The Development of Civil Society in Post-Soviet Russia

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIL SOCEITY IN POST-SOVIET RUSSIA SUBMITTED TO ASST. PROF. DR. IŞIK KUSCU-BONNENFANT THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY ECEM SECKIN THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN EURASIAN STUDIES EAS 509 JANUARY 2015 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1-2 2. CIVIL SOCIETY UNDER THE SOVIET RULE………………………….…................2 2.1. The Early Period of USSR………………...…………….......................................2-3 2.2. The Stalinist Period………………………….........................................................4-5 2.3. The Late USSR Period…………………………....................................................5-6 3. CIVIL SOCIETY IN POST-SOVIET RUSSIA………..…...………………....…….......7 3.1. Civil Society in Yeltsin Term…………………………………….........................7-9 3.2. Civil Society in Putin & Medvedev Term…………..…………………..............9-11 4. STATE AND CIVIL SOCIETY RELATIONS IN POST-SOVIET RUSSIA…….......11 4.1. Political Structure and Democratization...........................................................11-13 4.2. State Control and Authoritarianism...................................................................13-15 4.3. The Role of Media………………………….....................................................15-16 5. FOCUS AREAS OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN THE POST-SOVIET RUSSIA............16-17 5.1. Human Rights and Democracy Organizations......................................................17 5.2. Women Organizations.................................................................................18-19 5.3. Labor Organizations and Trade Unions……….................................................19 5.4. Environmental Organizations......................................................................19-20 6. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................20 BIBLIOGRAPHY...........................................................................................................21-23 i 1. INTRODUCTION With the collapse of Soviet Union, Russia is structured as a democratic country in transition period. Scholars who focus on political structure and democratization emphasize the significance of political culture and encouragement of emergence and functions of civil society for the development of stable government. Therefore, the effectiveness of political structure mostly depends on values, perceptions, reliance and beliefs of society which is crucial for democracy. As a newly established country, Russia also needs these elements for effective governance. So that, in the democratization process of Post-Soviet Russia, the role of civil society could not be underestimated. Although civil society concept has not been realized with all details, it tries to gain influence over policy-making process in Russia. Therefore, it is thought that civil society, as defined by Western understanding, does not exist in Russia both in Soviet period and also after dissolution of Soviet Union because there is no space for organization in society as independent from state control (Gibson, 54-55). In this paper, the development of Russian style civil society in Post-Soviet Russia will be discussed together with democratic political culture of Russia under the Soviet rule and also after the collapse of Soviet Union. Thus, in the first two parts, civil society concept will be presented as historically comparative and it will be elaborated that whether there is a change of civil society perception in Soviet Union and Russian Federation or the same civil society understanding continues in today’s Russia as a heritage of Soviet Union. In the third part, the space for activism and effectiveness of civil society in Russia will be examined in the light of state – society relations will be questioned. The role of civil society in democratization process after collapse of Soviet Union and the impact of political structure in Russia on effectiveness of civil society will be evaluated. This part also includes state 1 control over civil society and capacity of civil society to influence decision-making process in Russian politics. The role of mass media and publication for reaching more people and expanding domain area of civil society will also be considered. Finally, in the last part, the focus area of civic organizations will be addressed under the headings of their interests. 2. CIVIL SOCIETY UNDER SOVIET RULE IN RUSSIA Civil society means self-organized and acting autonomously in order to follow their interest to balance state policies. It is autonomous because it separate from state and it based on voluntary behaviors. So, it is far from the vertical structure of state because it has horizontal ties in which people come together for a common aim. It was also crucial in Soviet period but existence of civil society under Soviet rule has different forms and conditions in the early, Stalinist and late period of USSR in Russia. Although it was tolerated in the early and period of USSR, in the Stalinist period, it was eliminated. With the Gorbachev, civil society found a little space for emergence again in Russia (Holloway, 183). Hence, in this part, civil society under Soviet rule will be investigated under three periods; the early period of USSR, the Stalinist Period and the late USSR period. 