World Movement for Democracy in
Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia
Spotlight on NGO Work in Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia
Interview with Yuri Dzhibladze, President of the Center for Development of Democracy and Human Rights in Moscow, Russia, and Steering Committee Member for the World Movement for Democracy
Q: Please tell us when and how your organization was established, and what its mission is?
The Center was established exactly five years ago in July 1998. It was immediately after I returned home after spending two years in New York doing my master's degree at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. I was thinking a lot then about a problem of the "missing link" in Russian civil society: the inability of civic organizations to play an active role in democratic transformation and to influence public policy. Civil society has come a long way in Russia since its emergence in the late 1980s-early 1990s when the Soviet Union collapsed and many thousands of small and larger NGOs emerged. Over the years, they have become quite effective in responding to the challenges of the transition to a market economy by providing essential assistance to the needy, especially in the areas where the state has not or has not wanted to act.
We civic activists had rather idealistic illusions in the early days of post-communist Russia. We believed that social movements and NGOs would play a key role in transforming the nation into a democracy and that the Russian public would turn into responsible citizens and would be actively engaged in building the new life. Well, it didn't happen. By the second half of the 1990s, the Russian public became disillusioned and quite cynical about politics and democracy; parties did not come to represent the interests of the public; many democratic achievements of the early days of reform were reversed; corruption became widespread; and a gap between the "political elites" and the public was growing day by day.
What really bothered me was that NGOs were quite isolated from the political process and that most of them focused exclusively on the role of social service providers to various client groups, leaving the public without any channels for influencing decision making on the issues that directly affected their lives. Most NGOs did not see themselves as representing the interests of the public vis-à-vis the authorities and remained quite secluded in their own NGO community. Their virtually non-existent political role did not match their strong social assistance role. In addition, they lacked policy expertise, links to the academic community and the media, as well as campaigning and negotiating skills necessary to influence public policies and make the authorities accountable and transparent. NGOs were not united in coalitions or networks, lacked popular support, and were generally not strong enough to speak strongly on behalf of the public. Clearly, these deficiencies contributed to a set of "democracy deficits" in Russia and the public disappointment in democracy.
These were the reasons behind the creation of our Center whose mission has been, since its establishment, "to support the development of democratic institutions and sustainable mechanisms of human rights protection in Russia by addressing public policy issues and facilitating civic participation in policy decisions." To accomplish this mission, the Center conducts analysis of policy issues in the field of human rights and democracy, develops policy and legislative recommendations for governmental and non-governmental organizations, organizes public interest advocacy campaigns, develops mechanisms and channels of civic participation in policy decisions, engages in dialogue with public authorities and international organizations, provides training and advice in campaigning, and builds NGO coalitions and networks. We believe that the Center supports democratic changes in the Russian political system by creating conditions for its transformation into an effective representative democracy with strong mechanisms of civic participation in decision making.
There are reasons to believe that during the last five years, as a result of the work of our Center and many of our colleagues, the situation has changed for the better and the civic sector has become much more mature, consolidated, and able and willing to act as a representative of the public interest in the policy process. A number of coalitions have been created. Many advocacy campaigns have been organized. NGOs are now actively engaged in policy dialogue with the government on many issues ranging from pension reform to migration laws to reform of the criminal code.
Q: Over the years, your organization has provided professional expertise on a variety of policy issues; has run public advocacy campaigns related to NGOs, such as the recent campaign on the NGO taxation policy in Russia; has developed and coordinated the Russian NGO Network Against Racism, Ethnic Discrimination, Xenophobia and Intolerance; has facilitated a network of Russian NGOs to promote and protect social and economic rights in Russia; has produced monthly bulletins on the legislative process in the State Duma; and much more. How did you set the Center's priorities, especially in connection to what you saw as the leading challenges facing Russia today?
