The Shrinking Civic Space in Russia – An Interview with Natalia Taubina
Date published: 21.04.2021
The walls are closing in on civil society in Europe and globally. Human rights violations are part of the day-to-day life of many citizens. These regressions of fundamental rights and attacks on civil society increasingly diminish the democratic space for activism and threaten the safety of its defenders. In this interview series, Hafiza Merkezi Berlin wants to highlight the struggles for human rights and against the shrinking civic space by interviewing the people on the frontlines. In these national and transnational cases, we find patterns of attacks, but also examples of local, national, and transnational solidarity that empower and equip civil society in the struggle.
___________________________________
Since 2012, civil society in Russia is subject to the so-called “foreign agent” law that heavily interferes with the funding opportunities, operations, and increasingly also the private life of those struggling for human rights in the country. Over the past decade, the Kremlin’s comprehensive tactics of fear and its oppression of any critical voices have become a blueprint for authoritarian regimes all over Europe. Governments like the ones in Hungary and Turkey are enacting repressive legislation in order to limit the operations of NGOs. At the same time, Russia’s civil society has increased its resilience and continues to struggle against pressure and harassment in the ever-shrinking civic space.
Sonja Katharina Schiffers spoke to Natalia Taubina, Director of the Public Verdict Foundation in Moscow, for Hafiza Merkezi Berlin about her human rights work and how it made the organization – and likely her personally – a target of the “foreign agent” law.
Natalia, could you tell us a bit about the history of Public Verdict Foundation? What are your main activities?
Natalia Taubina (NT): The Public Verdict Foundation was founded in 2004 with the aim to protect people from human rights violations committed by the Russian law enforcement. From the very beginning, we provided legal aid to victims of torture and inhumane or degrading treatment in the police and penitentiary system. Later, we also began to provide assistance to those who went out to protest peacefully and found themselves arrested and under administrative court proceedings, receiving fines and in some cases administrative arrests. We provided legal assistance to these activists and we tried to initiate criminal cases on the excessive use of force against protesters. But until today, we are not aware of even a single case that has been opened when the police used violence during an arrest of public rally participants and beat protesters, and in some cases tortured them in police stations. No single case was launched and investigated so far. We also actively use instruments like the European Court of Human Rights, other instruments of the Council of Europe, and of course UN instruments; we provide UN Committees, first of all the Committee against Torture and also the Human Rights Committee, with reports and we work on individual complaints.
Broadly speaking, how did civil society in Russia develop over the past decades?
NT: Civil society started to actively develop in Russia during the 1980s, as soon as the Perestroika started, and the first really independent NGOs were created in 1987/88. The 1990s were a time of growth for civil society, which back then became a powerful institution in Russia. Many foreign donors like Ford, MacArthur, or Open Society Foundations were actively supporting civil society in Russia.
At the beginning of the 2000s, the situation already started to change. In fact, repressions in Russia were often put in place just after revolutions in some of our neighbouring states. The first wave of repressions came after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. In early 2006, we had a kind of spy scandal. The authorities alleged that CSOs provided information on what was going on in Russia to British intelligence through a mystical rock in a park.
The second stage of pressure started in 2011/2012, following mass protests in Russia. In July 2012, the ‘foreign agents’ law was first introduced and came into force and the difficult time for civil society in Russia started. Nevertheless, until today civil society in Russia is very much diverse. We have strong human rights and environmental organisations, despite all restrictions and pressure. We have the women’s movement; we have a lot of social organisations.
How did the so-called ‘foreign agents’ law affect the financial situation of Russian NGOs?
NT: If until 2012, Russian NGOs were in a favourable situation to receive foreign funds, since then, many of them, because of the risk to be included in the ‘foreign agents’ list, stopped accepting foreign funding. They became dependent on local funding sources, which influences their strategy and ways of behaviour. Because only being good for the authorities will give you the possibility to get support from the Russian state. Obtaining private domestic funding is not easy in the Russian reality. Especially if someone is trying to get support for human rights work, which does not always have an immediate result and impact. People sometimes do not believe in its success. That’s why it’s possible to get private donations for social activities, but much more difficult for human rights work.
