Recent Events in Washington, DC

NGOs, Philanthropy, and the Fate of Russian Democracy

The Hudson Institute

Ariel Cohen, Senior Fellow, Heritage Foundation

Nikolai Gvosdev, Senior Fellow, Nixon Center

Alexander Livshin, Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute

January 27, 2006

Dr. Ariel Cohen began the briefing by noting that political pluralism in Russia has shrunk as political parties have been marginalized. In addition, President Vladimir Putin assumed control over the Duma and the media, especially television stations. The print media, which were free until about 2004, are increasingly picked up by rich businessmen. One of the last independent newspapers “Kommersant” may be sold from Boris Berezovsky to a pro-Putin figure. No anti-government newspaper will be left in Russia soon. There are discussions in the Russian government to put limits on the Internet.

Interestingly, the Russian Orthodox Church is increasingly putting influence on policymaking. Citing an example, Dr. Cohen noted that a representative of the Orthodox Church told him at a gathering in Almaty that the Russian state should promote collective values versus individual right, and made it clear that the Western pro-market values go against those of the Russian Orthodox Church. According to Dr. Cohen, the Church is playing an important role in Russia’s retreat from Western values.

Anti-Western sentiments in Russia have been on the rise since the end of the 1990s with the enlargement of NATO, perceived anti-Russianism in Georgia, perceived drift of Ukraine to the West and anti-Russian moves in the Baltic States. Russia considers authoritarian ex-Soviet countries such as Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Belarus, as well as China. Russia sees the revolutions in the post-Soviet space as the results of “smart American money.” Senior officials of the Putin administration repeatedly indicated that NGOs were a threat to the status quo. This resulted in the recent law regulating Russia’s non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The law requires the Federal Registration Service to register all NGOs (a manner similar to the works of the Soviet bureaucratic system), collect all extremist information and assume other responsibilities. The question that this raises is whether the provisions of this law violate the Russian Constitution. The U.S. is yet to find an effective way to influence Russia and figure out which club Russia wants to belong to. And the debate on this is to continue. So far, the U.S. has little leverage on Russia with the price of oil at $75.

Dr. Nicolas Gvozdev began his presentation by noting that there are parallels between the recent law on NGOs with Russia’s other laws in the 1990s. He noted that laws in Russia are important but it is also worth looking into the implementation of laws. What is applicable to the current situation is the 1997 law on religious freedom, which was a shift from the Anglo-Saxon model to a more restrictive model. The law on religious freedom did not necessarily guarantee such freedom but it was in fact skewed in favor of the increased state influence. What we see now in the Putin administration began during Yeltsin’s second administration. It is just Putin is more effectively implementing what Yeltsin initiated in terms of putting restrictions on religious freedom. Religious groups that were most interfered with were the traditional ones such as Judaic and Muslim. At the same time, self-censorship among religious groups began taking place for fear of invoking the law against them. As regards the law on NGOs, we will probably see great many variants on how Russia’s regions will implement it. The implementation of this law could be messier.

Not many drastic changes might happen after the 2008 presidential elections in Russia. Dr. Gvozdev noted that it was important for the Western countries to press Russia on the rule of law and accountability. The U.S. should be clear and upfront about issues and push when necessary. And the U.S. should not lump all issues together when addressing them to Russia.

Dr. Alexander Livshin’s presentation focused on philanthropy in Russia. He noted that it was a right time to talk about it since philanthropy fits into the current political pattern. It is also becoming important to Russia in terms of developing the country. Russian philanthropy has been growing over the past six years. There are speculations in Russia that several thousand foundations may appear in Russia. However, the state has put more restrictions on charity donations as they may be targeted on suspicions of illegal activity. This is why it is harder to gauge the full extent of philanthropic activity in Russia with many charity groups keeping a low profile lest should they be less scrutinized

Corporate donations dominate Russian philanthropy. Only 8.4% come from foreign donations, which stands against the common belief that Russia is dependent on foreign philanthropists. According to the recent data that Dr. Livshin cited, Russia’s 23 biggest companies gave $1.5 billion as donations to various causes. A lot of money has gone to scientific and research projects.

In Russia, philanthropy is almost 100% secular. Donations mostly go to Russians, as philanthropists tend to be patriotic and nationalist in many cases. None of the Russian philanthropists donated to help the victims of the 2004 South East Asian tsunami disaster.

Russian philanthropists do not work quite well with the NGO community due to mutual distrust. Many Russian NGOs, and there are many of them, dislike rich people and tend to be anti-capitalist. It is a myth that all NGOs in Russia are pro-Western. Almost 90% of donations go to state institutions (e.g. orphanages, infrastructure development, etc.), which philanthropists do reluctantly. The rhetorical question here would be: Why is there growth of philanthropic activity in Russia? First of all, there is a notion known as “philanthropic racket,” when the state pressures the rich to donate. By doing so, philanthropists collaborate and strengthen their ties with the bureaucracy. But over 70% of philanthropists noted that they would donate even without the government pressure. What bothers them, however, is the state instructing them on what to do and where to give money (e.g. sewage works, factories, etc.). Philanthropists feel that they do not want to compensate for the incompetence of the state.

Over 60% of philanthropic donations go to support the regions, mainly to develop infrastructure. Russian philanthropists say that the state is fundamentally incapable and for that reason they want to help develop the country.

How does philanthropy fit into the logic of government centralization? The Russian government is willing to assume more control over philanthropy and make it centralized. It is important that this does not happen. It is already difficult to make individual donations and it may become more so if philanthropists are heavily regulated. Philanthropy may increasingly become part of Russia’s current paternalistic and centralized political model. Since the Russian authorities see corporate and individual donations as part of the obligation to the government, a “governmentalization” of philanthropy might happen over time. But it may not affect the pattern of philanthropy. It should be stressed that the afore-mentioned NGO law will have a minor effect on Russian philanthropy. However, it will affect foreign donations coming to Russia.

Dr. ARIEL COHEN is senior research fellow for Russia and Eurasia Studies and International Energy Security at the Heritage Foundation. Dr. NIKOLAI GVOSDEV is editor of The National Interest and a senior fellow for strategic studies at The Nixon Center. Dr. ALEXANDER LIVSHIN, professor at the School of Public Administration, Moscow State University, is a visiting fellow at Hudson.