Movement to Europe

Among the signatures of the members of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, who turned to the State Duma with an appeal to postpone the consideration of amendments to the law on non -profit organizations (NPOs), was mine. We believed that it would be correct if the law regulating the activities of the NPO was an examination of the Public Chamber, which consists of representatives of the same non -profit organizations for two -thirds. Responding, including our appeal, the president instructed the new head of the AP of the Russian Federation S. Sobyanin to finalize the amendments and explained in detail why they decided to accept them at all. From a hardware point of view, this is, so to speak, a "draw." On the one hand, “resolving the issue” will still be in the Kremlin, and not in the “chambers”. On the other hand, in the form in which the amendments entered the Duma, they will definitely not be accepted. And moreover, it is even clear what exactly will change in them.

Now, after all this, it has become possible to speak on the merits of the question.

Political problem

The opinion of the Public Chamber - we will be honest - it is unlikely that it itself can become an insurmountable problem for the Kremlin in case you have exactly solved something there. In the end, "I gave you - I will kill you." But representatives of the public called up in the wards had influential allies in this matter - tactical, of course. And their Kremlin is certainly unable to ignore or drive for moza. But, however, not only the Kremlin.

We are talking about foreign funds - non -profit, charitable, research, educational, etc., actively operating in Russia for many years. By the word "foreign" we usually mean "Western", but in our country - especially in individual regions - "eastern", more precisely, "southern" are no less actively operating.

The funds are often cross -border and trans -state. They are far from always the guides of the politics of those states in which their head departments are registered. It turns out much more often that in foreign territory they act not only on their own, but also the opposite of the policy of their official authorities. And at the same time they are not amenable to control on their part - since within their countries they often actively press on power.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with this - in any case, as long as they act within the framework of the law. In a situation where civil society is separated from the state with a thick brick wall with teeth, there are no problems at all. The authorities and the political system itself are the “third sector” (including in its “imported” part) in itself: teaches, heals, preaches, carries students abroad, organizes camps for young people, publishes brochures: yes, sometimes excesses happen - both with brochures and with camps; But even in this case, here, most likely, the issue of security authorities, and not to the State Duma of the Russian Federation.

Problems begin at the moment when the barrier between power and the non -profit sector disappears and he begins to actively participate in social life, influencing politics, making decisions, and democratic institutions. At the very moment when NPOs are allowed to certain real levers of democracy, it turns out that such “non -residents” get the opportunity to become a universal “Fomka”, which allows easily and at ease to hack our political system. Or a stone that she stumbled about.

A striking example is the institution of observers in the elections. The Ukrainian and Kyrgyz revolutions are in many ways the “observers' revolution”, which actually usurp the right to legitimation (or delegate) of the democratic procedure. They are able to change the result of voting to the opposite - for example, fixing violations on only one side; While the guarantee of their objectivity (since no one hes does not yet check and choose) their “honest word” or “kind will” acts. Weak, frankly, guarantee. Is it necessary from this that it is necessary to prohibit the activities of foreign observers on elected campaigns? No. But it must be put in the most stringent framework - it is precisely as an external institution in relation to the system.

I ran into another example myself when I flew to Khabarovsk for a district conference on the election of candidates in the third, regional part of the Russian Public Chamber. I must say, this trip significantly adjusted my attitude to amendments to the Law on NGOs. There, one of the regions has developed a controversial situation where two coalitions of civilian organizations performed by the parties to the conflict - each of them offered their candidates pool. Since it came to the decisions of the “simple majority”, one of the parties requested regional justice bodies: what organizations of the region, in principle,, according to the law, have the right to participate in this meeting? Regional justice rolled out a list of about 290 organizations, after sending letters on which it was found that most of them exist only on paper. After that, a new request was sent to the justice authorities, in response to which the updated list was given, already of 350 organizations, after which the situation was repeated. As a result, the conference organizers came to the conclusion that it is not possible to comply with the requirements of the law.

The conclusion from this conflict: As long as public organizations exist on its own, each in its field, not intersecting with each other and not being presented in social life anywhere beyond themselves, the existing status quo was quite acceptable. But as soon as we try from endless conversations about “civil society” to move on to real actions, that is, to the transformation of the “third sector” into an independent organized environment, which has real weight and can influence politics, it turns out that the uncertain, “no” state of the normative field in this area does not allow this. And any attempt to streamline it, to bring into a formalized appearance instantly becomes the reason for the struggle of various lobbying forces. First of all, those who are most happy with the “status quo” - that is, the actual absence of a non -profit sector as an independent influential part of the Russian politics.

Amendments to the law in their final form should be a kind of compromise. NPOs, including those that are departments of foreign structures, are made by a number of epic liberties, receiving in exchange the possibility of real participation in state affairs, become one of the supporting supports of democracy. Of course, the achievement of this compromise goes today through a power bargain - each of the parties is trying to bargain more favorable conditions for itself, using its own levers: power is an “administrative resource”, NPO - a public campaign. President Putin has already offered himself as an arbitrator; The question is whether everyone is ready to accept his arbitration.

Conceptual problem

Amendments are still nothing more than an episode, the same, however, as well as the creation of a public chamber (and before that - holding a series of forums, starting with a civilian forum). The instructiveization of the "third sector" in the new Russia did not begin and it will definitely not end with them. That is why it is important to understand the conceptual frame of the process.