Not having enough support within Russia, many NGOs were liquidated and stopped their activities. If you look at Moscow there are a lot of organisations here, there is solidarity between us, and we support each other. But in small towns you are alone, you are alone under pressure, you are alone trying to do something, trying to survive, and it’s awfully difficult. That’s why especially human rights activity in the regions almost died during the last 10 years. When independent NGOs came under pressure, GONGOs started to grow, receive state funding, office space. Since they are loyal, they receive full support from the authorities.
Another big problem is that so-called ‘foreign agents’ have to submit annual audits. In our particular case it’s not a big deal, because being registered as a foundation we have to go through the audit every year anyway, but for others, NGOs and especially those in small cities, without big budgets, this additional obligation is quite difficult.
Moreover, I should mention that ‘foreign agents’ have to mention this status in any of their publications and if they are not doing it, they face the risk of huge fines. In 2019 the Human Rights Center Memorial received more than a dozen administrative protocols for violating this obligation, altogether millions of rubles in fines, and it’s hugely difficult for NGOs to pay such fines. Because this organisation is quite well-known, they could open a fundraising campaign and collected the funds to pay these fines, but if you look at regional organisations it would not be possible to collect such an amount of money. Overall, the implementation of the ‘foreign agents’ legislation is very much arbitrary, and it creates a lot of difficulties for NGOs.
If you look at Moscow there are a lot of organisations here, there is solidarity between us, and we support each other. But in small towns you are alone, you are alone under pressure, you are alone trying to do something, trying to survive, and it’s awfully difficult.
The ‘foreign agents’ law has been amended several times. What makes its recent updating so dangerous for Russian civil society?
NT: Recent amendments require that not only organisations declare publicly that they are on the list of ‘foreign agents’ but also staff members, founders, supporters. If they don’t do it, they face fines. Also, if a mass media publication mentions an organisation which is registered as ‘foreign agent’, the publication needs to state this. If not: again fines. Moreover, recent amendments widened the notion of ‘foreign agents’, now it also includes un-registered initiatives and natural persons.
Only once the new amendments are implemented, we will truly understand their consequences. But what we already know very well is that they will be implemented arbitrarily. I don’t think that our authorities want all Russian citizens to be included on the list of ‘foreign agents’. The law will be implemented against those who are the most uncomfortable for the authorities, with the aim to create an atmosphere of fear. To demonstrate that it’s not good to be active, it’s not good to be critical, it’s not good to express independent opinions.
The law will be implemented against those who are the most uncomfortable for the authorities, with the aim to create an atmosphere of fear. To demonstrate that it’s not good to be active, it’s not good to be critical, it’s not good to express independent opinions.
How has the Public Verdict Foundation coped with the changing funding landscape? How does the ‘foreign agents’ legislation affect you personally?
NT: At the Public Verdict Foundation, we are still mostly working with foreign funding, although we were forcibly included in the list of ‘foreign agents’ in 2014, among the first 10 NGOs included in this register. But we’re staying with our principled position. As long as this funding is legal, projects are elaborated by us, we strongly believe that this particular activity is important for Russia, and conditions for foreign funding are clear, we will try to get such funding and participate in grant competitions.
Personally, I could now easily be included in the list of ‘foreign agents’, because I am working for a ‘foreign agent’. In that case, I would have to declare on any of my publications that I am a ‘foreign agent’ and I would need to report to the Ministry of Justice about my political activity, which means all my activity at the Public Verdict Foundation. And on top of that, I would have to report about how I spend the foreign funds which I received, that is, my salary. We will see, either I will have to report about all my groceries and café visits, or maybe they become so kind and make reporting requirements less tough. Looking at how the law is written, it’s a huge interference into privacy. My right to privacy. So, what will we face in the coming months? I think life will become even more difficult.
Looking at how the law is written, it’s a huge interference into privacy. My right to privacy. So, what will we face in the coming months? I think life will become even more difficult.
Next to the declining funding opportunities for independent organisations and the administrative hurdles, what other changes have you observed as a result of the ‘foreign agents’ legislation?
