Местное понимание гражданского общества в России: определение гражданского общества в Татарстане

The discrepancies in the assessment of civil society raise the question of how civil society activists define civil society and understand their role in it. While practitioners rarely participate in composing a formal definition, in their activism, they pursue their own understanding of civil society. These local understandings are then reflected in the design of CSOs’ strategies and everyday practices.

In Russia, there are regional variations in state-civil society relations

The Republic of Tatarstan (Tatarstan) has led to many regional innovations. In the 1990s, Tatarstan pursued its agenda for political and economic development, including the support of CSOs advocating Tatarstan’s autonomy or secession.  As a result, Tatarstan was often referred to as ‘Russia’s most nationalist republic’

The article aims to fill the gap in relation to regional and sectoral civil society divisions by exploring how Tatarstan’s civil society activists define civil society. It also helps to identify how these local understandings impact strategizing the role of civil society in governance. Based on qualitative interviews with Tatarstan’s civil society activists, the article discusses different approaches to defining civil society. The analysis focuses on three major themes that emerged from the data:

(1) the two contesting definitions of civil society;

(2) how these varying understandings reflect and promote the existing divisions within Tatarstan’s civil society sector;

(3) an overarching agreement over civil society’s functions despite the differences in its assessment.

This research project was designed as a qualitative study of civil society in Tatarstan and was based on 35 semi-structured open-ended interviews with civil society activists. Participants were recruited from diverse civil society groups working in various areas. The study focused on the local experiences of civil society activists and did not aim to provide a comprehensive comparative analysis of other Russian settings, although the research participants occasionally chose to juxtapose their organisations with CSOs outside of Tatarstan. The participants were encouraged to share their own understanding of civil society by either defining it or providing examples of the work of Tatarstan’s civil society groups. Although the term civil society as grazhdanskoe obshchestvo was used in the study invitation, during the interviews, the research participants were asked to introduce themselves and, in doing so, to define their activism. They were also encouraged to share examples of civil society activism in Tatarstan. Thus, linguistically and content-wise, the study participants offered their own understanding of civil society. Interviews were recorded and then transcribed; the data were analysed inductively with the use of NVivo 10 software to facilitate data analysis.

In data collection and interpretation, grounded theory was used to make it possible for a theory to emerge inductively from participants’ experiences and stories. In inquiries guided by grounded theory, the new data should be continuously compared with the existing data. Hence, the interview transcripts were analysed in relation to each other. This allowed me to incorporate similarities and discrepancies in the multiple perspectives of the research participants into the data analysis. In selecting participants, I employed purposive sampling, which was necessary to ensure anonymity, and balanced the representation of age, gender, and ethnicity. Out of 35 respondents, 16 were Russian, 15 were Tatar, and the rest were members of other minority groups. The sample included 22 men and 13 women. The purpose of the research was to study the specifics of civil society in Tatarstan, thus its findings may be less relevant for other Russian regions.

The study participants represented all the main Tatarstan’s civil society sub-groups. Purposive sampling was used to identify and select study participants. The choice of purposive sampling was primarily explained by ethical considerations. The use of snowball sampling could expose the identities of the study’s interviewees. To protect the identities of the research participants, the organisations that they represent are not named. In the article, pseudonyms are also used to protect their identities.

The research has revealed several themes in relation to the local understanding of Tatarstan’s civil society. All three themes emerged inductively from the interviews.

The first dimension, albeit linguistic, impacted the local understanding of the civil society sector. The two terms generally used to describe civil society in the Russian language are grazhdanskoe obshchestvo and obshchestvennost. As Silvan (2015) notes, the term grazhdanskoe obshchestvo is a literal translation of the English term civil society, which was adopted in the early the 1990s by Yeltsin’s administration and revitalised by Vladimir Putin. She contends that this term does not bear the same meaning for Russian civil society activists who see more value in obshestvennost as the opposition to the state bureaucracy. These two terms gave birth to two different terms for civil society activists in the Russian language: grazhdanskii activist and obshchestvennik. The use of grazhdanskii activist versus obshchestvennik often reflects prioritising advocacy CSOs over CSOs participating in social service delivery.    