There is quite a lively and regular interaction within the NGO community both through the Internet and many conferences, roundtables and informal consultations. This communication helps us to identify the most important issues even if it takes a lot of time and energy. Also, sociological research helps to understand concerns of the public, although the results have always to be interpreted with a grain of salt. Many human rights NGOs, including our Center, are engaged in monitoring efforts, which provide us with important data on key problems with human rights in Russia, such as torture in the police detention centers, beating and hazing in the army, xenophobia and ethnic discrimination, attacks on migrants, labor rights abuse, gender inequality, difficulties with access to information, and pressure on independent media, etc. In those areas where it is too difficult to have access to statistics or other types of data generated, for example, through NGO legal clinics and consultations, NGOs often have their own observers as in Chechnya. Our work in the Parliament allows us to keep an eye on the legislative process and identify civic priorities there. A combination of all of the above helps us make our choices.
Q: Which of your projects do you consider the most successful and what has been the impact of the project on Russian society?
This is a very difficult question. It is almost impossible to evaluate the long-term effect of our work because there is a multitude of factors influencing the outcome. Often all we can say to console ourselves and our activists is that it could be much worse if we did not do what we do. We understand that democracy building is a long process, longer than our life times; one can never stop doing this work since the very nature of an open democratic society involves continuous critical assessment and change. On the one hand, the situation with democracy has worsened quite dramatically in the last three years since the beginning of the presidency of Vladimir Putin since the state has become much more centralized, authoritarian, and virtually impenetrable to public influence. On the other hand, civil society has changed a lot too, and the strong state of Vladimir Putin now faces a stronger, more professional, and politically engaged civic sector. In that sense, the whole project of creating the Center has been a success because this is exactly the purpose for which it was founded.
Q: What are some of the challenges that your organization faced during its development, and how did you address them?
One major challenge has been to choose priorities correctly because there is so much to do. By going too wide (or spreading too thin) we risk being inefficient and not accomplishing anything. The art of "saying no" to our own desires to get involved in new important activities or to proposals from partners is tough to learn. The organization staff also faces a constant risk of "burning out" as a result of the work overload and the absence of a significant measure of success. It often feels like it is an endless race and an uphill battle. We are learning to support each other, however, to celebrate victories, to value partnership and bonds, and to learn lessons from defeats. What helps when it gets real tough is the feeling of being a team or sometimes of being a family that exists in our organization.
At the larger institutional level, like all NGOs, we experience problems with financial sustainability exacerbated by a very unfavorable NGO taxation system in Russia. We are trying to address the problem by developing legislative proposals and lobbying for them in the Parliament and the Government. There is little support for the work of NGOs in Russia, which, to a large extent, is the result of mistrust traced back to fake NGOs of the Soviet times. NGOs have started to recognize the problem, and recently a number of public outreach programs have been launched. Our Center has contributed to some of those programs. Government is generally ignorant of NGOs, at best, or hostile to them since it sees them as a nuisance or a threat. In the best case scenario, public officials see NGOs as either a low-skilled assistant to the state in social services provision, or as a political resource in election periods. Very few civil servants understand the value of NGOs in a democratic society and are trying to build cooperation with civil society organizations on an equal basis. We are learning how to work with the state in a non-adversarial way, but still keeping our independence, and developing skills and tools of civic expertise, civic campaigning, civic negotiations, and civic control. It is a long process, and we are learning as we do it.
Q: How do you see the work of your organization developing in the future?
In the same direction, but we hope to become more professional and effective, better managed, enjoy more public support, and have more success stories to share.
Q: On a more personal note, how did you first become involved in democracy promotion work?
I have been actively engaged in social movements since the mid-1980s, starting with my work as an anti-nuclear activist, working in conflict resolution, promoting non-violent social change, developing NGOs, doing human rights work, and later participating in the movement against the war in Chechnya.
It has been an evolution for me from a medical student to an activist in the anti-nuclear movement, to a specialist in international law and political science. It took two graduate degrees, meeting a lot of great teachers and partners, and twenty years of learning and development. It has taken some time until I formulated my personal mission towards democracy work, but it is in fact what I have been doing all these years.
Thank you very much. We are certain that your work will continue to help build democracy in Russia and protect the human rights of its citizens.
|