2.1. The Early Period of USSR The Bolshevik Revolution and some reforms that was brought by it, led to a little enthusiasm to emergence of modern civil society. Establishment of rule of law and political parties gave a hope for the emergence of civil society. Especially between 1905 and 1914, it can be said that there was primitive civil society as an ineffective element. Although Russia was not favorable for independent civil society in the first years of the Soviet regime, only 2 prerevolutionary social organizations continued to operate. Moreover, during 1918-1920, the newly established government imposed restrictions on prerevolutionary social organizations and began to subordinate them under the state control rather than closing and banning all of them. In addition, the first steps to infiltrate to civil society organizations also began. At least three or more party members were requires to implementation of any social organizations in the early years of Soviet Union. Thus, in this period, the main strategy related to civil society was controlled the society as a whole under the Soviet regime through manipulation of social organizations instead of closing these civil society organizations. However, despite of these manipulations, the 1920’s was the golden age of social organizations and voluntary foundations because many various associations emerged and sustained their activities in the society. Both prerevolutionary social organizations and also new ones continued to operate. Even though the Communist Party interfered with the activism of civil society during this period, there was not any major restriction on civil society was not observed in Russia. Furthermore, increase in the number of civil society organizations also could be an evident for relatively tolerance for social associations. However, the Communist Party just controlled and directed the civil society as placing their party members into these social organizations. This strategy did not disturb the organizations because at this time the majority of civil society organizations were composed of labor unions. Other type of civil society organizations like having woman or human rights focuses was not effective. Only religious civic organizations could be counted as influential type of civil society but with the nationalization of church and its properties, its influence also declined (Evans, Jr., 30-32). 3 2.2. The Stalinist Period After relatively freedom of actions of civil society, in 1930’s the various aims of social organizations came to an end because part politics was tightened and control over these organizations and any social movement or protests was increased. In 1928, law on social organizations was began to implemented and all of them either be closed or be taken under controlled the Communist party regime. In the Stalinist period, according to the legislation of social organizations, some civil society organizations was combined in one organizations whose aims and missions are similar at that time. In this way, the number of organizations was decreased and to control them got easier for Soviet state. Moreover, the establishment of any civil society organization was made more difficult. This implementation also led to decrease in the number of civic organizations. Furthermore, the social organizations were replaced by mass organizations of the Communist Party. Through this replacement, the Communist Party found an opportunity to impose its politics on Russian society as a whole (Powell, 79-80). Until the Gorbachev period, nearly all civil society independent from state was banned in the Soviet Union. Some of them tried to maintain their activities and to keep their organizations but they had to work underground. Because they did not have right to express their ideas, they had no opportunity to reach mass society or expand their influence area. Hence, Stalin destroyed all civic organizations in order to prevent any possible unrest or mass opposition against Soviet rule. With the fear of different voices from the society, Stalin preferred to eliminate all kind and form of civil society association instead of allowing them under the control of the Communist Party. So, it was very difficult to mention and civil society formation in the Stalinist Era. In addition, delation, arrests and trials had very negative impact on personal and public relations because these were damage the feeling of 4 trust to each other and these implications of the Communist Party prevented people to come together under a civil society. With the fear of state terrorism, people kept away from to establish or join any civic organization different from the mass organizations controlled and promoted by Soviet regime. So people were shared their ideas only close friends and family because instead of taking responsibility or resist any politics of Soviet regime in a civil society organization was not a priority in the Stalinist era. Russian people tried to survive by finding new ways to deal with state pressure over the society. Therefore, in the Stalinist period, civil society was almost entirely removed by different tactics and implementations (Boobbyer, 223-224). 