The research participants used both grazhdanskii activist and obshchestvennik to describe themselves. The representatives of the socially oriented CSOs and activists who did not belong to a formal organisation used these terms interchangeably. However, the representatives of the organisations with a political and/or human rights agenda used the term grazhdanskii activist exclusively throughout their interviews. This observation suggested that the translated term for civil society remained crucial for organisations pursuing political goals. This linguistic preference also suggested that political activists gave preference to the liberal forms of civil society; this assumption was further supported by their examples; in particular, they mainly named protest groups as examples of civil society.

At the same time, the term obshchestvennik remained a strong competitor for socially oriented CSOs. Many of Tatarstan’s civil society activists avoided politicising their agenda and chose the least controversial term to describe themselves. The word choice also suggests that socially oriented activists focused on somewhat different features of civil society, such as autonomy from state bureaucracy and the voluntary nature of work. For them, the definition of a civic activist as obshchestvennik also implied the unpaid nature of this type of work.

Many refused to describe their activism as work. They saw civil society activism as synonymous to volunteering. The members of such groups often invested their own money into their projects (for example, into establishing animal shelters). Although the civil society sphere was considerably professionalised, in Tatarstan, civil society activism remained a vocation for people rather than a paid job. The majority of study participants named both their activism and paid employment at the beginning of each interview. Even those activists, who succeeded in establishing a formal non-profit and had a salary, needed a different source of income to support themselves. One of the activists, Maria, shared her concern about the future of her organisation, noting that, ‘I have no … material benefits from this job. Young people understand that, thus, there is no one willing to take over my job. But I need to get married [and] have children’.

The two definitions discussed above are reflective of the divide between Tatarstan’s civil society sub-sectors, namely socially oriented CSOs, political CSOs, and independent movements. This division was identified by research participants who categorised Tatarstan’s CSOs as belonging to a specific sub-group.

Whereas the term ‘socially; oriented was introduced in 2010, to label the non-profits that focused on service provision, later it was embraced by Tatarstan’s civil society activists. They understood socially oriented CSOs as organisations that provided services and did not pursue any political agenda. At the same time, the study participants emphasised the differences within this sub-group. They used the term okologosudarstvennaya — near the state — to describe Tatarstan’s socially oriented CSOs and pointed out an affiliation of socially oriented CSOs with the government, especially when it came to funding. Nevertheless, research participants noted that to be ‘near the state’ was not necessarily disadvantageous. ‘Civil society organisations in the Republic, the ones that really work, they are near the state. They can’t and don’t want to live without government support … those organisations that are really strong [and] do something [for people] – they are all near the state’ (Damir).

An overall assessment of socially oriented organisations as service providers was positive by all respondents. Egor commented on the important functions of Tatarstan’s socially oriented CSOs in the following manner:

EGOR: Well, there are a number of community organisations that do not enjoy any sort of support from the government, but at the same time they do not oppose the government. … The Soldiers’ Mothers of Russia [The Committee of Soldiers' Mothers of Russia], for example. This is the organisation where, by the way, men also work. I mean initially it was a women’s organisation, although clearly not a feminist [organisation], absolutely not a Western organisation in that sense. Therefore, they send newsletters, provide pro bono legal support, and help mothers, who cannot deal [with the military] on their own, to help their sons, who were drafted to serve in the army. 

I think these elements [of the Committee’s work] are effective; actually, I see these elements as civil society’s self-organization …. Tatarstan’s practices are also interesting. For example, the mobile phones used to be banned in the barracks …. However, having no connection with home, they [the soldiers] could not tell [their parents] they were abused. Therefore, [The committee of Soldiers' Mothers in Tatarstan] made the case that all the drafted soldiers had the right to have mobile phones.

