Practically every conversation about civil society inevitably comes down to a discussion on activity of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Notably, not all NGOs, not just any NGO, but several dozen large and well publicized ones specializing in human rights protection, environmental protection, and the protection of consumers' rights and interests of individual social groups.
In purely theoretical terms, the term "civil society" covers organized activity of people in
the social, cultural, legal, and other areas that is not intended to gain profit and is not subject to direct control of the state. Correspondingly, civil society components are not only and not so much officially registered NGOs, whose names are frequently mentioned in public, as numerous "interest groups," which permanently emerge and fall apart, usually attracting no public attention.
In addition, the large, high-status NGOs objectively become a kind of intermediary between all other NGOs and the aforementioned "interest groups" on the one hand and the state, on the other. This inevitably creates the identification of the "big players" with the whole civil society and transformation of the leaders into a certain kind of "civil-society elite," which, for its part, converts its status into political influence, signs of respect, and banknotes.
This is, certainly, in addition to the fact that the authorities often use NGOs in their own and foreign countries to pursue various tasks, sometimes quite special ones... Quite a popular opinion is that the "professional public activist" is, at best, a PR person or, at worst, a crook. It is not so. As a rule, human rights activists do protect citizens from lawlessness, while "environmentalists" go after those who contaminate environment and "automobile activists" after the GIBDD (State Inspectorate for Road Traffic Safety). It is also true, however, that they sometimes also "fix" grants, take PR contracts (from politicians and businessmen), and do not shun blackmail. You could sigh about this fact and recall that every coin has two sides and that man is not perfect. But why?
The real problem is elsewhere. Historically, most of our "civil-society elite" has been mistrustful of or hostile to the state. Why? Western governments and philanthropists generously invested and still invest in Russian civil society, in the aforementioned "big players." Of course, their involvement sometimes is quite useful. However, you cannot ignore the fact that they are interested above all in expanding and maintaining their influence. This is coupled with the liberal and, consequently, anti-state views of a considerable group of "professional public activists," the dissident background of some "elite activists," and their relations with former oligarchs.
Three years ago, when the Public Chamber was established, a serious effort was launched to bridge the gap between the state and civil society. Last Tuesday (22 January), in his speech at the Second Civil Forum, presidential candidate Dmitriy Medvedev recalled that NGOs have two paths of further development. One is "tough, whereby they are in the opposition, being in fact in the state of conflict with the state." The other one is "real, hard work with people to protect their rights and uphold civil freedoms."
In other words, the second path provides for cooperation with the state. Basically, many NGOs have already made their choice. The rest of them will soon have to determine their position as well. After all, no one will extend their hand of friendship for ever.