NT: A major consequence of these repressions is that there is a division between so-called ‘social’ organisations and organisations working on sensitive issues, like human rights, the environment, HIV, drug policy. For social organisations, constructive collaboration with local authorities is highly important, because many issues can be solved only with their participation. Thus, social organisations became more afraid to collaborate with human rights organisations, because we are kind of toxic and collaboration with us will create risks for social organisations. Moreover, there has been another development in the law regarding so-called ‘socially useful’ organisations which can receive state support. But ‘foreign agents’ cannot be socially useful, according to the law. The law divided us.
In contrast to social organisations, ‘foreign agents’ are not able to cooperate with the authorities at all; the door for communication with the authorities is closed for us. For us, the only ways of communication with the authorities are through official letters, appeals, court cases. Which is still interaction, but I can’t say that it is constructive interaction.
Thus, social organisations became more afraid to collaborate with human rights organisations, because we are kind of toxic and collaboration with us will create risks for social organisations. (...) But ‘foreign agents’ cannot be socially useful, according to the law. The law divided us. (...) For us, the only ways of communication with the authorities are through official letters, appeals, court cases.
How has the declining press freedom in Russia affected your ability to communicate with a broader audience?
NT: Russian mass media has faced similar challenges to those experienced by civil society. If in the 1990s we had independent mass media and most of the channels, even state TV, were quite independent and critical, over the last decade the situation has tremendously changed. There are much less possibilities for us to be present in traditional mass media, TV or printed newspapers. But since the number of internet users in Russia is growing, we still have a voice and can convey our positions online.
How has civil society responded to these repressions? Which strategies have been developed to tackle these immense challenges?
NT: There are dozens of NGOs which decided to liquidate, but in fact continued their civic activities in one way or another. Until the end of last year, NGOs somehow adapted to the new conditions and continued working in new modes. But the recent amendments create a situation where almost everyone and almost every public initiative can become a ‘foreign agent’. If beforehand, using creative formats of activism were a way to avoid being included in the ‘foreign agents’ list, now everyone and any entity engaging in civic activities can be included on the ‘foreign agent’ list. Meanwhile, the parliament just passed a law that will come into force in October and oblige us ‘foreign agents’ to report to the Ministry of Justice in advance about all our programs and activities. And the Ministry will have the right to ban our activities simply by sending us a letter, without any explanation. If we don’t halt our activity then, the Ministry can send a case for our liquidation to the court. Hence, at the moment, it’s quite difficult to predict what will happen with the Russian civil society.
If beforehand, using creative formats of activism were a way to avoid being included in the ‘foreign agents’ list, now everyone and any entity engaging in civic activities can be included on the ‘foreign agent’ list.
Do you think the challenges facing Russia’s civil society are well-understood in Western capitals like Berlin or Brussels?
NT: The last four months I have been acting like a woodpecker, repeatedly warning of the frightening amendments, but to fully understand it and feel it, you have to live in Russia, and you have to be part of civic initiatives. To illustrate, in 2015 or 2016 we were in one of the court processes trying to appeal our inclusion on the list of ‘foreign agents’. I had always tried to explain to my international colleagues that these courts are not courts, but it’s quite difficult to explain that to a foreigner who is used to having a more or less ‘normal’ judicial system. So, after an American colleague attended one of our court hearings, she said that this single hour was much more helpful to understand what’s going on than the thousands of publications and interviews she had read in the past. We are constantly explaining what might happen in the coming weeks or months, but it’s only words. To fully comprehend it you have to be in such an environment.
Natalia Taubina has been working in the field of human rights since 1992. Since 2004, she is the Director of the Public Verdict Foundation. Her areas of expertise include international human rights standards and mechanisms, human rights in the work of law enforcement bodies, including torture prevention, and the development of civil society organisations. Between 2004-2016, she served as a member of the Expert Council under the Ombudsman in the Russian Federation. She has received multiple prizes and awards, including Human Rights Watch’s Alison Des Forges Award, the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award and the Moscow Helsinki Group Human Rights Award. Twitter: @natatau @public_verdict
Sonja Katharina Schiffers is a foreign policy advisor and researcher. She recently completed her Ph.D. on Russian and Turkish illiberal influence in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Georgia at Freie Universität Berlin. Between 2017-2019, she served as president of Polis180, a Berlin-based grassroots think tank for foreign and European affairs. Twitter: @sonjaschiffers