Political CSOs were not as well defined by the study participants. In fact, this term was ascribed based on their main function of political advocacy, which the study participants emphasised when talking about political CSOs. Activists representing political CSOs called themselves grazhdanskii activist — a civil society activist. Their aspiration was to institutionalise their organisations as political parties. Finally, independent groups were defined in relation to their cause. The study participants from all the sub-groups mentioned independent groups as their main examples of Tatarstan’s civil society activism. Although term independence was not universality used, the study participants emphasised the fact that these groups were not formally registered with the government.

Regardless of their affiliation, Tatarstan’s civil society activists defined the third sector functionally. They noted that the most important functions of civil society included service provision, community building, and advocacy. However, representatives of the political or human rights-oriented organisations often highlighted civil society’s political functions and named protests as a distinct example of civic activity in Tatarstan. For instance, Vadim noted: ‘I think civil society is simply the most politically active part of the society, including voters’, whereas Mark highlighted the watchdog function of the civil society noting that, ‘The most powerful function of the civil society organization is public monitoring’.

In contrast, socially oriented activists emphasised service provision and community-building functions. Egor reported that, ‘There are organisations, which maybe have to cooperate with the government, but they accomplish a good mission… socially beneficial things. I mean those groups that fight for preserving the clean city’.

Socially oriented activists focused on social capital development without connecting it to advocacy. Thus, Anna highlighted the role of civil society in developing social capital asking, ‘Who are civil society activists? Small and medium business owners who have a stable income, who can afford to buy two jars of paint for painting a house during the Tom Sawyer Fest.

These two distinct definitions of civil society emphasised the disagreement within Tatarstan’s civil society sector on the value of advocacy and service provision, which resulted in two distinct definitions of civil society. The first approach questioned the mere existence of a meaningful civil society in Tatarstan by pointing out the limitations of its role in governance. For instance, Semyon highlighted the difficulties of defining civil society in Russia as follows:

SEMYON: It is always a matter of judgement where it [civil society] exists. One can argue that it does not exist anywhere …. Of course, there are small elements of civil society [in Tatarstan] … if we understand civil society as a community of conscious people demonstrating initiative somewhere .... Or should we understand civil society as a space free of government interference? [But] our government interferes everywhere. 

The second definition focused on the freedom of people to collectively address current social and economic issues without any guidance from the authorities as well as the people’s ability to generate social capital. The following quote from Sergey summarises this definition of Tatarstan’s civil society:

SERGEY: Well, I think that [civil society] is the … ability of people to self-organize themselves … into informal groups … which should have a significant impact on the [social] climate in general …. Thus, even the government takes them into consideration. To put it simply, … [civil society is] a complex of the formal and informal associations of citizens based on their interests, which are not created top-down but emerge from their needs.           

Despite the differences in their definitions, the study participants concluded that civil society groups and organisations perform distinct civil society functions in improving the lives of local people.

The findings presented above demonstrate that Tatarstan’s civil society activists had two different approaches to defining civil society depending on the sector they represented (grazhdanskii activist and obshchestvennik). The supporters of the grazhdanskii activist often understand civil society as advocacy CSOs, while those who use obshchestvennik typically focus on social service delivery. However, the two different civil society definitions used by the study participants had a much deeper implication than just illustrating civil society’s division of labour. Both of these approaches to understanding civil society highlighted the validity of different types of CSOs in the eyes of the study participants and their willingness to connect with other civil society sub-sectors.

The differences in understanding civil society’s functions have also demonstrated the lack of an overarching agreement about the role of civil society in advocacy. Political activists also insisted that only politically active citizens should be considered civil society. Several study participants from political CSOs argued that society (obshchestvo) was too amorphous and should not be considered equal to political structures and institutions. Civil society (grazhdanskoe obshchestvo), however, could become the missing institutional structure of Russian society if it is based on the liberal model. Consequently, this civil society definition also excluded a significant part of the population from the civil society realm.     

