations, the way out of this no-win
situation may be in non-alliance with the government; they shouldn't bear
unnecessary responsibility for its inefficient social policy and should
not allow it to make a scapegoat of them if and when yet another social
explosion occurs (this tendency is already in sight). Instead, they should
pursue a social policy that is fully independent from that of the state.
My answer to the question if the state needs the third sector is a resounding
"No". On the other hand, the answer to the question if society
needs it, and if it does, what kind of "third sector" should
there be, is based entirely on the real needs of this society. But that
is a major subject in its own right.
We've asked Evgenia Alexeyeva and Elena Topoleva, the leaders of
two successfully operating non-govemental non-profit organizations, to
comment on Sergei Turkin's conclusions.
How would you explain the recently shown interest of non-govemental
non-profit organizations in developing closer relations with the state
authorities? And what, do you think, has made the state to respond?
Evgenia Alexeyeva:
The third sector has become a niche for most people, taking part in
the non-profit organizations. But to engage in their favourite activity
for moral satisfaction alone is a luxury, which far from everybody can
afford. For people need the means of subsistence as well. Today, organizations
in the third sector of Russia are as a rule drawing on the means from foreign
foundations. But this cannot go on for ever. Our activity must rely on
the domestic resources and this is why we have now turned round, facing
the state. We are not begging for alms but suggest that the means, collected
by the state in taxes, be directly invested for their express purpose-to
improve the life of Russian citizens. Because in many cases, the same governmental
social programs, or a part of them, can be fulfilled more efficiently and
with less outlays through the efforts of the non-profit organizations.
The state, in its turn, has also begun to take notice of the non-profit
organizations. Why?-Because we have gained strength: today we dispose of
our own press and our actions are shown on television, so we have thus
come into focus.
Elena Topoleva:
Far from everything is so simple and unambiguous in the third sector's
developing relations with the state, even though the process of rapprochement
is taking place on both sides. In my opinion, foreign experience has a
great part to play in that the non-governmental organizations have aboutfaced
to the state. In the West, the third sector is a powerful instrument of
civil society and closely interacts with the state. Our third sector has
now gained enough strength, too: it has brought up its own specialists
and has evidently grown aware of the need to establish closer relations
with the state, in order to assume upon itself the duties in implementing
some social programmes.
Many people think that the state's steps towards the non-governmental
organizations are connected with the pre-election campaign. The moment
of the election ranks high, no doubt. I am convinced, though, that the
process of a dialogue with the third sector will go on after the election
as well, because the state has seen a real force in it. The author of the
article says the state does not wish to vest the third sector with any
powers. This may be true, of course. But without delegating certain powers
to them, the state will not be able to cooperate with the third sector
organizations. Because in this case, confrontation is inevitable, and the
state will not gain by making a mighty rival in the person of the third
sector.
I've attended a number of meetings of the state authorities' representatives
with the third sector organizations. And I assure you that today the latter
are a far cry from that flock of timid sheep, which they were some years
back. Today they know how to make others listen to them, they speak like
real professionals and they clearly and competently express the interests
of those, for whom the social programs are in fact intended.
A wave for passing local laws on the Social Order has recently swept
across Russia; this is the mechanism for distributing the powers and the
means on the competitive basis. In Nizhni Novgorod it was decided, with
full support from the regional administration, to approve the decision
of the Nizhni Novgorod conference of the third sector on the need to draft
a Law on the Social Order. It is being worked on in Moscow as well, and
mind you, the "contract" on preparing this draft law was given
to a public organization-to the "No to Alcoholism and Drug Addiction"
Charity Fund. Meanwhile, in Ekaterinburg, the Law on the Social Partnership
was passed.
How great, in your opinion,is the threat that the third sector
organizations may undergo "etatization" as they are getting closer
to the state? In particular, if the budgetary means are allocated to them?
Evgenia Alexeyeva:
This rapprochement may come up against underwater reefs, of course,
because the state authorities are inclined to see the means, intended for
a competitive distribution among the third sector organizations, as their
own. Hence, they may try to "override" those non-governmental
non-profit organizations, which receive the budgetary financing for their
programs. The third sector must be on the alert and must clearly realize,
what is such kind of cooperation fraught with. And we should not forget
either that the money, which the state allocates for the third sector programs,
is the people's money, taken in taxes out of your and my pocket.
In the developed civil society, it is possible to exert public
control over the state policy. Do you see any shifts in this direction
in this country?
Elena Topoleva:
Control mechanisms here are in a regular plight. All of us are waiting
with abated breath for the results of the presidential election. And after
the election, the main task, faced by the third sector, will be to identify
and to adjust the mechanism of public control. This mechanism must enable
the public organizations not only to react instantly to the authorities'
actions, but to exert an impact on the broad public circles and to raise
such a powerful wave of public opinion that the authorities will be forced
to take it into consideration.
We've turned with the same request to Lyudmila Shvetsova, head of
the Department of Public in Interregional Relations in the goverment of
Moscow.
How would you explain the recently shown interest of non-govemental
non-profit organizations in developing closer relations with the state
authorities? And what, do you think, has made the state to respond?
Lyudmila Shvetsova:
This process is manifestly rooted in the laws of social development.
There was no third sector as such in the setting of the totalitarian state.