2.3. The Late USSR Period In the Post-Stalin period, state-controlled social organizations continued to operate and control of the Communist Party on civil society also continued after Stalin. The existing civic organizations were promoted to serve aims of state as a party apparatus. Especially labor unions after Stalin period began to change and their scope of activity increased after 1950’s. Under Khrushchev, union’s tasks were expanded from improving worker’s condition to protecting their rights. However, these unions were still under the control of the Communist Part and their primary aim was the reflection of the party policies. Another development in Khrushchev time was the establishment of women’s council in order to draw attention to problems and concerns of Russian women. Again, this social organization was under the state control because Soviet regime wanted to be sure that women also worked within the boundaries of its policies. Indeed, the main goal to establishment of women council was to mobilize women to workplaces and fabric in order to increase production. At the beginning of 1960’s, the writers and scientist voices began to increase related to environmental problems. Calling attention to pollution in the Lake Baikal can be seen the 5 beginning of environmental movements in the Soviet Union. However, until the Gorbachev period, environmental issues were ignored (Elkner, 146-147). In the Gorbachev period, there was a relaxation process began with restructuring of Soviet institutions. With the perestroika, the system permits to emergence of informal and semi-independent social groups which were established with the attempts of citizens rather than the Communist Party’s initiatives. In a little while, there were many civil society organizations that had different interests and concerns emerged. These changes demonstrate that the first time some civil opposition would be tolerated by the state under the Soviet rule. At the beginning, the re-emergence of independent civil society in large cities was observed in the form of unorganized collective action and some political movements. Then, after the removal of monopoly of the Communist Party and the new arrangement in electoral system, institutionalization of civil society and social movements gained speed and unofficial side of civic organizations decreased. Independent social organizations focused on human rights, democracy, environmental problems and women issue. In the late period of Soviet Union, mission and agenda of civic organizations became clear and almost more than 30.000 social groups were established independently from the control of the Communist Party. The reforms and regulations implemented by Gorbachev were relatively democratic and liberal but some authoritarian applications still continued at that time. Some sanctions were shown as a threat to lose confidence of civil society and oppositional groups. Therefore, the development of an effective and strong civil society was difficult to achieve in Soviet period (Uhlin, 44-47). 6 3. CIVIL SOCIETY IN POST-SOVIET RUSSIA In today’s Russia, civil society is undeveloped because space for the action is limited and formation of completely independent civil society is blocked. The self-regulation features of civil society puts freedom at the center of its function. Therefore, for the development of an effective civil society, independent and free individuals are the key actors. Specific values and norms in the society directly affect the settlement of civil society concept in a culture. The perception of civil society in Soviet time seems to continue to shape implementation on civil society in contemporary Russia. Because Russia is both traditionally and historically more state oriented rather than society oriented, state is strong while society is not completely independent. Still, the civil society concept re-emerged in a relatively democratic regime as compared with authoritarian socialist regime (Salmenniemi, 42). In this part, civil society during the Yeltsin period and civil society in Putin and Medvedev period will be evaluated. 3.1. Civil Society in Yeltsin Term The regime and perception of society have important role to shape and function of civil society. After the collapse of Soviet Union, the Post-Soviet Russian society still has some values and norms of Soviets as a heritage in terms of foundation of social groups or civic organizations. In the Post-Soviet Russia, people began to experience partially independent civil society activism under the Yeltsin’s administration in a changing regime with the hope of getting benefit from a democratic country’s offers. There is a different approach between Yeltsin and Putin administration to managing civil society in Russia after Soviet Union. At the beginning of 1990’s, the Yeltsin administration did not try to prevent free civil society on the contrary, it tried to apply some policies to promote it. Moreover, 7 some small amount of foreign financial assistance which is essential for establishment of independent civic organization was generally overlooked in Yeltsin era (Ljubownikow, Crotty, Rodgers, 158-159). Under the Yeltsin Era, civil society and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) had two main problems. The first one is that after dissolution of Soviet Union, financial crisis in Russia exploded and this financial disruption of Russia led an obstacle for NGO’s and civic organizations to deal with finding financial funding for their actions. Although Yeltsin administration did not discourage the formation and activism of civil society, financial crisis hindered the survival of effective civil society. The second one is related to socio-political change in Russia. Even though Russia’s regime was changed and proceed to being a democratic country, the perception of civil society among Russian people did not change rapidly. Moreover, civil society organizations faced with general and deep distrust to public institutions and continuation of fear to act independently from state policies. Therefore, society was unconcerned and apathetic to form civil society and kept itself away from to join any civil society formation as an active membership. Furthermore, there were not any formal communication