Representatives of other civil society segments – socially oriented and independent activists — strove to reconcile both definitions and used them interchangeably. This suggests that for them civil society merged a variety of functions, with the leading functions of service provision and community building. The use of the term obshchestvennik did not merely signify the apolitical stance of these activists but also allowed them to expand the civil society sphere beyond formal organisations to include informal groups and movements. Despite the fact that socially oriented and independent activists focused mostly on service provision and community-building functions in their civil society definitions, they recognised the need for advocacy. The independent and most socially oriented study participants were open to building civil society alliances. 

In addition, independent activists prioritised the ability of civil society to generate social capital, and focused on practical ways of using social capital to promote communal support. Thus, independent participants were less focused on the institutional dimensions of civil society and instead concentrated more on the process of designing new civil society forms in Tatarstan. This perspective illustrated the flexibility of Tatarstan’s independent groups and individuals as civil society members.  

It appears that prioritising one set of values over the other is unnecessary. Researchers have argued that advocacy and service provision should not be seen as mutually exclusive civil society functions and can complement each other (see for example, Cortright et al., 2016

An overarching understanding of civil society is necessary for effective interaction between the state and society, protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens, developing civic consciousness, forming public opinion, promoting economic development, and preventing conflicts. The research data has led to the emergence of the grounded theoretical concept of the disconnected civil society. Including multiple voices in defining civil society helps to critically assess the existing terms and to overcome the fragmentation of civil society. More importantly, as research has demonstrated, Tatarstan’s civil society was weakened because the local population did not fully support it. The harmfulness of detachment from the local people can be addressed by attracting public support.

Including the term “social activist” or obshestvennikh in legal acts could be also considered, but only after a thorough analysis and discussion of its content and consequences. It is important to consider the possible risks and benefits of such a solution, as well as to ensure that the new regulations comply with legal standards and principles. However, such incorporation may be helpful to clarify the legal status of individuals participating in civil society outside formal CSOs. This may include defining their rights and responsibilities. Further, having a legal definition could contribute to a better regulation of state — civil society relations and provide clear guidelines for social activists to fulfill their role more effectively.

This article discusses the complexity of the local understanding of Tatarstan’s civil society. The shape of Tatarstan’s civil society sector reflected its political and historical development, which impacted the contesting definitions of civil society activists as a grazhdanskii activist and an obshchestvennik. Local definitions illustrated the division of the civil society sector into political, socially oriented, and independent CSOs.

Ultimately, the study participants agreed that if people had their basic economic and social rights, they were more likely to become active in advocating for their socioeconomic demands. One of the elements that united civil society definitions across the civil society sub-sectors was the activists’ understanding of civil society as a combination of certain functions. On the one hand, the list of these functions demonstrated that the local understanding of civil society mostly corresponded to the functions of civil society outlined in the academic literature (see, for example, Edwards, 2014

The research has demonstrated that civil society in Tatarstan is fluid. Some CSOs become inactive, civil society activists move from one organization or group to another, or they campaign for political offices or become public servants. Further, the research results are difficult to generalize to other Russian regions due to differences in their CSOs’ regional development. At the same time, CSOs in Russian regions have recently experienced similar political and economic pressures, which may make their experiences more compatible with Tatarstan’s CSOs.

These limitations point toward two topics to be addressed in the future. First, Tatarstan’s civil society continues to evolve and requires continuous monitoring of civil society’s progress. The scope of proposed changes also suggests that these recommendations can be revisited and adjusted, or other steps detailed. Second, comparative research of regional civil societies with a focus on local civil society experiences is particularly important. The research has shown that civil society activists are collaborating with each other across the regions. Most of the time, however, they have to rely on their own knowledge and anecdotal evidence. Further research is needed in particular in Tatarstan’s neighbouring regions to understand whether local activists in these regions can learn from the experiences of Tatarstan’s activists and vice versa. The advancement of locally-based research of regional civil societies would provide activists with the frameworks and strategies that they can relate to. In practice, such research can help in identifying the strengths of local civil societies, and in encouraging their collaboration and empowering them to design joint strategies.