Sergei Rekeda, exclusively for Vestnik Kavkaza
The development of political processes in the countries of the post-Soviet space is stepping into a new stage which coincides with the Ukrainian crisis in time. “Traditional” political parties which have been considered as the top achievements of democratic process in some CIS countries are losing influence with voters and losing their real weight. I should note that the tendency touches on both ruling and opposition parties, even though there are various reasons for this in different countries: from Armenia to Kyrgyzstan.
Obviously, classic parties are replaced by grassroots NGOs, which have a more flexible organizational structure, need less financial expenditures and often are no-leader organizations. Active working on social networks, paying attention to the youth, modern technologies of working with an audience, absence of clear ideological associations – these factors create serious opportunities for a further growth of grassroots NGOs, especially in comparison with the work of party bureaucrats, when the easiest issue is connected with passing through long and difficult stages of coordination. The principle of “no good deed goes unpunished” is the worst argument for a young man to become a party functionary.
Grassroots NGOs provide wider opportunities for fulfillment of individual initiatives and don’t always associate it with a strict form of political activity. The social and cultural aspects of the activity is much more important. But why do grassroots structures (it is confirmed by the Ukrainian experience) become a driver for destructive processes, a mechanism of destabilization which could lead to very sad consequences?
Today many associate “the NGO revolution” with the West’s attempts to redraw the maps of the South Caucasus and Central Asia. Of course the civil sector is regulated by external forces. Previously the Soros Foundation openly sponsored such projects, but today management technologies have become much more flexible and complicated. Schemes of financing civil sector arrangements are developed in such a way in the South Caucasus that Azerbaijani and Armenian NGOs can have the same sources of financing and never know about this. A European official once said: “We have already settled the Karabakh conflict within the civil sector.” Of course,this is a big exaggeration, but it doesn’t solve the problem for the authorities – what should they do when numerous civil institutes are financed and directed from foreign centers?
In Kazakhstan and partially in Azerbaijan the problem is being solved by launching a social order – alternatives to NGOs from the point of view of financial sources. We believe that the activity of Western countries in Armenia is much more complicated, considering the dependence of the Armenian Diaspora on top officials of NATO countries and their influence in the country.
Russia has a law on foreign agents. Of course, these steps by the state bring some results. However, nowhere is intensification of party building presented as an alternative to grassroots NGOs. The reason is that the reforms of ruling parties have brought no serious results. The process of dissolution of a ruling party in the context of a political crisis confirms that the instrument is useful only for mobilization of electorate during a pre-election period rather than for saving the system from its final destruction.
To be continued
