THE PUBLIC AND THE AUTHORITIES:

    OPPONENTS OR PARTNERS

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