channel between government and society. Hence, civil society under Yeltsin presidency was not institutionalized fragmented and did not connect with mass society and also political elites. Only a small part of civil society organizations were supported by Western funding. Besides, the majority of these organizations had rooted in the Soviet period and supported by state but in Yeltsin era, they tried to keep up their existence as independent from state support (Henderson, 14-15). Although there was not any direct restriction on the formation and activism of civil society the challenges that civic organizations faced with made difficult to get stronger in public policies. The constraints to the development of civil society were derived from 8 societal and cultural heritage of the Soviet period in post-Soviet Russia. Thus, in Yeltsin era, civil society was tolerated but the fragmentation of civic organizations limited the expression and transfer of ideas to mass society. Lack of public support also narrowed the influence are of civil society. Thus, despite of foreign financial support and space for activism, civil society could not be helpful to connect the public and the state. 3.2. Civil Society in Putin Term After Putin became president of Russia, state increased its influence in every sphere of social life in Russia. Putin’s strategy on consolidation and centralization of political power left limited space for civil society activism. So, powerful state approach in Soviet time and re-arrangement in Post-Soviet Russia came from the understanding of putting government first rather than civil society. Until the Putin era, the number of civil society organization increased but it does not mean the increase in number demonstrates the increase in mass society movements ended with influence on public policies. Weak participation rate in civil society and social distrust still continued in Putin era. Moreover, the sudden political transition to democracy from authoritarianism did not transform society in liberal citizens in a day. So that, some political obstacles that make difficult to formation of strong and effective civil society were exist in Putin presidency term. In addition, especially in the second term of Putin, government implemented some policies that far away from democratic discourse so authoritarian applications were introduced under the name of democracy. Therefore, Russian society perceived that civic organization and collective action should be realized outside of the control of society. There is a perception related civil society concept that is formalization of civil society is supported by state and institutionalization can be achieve only with the assistance of state. This perception is settled down by Putin administration because independency of civic organizations is not encouraged by state 9 because they prefer to stay in touch with civil society in order to impose aims of state in these organizations (Fröhlich, 372-373). Some political constraints and challenges make Russian people passive in the formation of civil society in Putin era. However, in today Russia, in spite of the pressure and control over civic organization in Putin presidency, their organization structure is more systematic and has expanded capabilities as compared with in the Yeltsin era. At that point, support of international civic organizations and taking them as an example and also imitating their organizational structures play crucial role. Nevertheless, Russian civil society unfortunately is not very influential on policy making process as in Western democratic culture. Instead, it is relatively independent from the state and still tries to express values to create civil society consciousness. Related to Western funding of civic organization in Russia, Putin suggests that they do not serve the actual demands and interests of the society, rather they operate for commercial interest so, their aims are distorted. As compared with Yeltsin, Putin has more directed approach to civil society issue. While Yeltsin government is inattentive to civil society, Putin forms a cautious system in which more concentrated in the strategies of civil society and attempts to shape it in a unity that serve aims of the state (Richter & Hatch, 335336). Putin also introduces some strategies to shape space for civil society without attracting attention of public. For instance, he creates new policy instruments like establishment of Public Chamber in Duma in order to deal with action of civil society and to observe them closely. Moreover, government funds for civil societies are increased and also some legislative arrangements for the establishment of these organizations are introduced by Putin government. All of these changes seem as democratic developments but the underlying reason is directly related to Putin’s demand for reshaping field of civil society and forming 10 them in standardization to mobilize easily if it needs. Therefore, unlike Yeltsin, Putin gives more attention to civil society but he is in contradiction with his double strategies that both promoting and controlling the actions of civic organizations. So, civil society can be operate in a unity and harmony and mobilize for a common cause which may related to a problem that country face rather than focusing different interests individually (Chebankova, 410411). 