There existed some public organizations, of course-but only a few, just
one for a population category; they represented the interests of the respective
population category in certain conventional forms and were entrusted with
implementing various governmental programs. For these programs, certain
means were allocated and concrete goals were set.
The democratic transformations have triggered the setting up of a civil
society here. The Law on Public Organizations, passed by the USSR Supreme
Soviet in 1991, was its first sign. After this law was adopted, the first
public organizations and somewhat later, the non-profit organizations,
slightly different from the classical public organizations, began to mushroom.
Today there are already 5,000 public organizations and about 10,000 non-profit
ones in Moscow.
Their massive appearance was, on the one hand, a protest against the
prohibitions regime and a tribute to the newly won freedom. On the other
hand, they created a space, in which many of those, who lost a job or were
forced out of it after the notorious changes in the economy, or, on the
contrary, those, who wished to prove their own worth, could realize their
ambitions (in the good sense of the word). Some of these organizations
were practically set up around a concrete personality.
When a great number of such organizations came into being, they began
to divide the spheres of influence; a kind of the rivalry appeared and
the desire to consolidate in a single information space. At the same time,
they began to realize that neither these organizations, nor their cause
can survive by only counterposing themselves to the state, without a normal
dialogue and without joint programmes. So an interest in and the wish to
cooperate with the state has emerged in the third sector.
It seems to me that the state felt this desire a bit later. At first
it began to manifest itself, where the state bodies were led by the progressively-minded
people, who understood or knew from Western examples, what the public associations
and the non-profit sector are. These people began to take some forward
steps, maybe of a protocol, decorative nature at the start, but then they
developed into a normal cooperation. In some governmental structures, however,
the old conceptual stereotype prevailed: there is a host of these organizations,
but no sense in their existence: indeed, the state is taking care of 5,000
veterans, while they are buzzing into our ears just about 30! This view
on the incommensurability of the possibilities and the results of the non-profit
organizations' activity still persists among the governmental officials.
But this must be done away with and we must turn face to the third sector.
The objective situation requires decision-making on the rapprochement,
cooperation and mutual support-in the first turn, on the part of the state.
First, this is the question of mutual information and a search of the
"blank spots", which could become an object of activity for the
third sector. In a normal civilized society, a part of the tasks in the
social sphere are assumed by the state, which levels out all the categories
of the social maintenance. And the non-profit sector may single out certain
groups among them and tackle their problems in a specific way. Second,
the non-profit organizations' programs may be proposed for contests and
may win grants or the other kinds of the financial and organizational support
from the government. Third, this may amount to delegating powers to the
non-profit sector for dealing with certain problems. In Moscow, for example,
it may be the issue of creating the trusteeship zones. By the way, in the
past Moscow was broken into a few trusteeship councils. All the structures,
wishing to render assistance to the poor, to the unprotected, etc., were
distributed between these trusteeship councils, so that the burden might
be equally shared. I am sure that we shall make use of the organizational
experience of such trusteeship councils.
How great, in your opinion,is the threat that the third sector
organizations may undergo "etatization" as they are getting closer
to the state? In particular, if the budgetary means are allocated to them?
First, I think that a too close getting together is out of the question
anyway. Every member of the civil society must tackle his own tasks and
must try to fulfil them through his own forms and methods. It is most probable
that the tasks, faced by the state and by the third sector, will develop
in parallel, crossing or coming closer at one time, and going wide apart
at the other. Speaking about the distribution of the budgetary means, which
partly consist of taxes (but not only of taxes), I must say that it is
done on the tax-payers' orders. The Government of Moscow is headed by the
Mayor, elected by Moscow's residents. No non-profit organization enjoys
such fullness of legitimacy in distributing the tax-payers' means as the
Mayor. True, to fulfil some concrete task, the city government can rely
upon the intellectual, organizational or any other potential of the non-profit
organization-an expert in this or that problem. The state, convinced of
this organization's competence, may delegate some of its powers to it.
But this is made, mind you, just a single time, to fulfil a certain concrete
task. It is such mechanism that is provided in the decision of the Government
of Moscow "On the Support to Public Organizations". It seems
to me that it will not allow the state and the non-governmental non-profit
sector to be piled up in one heap. We don't need any "pocket"
non-profit organizations, while the latter, in their turn, would hardly
like to turn into a component part of the governmental structure.
In the developed civil society, it is possible to exert public
control over the state policy. Do you see any shifts in this direction
in this country?
The elaboration of proposals for the state bodies, the lobbying of some
decisions and exerting control over the resolution of certain problems-are
all the attributes of a civil society. Public organizations are taking
part in working over the issues on the governmental level and are submitting
their proposals. On their initiative, the issues of control over the execution
of the adopted documents are sometimes considered. It would be ideal, if
every fundamental decision of the government were taken only after its
examination by the public experts. This year, we are going to include into
the program for the development of Moscow a special section on the city's
social development, indicating its goals, tasks, methods and financing.
Naturally, all the above-mentioned components must be included into the
mechanism for realizing the city's social development.
Generally speaking, public control over the authorities' activity is
a normal thing; moreover, the state bodies need it themselves, both to
arrive at correct decisions and to stay in good form...
BACK TO THE CONTENT
BACK HOME