Civil Society from above? Statist and Liberal Models of State-Building in Russia

Abstract

Some recent international exchanges on the development of in Russia can give the impression that participants are talking at cross purposes. Both sides claim to be supporting society, but they often have very different conceptions of what civil society is. and thus they reach starkly different conclusions as to whether it is developing in Russia and whether the state is promoting or systematically destroying it. Since is presumed to be good (civil), such debates often amount to little more than attempts to stamp developments in Russia with a positive or negative label and frequently obscure what scholars are really interested in: the status of state-society relations in Russia. Unfortunately, some commentators have taken the additional step of branding the competing conceptualizations the Russian and of This national labeling has the damaging effect of charging the debate with cultural attachments to the detriment of dispassionate analysis, ignoring the great diversity of thought within both and Western scholarly traditions, and most important, presuming the answer to what should be a question for scholarly investigation: Which forms of state-society relations are in fact best suited to which countries and which environments? To answer this question and provide the most effective policy recommendations, we need to move beyond debates on whether real civil society is developing in Russia. In part, this means avoiding usage of the term civil society when other terms can more accurately and less normatively reflect the analytical concepts in mind. For example, although it might seem clear to follow many Western scholars in using civil society to refer solely to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), (1) this narrow definition does not escape the semantically and historically positive normative implications of the term, which can lead to the problems just described when one encounters scholars who do want something but who tend to see the state as a necessary part of civility. If one is seeking to explain the development of NGOs, therefore, analytical clarity and social scientific progress are better served by simply using the term NGO rather than risking confusion or distraction by invoking civil society. The more substantial challenge, however, will be to focus more explicitly on the three core political questions that are really at issue but are often obscured in present debates: * How do different patterns of state-society relations impact state-building, democratization, and the quality of life of citizens? * Toward what patterns has Russia historically moved up to the present day and with what effect? * Toward which pattern should Russia, based on its history and culture, progress? I contend that the pattern of state-society relations best for a particular context depends on a series of important tradeoffs and risk assessments associated with each. I discuss two such patterns, which I refer to as models because they reflect distillations of important relationships that serve as useful heuristic devices as well as rough blueprints to guide policymakers interested in promoting one of the patterns. The statist model places at greater risk of falling into tyranny while minimizing the chances of anarchy. The liberal model runs a greater risk of anarchy while minimizing the risk of tyranny. The collective selection of model must, of course, be made locally. But the choice should be made with full awareness of the dangers and pitfalls associated with each, with judicious learning from foreign and domestic historical experience, and in conditions where people are able freely to debate and choose between ideas to which they have ready access. To suggest a preliminary choice for Russia, my analysis ventures that a liberal conception of state-society relations is actually most appropriate given Russia's historical and cultural context as well as public opinion. …