What does "private", but "unsubstantial" mean? In Russia, this is much more difficult to understand than in any of the Protestant countries. Today we have a huge number of various kinds of "unsubstantial", or rather, frankly unprofitable spheres, which at the same time are recognized by all as socially useful and necessary. Starting from coal mining in the mines of Kuzbass and ending with the housing services submitted from the budget. Yes, their main sponsor is the state, and they themselves, from a formal point of view, are in the interjudice position between the bureaucratic unit and the usual business (though for some reason systematically working at a loss).

If this or that organization is state -owned, this means that it acts in state (i.e., common interests, is financed from the state (i.e. general) budget and produces the benefits that all citizens of the state use. If this or that organization declares itself “private”, that is, represents the “second” sector - this means that it acts in its own interests. Orientation on profit here is simply a form of manifestation of "private" interest; Profit is an indicator of "private" success.

And what happens if the "private" organization refuses to make a profit? This means that it acts, although not in the "common" interests, but not in "own", but in someone else. It acts in the interests of groups, but it is such a type of group that is fundamentally impossible to collect into a single vertically integrated corporation (for example, the national minority, the community of believers, the subset of marks collectors, etc.) is a private, but an unsubstantial means a claim to be an agent of this kind of environment, subculture, work to its development and its interests. That is, she does not pretend to be necessary "for all" (as a state institution) or to act according to general rules, to realize their own economic interests (as a private business). She takes precisely a "cut" that can be anything.

The orientation to unstructured group interests thereby is the main criterion according to which the organization of the "third sector" is distinguished. According to it, the most diverse organizations are combined into one sphere - charitable foundations and societies, professional and workshop unions, confessional communities, diasporas, fraternities, interest clubs, etc. Non -profit ones do not mean “non -binding”: the economy of NPOs is a huge area, cash flows in which are often quite comparable to the “private sector”. Using the energy of collective action, NPOs become colossal force. Which forces the authorities of states to relate to this area with all seriousness.

Of course, group identity is completely not necessarily locked within the boundaries of one state - it is natural to be cross -border for the group. By analogy with transnational corporations, there are also transnational NPOs, and many of them (the church, for example) exist in this capacity for many centuries. The traditions of building relationships with such NGOs in various states have the same long (sometimes very dramatic) history.

The natural instinct of power is to protect against the influence of power, which has an important advantage over you: it is not limited, like you, by your own territory. The natural instinct of transnational NPOs is to use this natural advantage in their own interests. For example, to change this or that political regime. The natural instinct of strong societies and strong states is to use their NGOs as an instrument of global (i.e. imperial) politics. The natural instinct of the weak is to protect yourself from such a policy.

The actions of the Russian authorities (in particular, the same amendments to the Law on NPOs) are largely forced, they are an indirect recognition of our weakness. However, today Russia is far from alone in this confession.

Movement to Europe

Strong states, including such strong ones as the United States, also often graze in front of the Global NCO networks: after all, whatever one may say, al-Qaeda is also a kind of non-proprofitable NGO. But far from always the problem is the frankly hostile to your state and the “alien” NPO like “al-Qaida”. It often happens that the problem creates the problem that arose and actively acting in your own country.

The American foreign policy of recent years is a vivid illustration of the American domestic political crisis. The essence of which is that formal state and political institutions over and over again hand over positions to the structures of the “third sector” that win the foreign policy field, since they lead it much more aggressively and rigidly than power. They offer their own version of the American foreign policy strategy, actively invade a variety of world regions, participate in street and hardware coups, and at the exit they receive a growing weight within the actual American politics. "You cannot establish democracy (which in their logic is a synonym for the pro -American regime) in Yugoslavia or in Ukraine, but we can!" - This is their main message to the State Department, and he, in turn, is included in this race.

At the same time, the American political system itself at one time was concerned about formal mechanisms for protection against foreign influence through NPO mechanisms. This refers to Fara - an act adopted by the US Congress back in 1938 and operating to this day. Its conditions almost completely coincide with that part of the amendments to the Law on NGOs, which relate to the activities of foreign NPOs in Russia. However, their own "residents", i.e. NPOs, established by American citizens and acting in the United States, are required to provide the most detailed reporting - primarily about their economic activities, about the sources of financing, etc. Thus, several goals are achieved at once: the ability to conduct commercial activities under the flag of NPOs is blocked, wash the funds received illegally, etc. etc. The French legislation is even tougher in this regard, where for more than a century, according to the Law of 1903, there is a clear three -level gradation of NPOs ("associations") according to the type of legal relations with the authorities.

In 2006, the chairmanship of the Big Eight was moving to Russia. At the same time, she becomes the chairman, although she has not yet decided until the end of the issue with full membership. In particular, economic issues are still discussed in the format of "seven". The intrigue around a change in the rules of the NPO in Russia is not least due to the fact that the Russian leadership is trying to bring its normative framework in terms of the "third sector" to the standards adopted in the leading countries of the "large eight". However, since this is closely connected with the need to overcome the actually post-colonial format of Russia's relations with transnational NPOs in the early 90s, this will cause great resistance, including forces that do not want to see Russia with a full-fledged member of the “big eight”. And this is far from Western funds that do not want to re -register in Russia according to the new rules (although there would be enough of them), but also the anti -Russian part of the Western political establishment.

And therefore, Putin, in connection with these amendments, is waiting for the next campaign of demonization, almost certainly comparable with previous ones in power, if not superior to them, given the number of those whose interests were affected. And again, the task will again be faced with the task: on the one hand, to create civilian institutes in Russia and the field for their functioning, and on the other hand, to defend from outside and from the inside of trying to turn this process into an attack on Russian statehood and the political system. However, for Putin's Russia, this is perhaps a very typical "corridor".