4. STATE AND CIVIL SOCIETY RELATIONS IN POST-SOVIET RUSSIA Civil society according to Western approach has a mediator role between state and social realm while in Russia, civil society is tried to be directed as being a unity in which all social demands get together and closely followed by state. The autonomous space for civil society is crucial for effectiveness of civic activism but in Russia, relatively free organizations are directed parallel with the hegemony of state. Therefore, there is a disconnection between state and society in Russia. Traditionally and historically, powerful state understanding causes to put society in the second place. In addition, society is there for state rather than state for society. This situation emphasizes that for s strong civil society, state should be strong. As Putin says “Great Russia is a great society.” (Domrin, 202). So, in this part, political structure and opportunities for the development of civil society in democratization process and state control over civil society especially through media will be discussed. 4.1. Political Structure and Democratization The majority of Russian citizens - 58 percent - is consistent with the democracy is the best polity for Russia while opponents ratio is 36 percent. However, this can be acceptable because they may have democratic value but effectiveness of institutions and 11 implementations are not trustable for them. At this point, the most important thing is low level trust of Russian citizens towards state institutions and also civic organizations. Moreover, they are stay away from participating civil society although they agree that in principle; contribute to political and public decision is significant. However, the majority of society is not so much willing to being a part of civil society because they believe that state still does not take any action for creating space and influence area for civil society. Although some social movements and protest occurs time to time in Russia, this distrust environment leads decrease in involvement in civic activism. The Russian government seems confident about the situation in which participation of society this civic organization does not generally go beyond a few protests and ineffective actions of these organizations (Petukhov, 5-6). In the transition of Russia to democracy, the social sphere of people is forgotten. Without doubt, most of the Russian citizens believe that there should not be a democracy in which fraud in elections or corruption in administrative bodies. However, historically, Russian people have not any space for struggle actively against government policies and with the fear of pressure they stayed silent throughout their history, especially in the Soviet time under the autocracy regime. As a part of democracy, it is necessary to increase people their voices to participate in political actions. Because they almost lost their confidence to change what they are opposed to, they prefer to do nothing. Nevertheless, a civil society can be strong only if people organized and protest collectively. There is no civil society, as defined by Western approach, in Russia mainly due to long time repression of the state over society. The polity of state is also crucial to emergence and development of civil society. Although Russia tries to become a democratic country, it cannot be provides active participation of society into policy making process because the state cannot achieve to be 12 sincere partner of society. The main problem is in the formation of appropriate conditions for promoting the environment of a civil society activism. Existing public institutions of Russia do not focus this issue with all details (Sysoyeva, 47-48). One of the important steps of Russian government related to civil society issue may be the establishment of Public Chamber in 2004. President Putin led the way to foundation of Public Chamber in order to make easy to interaction between state and civil society through formation of official framework in which people express their suggestions. In theory, this step demonstrates the participation of civil society in local and national public policy making as a requirement of democratic state. In practice, the establishment of Public Chamber is the legitimacy of strong state. It was designed to intensify central authority against possible strengthening of civil society. Furthermore, Public Chamber is an instrument of state to control civic organizations under the name of consultative agency of state. One of the responsibilities of Public Chamber is making priorities among complaints but priority issue is subjective and this task is not checked by an independent institution. So, legitimacy of the Public Chamber is uncertain and it is defined by some scholars as instrument for state manipulating of civil society. Therefore, the Public Chamber is not evaluated as a positive sign for democratic development of Russian government because it tries to impose the vision of state on functions of civil society (Stuvoy, 415-417). 4.2. State Control and Authoritarianism Authoritarianism of Russian administration is still criticized by some scholars in today. Whether or not Russian government is authoritarian, there is visible pressure from state over civil society through political or legal implementation and structural applications. Public sphere in Russia generally was not seen as important as state from Soviet time. 13 Russian society was depoliticized and the interconnection between state and society was created and also justified by defending strong and united country motto. These dynamics formed conditions in which remove Russian people from political sphere and make them as objects just vote for elections. In addition, in the post-Soviet period, Russia introduced the capitalist economic system together with democratic institutions. This transition has some effects on the society and their understanding but replacing the perception of whole society in a short time is impossible so that, the settlement of democracy understanding both in government and in society takes time (Evans, 46). Another issue in the state control over civil society is the domination issue. In Russia, the state dominated the public sphere in political terms. For instance, state behaves the main agenda-setter in the country and civil society almost has not influence on decision making process. Therefore, society cannot contribute to public policies and no right to interfere with government agenda. State also acts as a regulator of civil society and controls unfairly the operations and actions of civic organizations. So, it tries to form unity in the society to prevent the visibility of different demands in the public sphere. The Russian state also sees the public sphere for getting benefit from them by using citizens’ voting right to get power to rule them. In that process, government distracts the society by adopting some democratic implementations and giving rights. Therefore, the Russian state creates a mechanism in which if there is a compromise between interests of state and society, people feel more comfortable to participate in civil society organizations (Chebankova, 323-324). Another issue in the state control over civil society is Russian law enforcement agencies like police. It seems cooperation between civil society and law enforcement agencies is difficult. The existence of civil society is crucial to contribute liberalization and democratization of the regime in Russia in order to demonstrate how the state became more 14 civil. Most of the civic organizations are directly encounter the law enforcement agencies of the state like the police. There are two ways in the relation between law enforcement agencies and civil society. The first one is that direct cooperation with the state seems one of the alternatives for long-term transformation of the Russian government to be more liberal and civil. Another one is that clash with law enforcement agencies to defend societies values and norms related to a problem is not solved by the state. Many Russians believe that President Putin goes too far in the aim of constructing a strong state but society as a whole criticizes Putin administration for absence of state accountability in other words lack of a civil state in Russia. Civic organizations warn society about corruption in which state officials use their power for their own aims. Moreover, there is a trust cycle which weakens the state due to loss of reliability of state administration. Therefore, transparency and openness in Russia has still long way to go (Taylor, 211). 4.3. The Role of Media With the transition period in Russia, there is some development in mass media which are seen as a tool for stabilizing the state-society relations. Although print media is relatively free as compared with broadcasting, there is pressure over newspapers and journalists. Television is increasingly became the control of the state in the form of censorships or warnings even threats. Freedom of expression is very limited; it may be allowed only private television channels. However, state-owned channels have already covered up the failures of Russian government. At this environment, to voice complaints and suggestions of civil society is almost impossible. Because state manipulation is excessive, the issues related to civic activism and protests generally does not find place in broadcasts. For strong civil society, independent media is indispensable because media is vital for perception management and the easiest way to reach mass society. Lack of efficient and strong civil 15 society causes the misinformation of whole society and broadcasting that supports state policies. (Hale, 315). Moreover, plurality in media is another point to reflect different views and fair broadcasting. Although after Soviet Union, there was plurality in a short time, Russian media is generally polarized between government supporters and opponents. So that, media in Russia is not independent sphere for free expression. Criticism or different views in media are not tolerated so much by state and media became standardized, less free and less open in every day. Majority of Russian public is aware of biased and sided broadcasting and press. In this environment, media fails to support and contribute to civil society in Russia. Dissident broadcasters and publishers deal with the monopoly of power. As audience, Russian society has three ways to choose related to media issue. Either they accept the state policies which are legitimated by media or they resist or they become insensible about what is shown in media. In Russia, number of membership indicates that people become apathetic in every day. Because media is manipulated and controlled by state and serves as a backyard of the state. So that, civil society cannot find opportunity to reach people in order to explain their demands. As media is vital for transmitting values to mass society, it can be useful instrument as a promoter of civil society. Nevertheless, in Russia media is not completely independent, it fails to encourage civil society (Wedgwood, 475). 5. FOCUS AREAS OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN THE POST-SOVIET RUSSIA In contemporary Russia, there are various types of civil society and number of civic organizations increased especially in the last decade although the number of membership decreases day by day. Moreover, civil society understanding is generally weak because the participation rate in civic organization is low and most of these organizations are lack of the 16 ability to mobilize their members. Resource mobilization is another problem in the civil society issue and most of them directly dependent on foreign funding. At this point, focus areas of civil society organizations make different them to each other. For example, trade unions still have a large membership but environmental organizations have fewer members as compared with trade unions. In addition, human rights and nationalist groups are not so much supported by state while environmental groups are relatively tolerated (Uhlin, 152153). In this part, focus areas of civil society in Russia and their operations and situations will be discussed. Focus areas of civil society are investigated under the human rights, women, labor and environment organizations. 5.1. Human Rights and Democracy Organizations The emergence of human rights and democracy groups increased during glasnost and perestroika despite their influences is very limited. Indeed, most of the civic organizations whose interest areas are human rights and democracy are foreign or based on foreign support. The bill was passed related to civic organizations in order to give right to control financially and legally. According to this bill, foreign NGO’s needs to re-register like local civic organizations that are subject to Russian jurisdiction. The bill is criticized by international human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch for manipulation of this organization in Russia. Human rights organizations mainly interest the problem of press freedom, human trafficking, racism, foreigners and migrants and also freedom of speech. These organizations are effective before and after elections. They protests and organized to bring issues like fraud and corruption in elections. However, as other civic organizations, they are unfortunately ineffective to influence state policies (Weiler, 259-260). 17 5.2. Women Organizations In the last decade, the number of non-governmental women’s organization has been increased. After the collapses of Soviet Union, there were some independent women’s group exists but they were not visible in the public and carried out their works generally underground. This situation demonstrates that Russian women are becoming more operative role in public life and social issues and they take responsibility as political actors in society as independent citizens of Russia. Women’s organizations in Russia focuses on wide range of gender related issue and problems like domestic violence, unfair and gender based wage discriminations in workplaces, women trafficking, rape and abuse of women and also gender based linguistic exclusion in media and society (Sundstorm, 209-210). In the late 1980’s and at the beginning of 1990’s, women’s organizations worked in isolation both from each other and also society in general. However, today in Russia, women’s organizations especially in big cities, improved network and communication with another to get to gather in order to take common actions. In this way, they organize broad campaigns and protests by uniting women’s NGO’s to challenge common problems like violence against women with the aim of increasing awareness about women’s issues. Moreover, women’s presence in both public life and political life also increases. However, there are some limitations for collective action of women’s organizations like resource mobilization, raising fund and isolation of some regions in Russia. Although this challenges, number of women’s organizations are growing and progressively awareness about women’s problem, information sharing and also cooperation among women’s organization increase. So, it can be said that women’s organization in Russia is getting strength. Nevertheless, they can be more effective if they can they can increase public awareness to women’s issue through media and reinforce their connection to citizen in order to deal with negative public 18 opinion about women’s movement. So, women’s organizations reach in a small group and there is a common misconception about these organizations regarding useless of these organizations for helping women or radicalism of these groups. In order to eliminate biases towards these organizations and fix bad reputation, they need go to public (Racioppi, O’Sullivan See, 54-55). 5.3. Labor Organizations and Trade Unions Labor organizations and trade unions are the largest civil society groups in Russia but today they are weak as collective actors. As a tradition from Soviet Union, trade unions operate like social welfare agencies work closely with the management of businesses. In the post-Soviet Russia, right of strikes still tried to be prevented by state. Although labor organizations like The Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia is the largest social organization in Russia, polls indicate that labor units are one of the least respected civic organizations. Moreover, economic collapse after Soviet Union led to restriction of bargaining power of labors. For example, number of strikes is very low and these strikes generally against state policies rather than business managements. Therefore, labor organization and trade unions do not seem willing to defend rights of labors. Moreover, their political influence is very low and mediatory role of trade unions makes them as a part of weak civil society (Ashwin & Clarke, 179-180). 5.4. Environmental Organizations Environmental social movement may be the most welcomed civil society activism in Russia because it is not seen a threat for state. So, the environmental movement is most promising civic action in Russia for the development of civil society. Although they are not so much supported by international funding, the number of their voluntary membership is 19 high as compared with other civil society movements. It can be said that social change by rising awareness about environmental issues seems hopeful despite of the fact that state does not consider them as urgent issues. As women’s organizations, they are not very successful to create public awareness in their purposes but they have regular memberships who participate in protests and campaigns. Unfortunately, environmental issues are not much concerned in Russia (Feldman & Blokov, 747). 6. CONCLUSION In conclusion, civil society, as defined by Western scholars, in Russia has long way to go in order to be influential in policy making. One of the most important reasons of underdeveloped civil society in Russia is historical and traditional values and norms that construct Russian society. Because strong state understanding is very important for the sovereignty and continuation of the Russian state, society stays in the second place. Although this understanding changes to a degree, democratic transition of Russia is still not enough for the emergence of efficient civil society. In addition, manipulation and oppression over society weaken the activism of civil society. However, the organized and institutionalized structure of civic organizations is promising for the development of civil society. 20 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ashwin, Sarah., Clarke, Simon. “Russian Trade and Industrial Relations in Transition”. New York: Palgrave. 2002. Boobbrey, Philip. The Stalin Era. Canada: Routledge. 2000. Chebankova, Elena. “The Evolution of Russia’s Civil Society under Vladimir Putin: A Cause for Concern or Grounds for Optimism?”. Perspectives on European Politics and Society Vol. 10, No. 3, September 2009. 394–415. Chebankova, Elena. “The State and the Public Sphere in Russia”. Demokratizatsiya 43:2 2011. 317-341. Domrin, Alexander N. “Ten Years Later: Society, Civil Society and the Russian State”.The Russian Review 62 (April 2003): 193–211 Elkner, Julie. "The Changing Face of Repression under Khrushchev." Soviet State and Society Under Nikita Khrushchev. Ed. Melanie Ilic and Jeremy Smith. New York: Routledge, 2009. 142-62. Evans, Jr., Alfred B. "Civil Society in the Soviet Union?" Russian Civil Society: A Critical Assessment. Ed. Laura A. Henry, Lisa Mclntosh Sundstorm, and Alfred B. Evans, Jr. USA: M.E. Sharpe, 2006. 28-57. Evans, Jr., Alfred B. “The Failure of Democratization in Russia: A Comparative Perspective”. Journal of Eurasian Studies Volume 2, Issue 1, January 2011. 40–51. Feldman, David L., Blokov, Ivan Pavlovich. “Promoting an Environmental Civil Society: Politics, Policy, and Russia’s Post-1991 Experiencer”. Review of Policy Research, Volume 26, Number 6. 2009. 729-759 Fröhlich, Christian. “Civil Society and the State Intertwined: the Case of Disability NGOs in Russia”. East European Politics. Vol. 28, No. 4, December 2012, 371–389. 21 Gibson, James L. "The Resilience of Mass Support for Democratic Institutions and Processes in the Nascent Russian and Ukrainian Democracies."Political Culture and Civil Society in Russia and the New States of Eurasia. Ed. Vladimir Tismaneanu. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1995. 53-112. Hale, Henry E. “Civil Society from Above? Statist and Liberal Models of State-Building in Russia”. Demokratizatsiya, Vol. 33, No.2. 2002. 306-321. Henderson, Sarah L. “Civil Society in Russia: State – Society Relations in the Post-Yeltsin Era”. Problems of Post-Communism, vol. 58, no. 3, May/June 2011, pp. 11–27. Holloway, David. “Physics, the State, and Civil Society in the Soviet Union. ” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences Vol. 30, No. 1. 1999, University of California Press. 173-192. Ljubownikow, Sergej., Jo, Crotty., Rodgers, Peter W. “The State and Civil Society in PostSoviet Russia: The Development of a Russian-style Civil Society”. Progress in Development Studies 13, 2 (2013) pp. 153–166. Petukhov, V.V. “Civil Society and Democracy of Participation”. Russian Social Science Review, vol. 49, no. 4, July–August 2008, pp. 4–13. Powell, Frederick. The Politics of Civil Society: Neoliberalism or Social Left? UK: The Policy Press, 2007. Richter, James., Hatch, Walter F. “Organizing Civil Society in Russia and China: A Comparative Approach”. Int J Polit Cult Soc (2013) 26:323–347. Salmenniemi, Suvi. The Making of Civil Society in Russia: A Bourdieuan approach. International Sociology, Vol. 29(1). 2014. 38–55 Stuvoy, Kristi. “Power and Public Chambers in the Development of Civil Society in Russia”. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 47 (2014) 409-419. 22 Sundstorm, Lisa McIntosh. “Women's NGOs in Russia: Struggling from the Margins”. Demokratizatsiya, Vol. 10 Issue 2, Spring 2002. 207- 229. Sysoyeva, Lubov S. “Russian Democracy in the Vacuum of Civil Society”. Santalka. Filosofija, 2009,17(1): 41-49. Taylor, Brian D. “Law Enforcement and Civil Soceity in Russia”. Europe-Asia Studies. Vol. 58, No. 2, March 2006, 193 – 213. Uhlin, Anders. Post-Soviet Civil Society: Democratization in Russia and the Baltic States. US & Canada: Routledge. 2006. Wedgwood, B David. "The Russian Media in Post-Soviet Conditions." Europe-Asia Studies 1996: 471-479. Weiler, Jonathan. “Human Rights in Russia: The Dark Side of Reform”. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc. 2004. 23