- 1 -
European Economic and Social Committee
Study for the EESCCivil society in the EU's four Eastern European neighbour states
(Author: Dr Ernst Piehl, Brussels/Bordeaux)
______
CESE 1709/2004 DE/ET/HA/Ho/SW/JP/MW/GW/MR/NT/ss.../...
- 1 -
CONTENTS
FOREWORD (Karin Alleweldt, EESC member and rapporteur)...... 3
PRELIMINARY COMMENT by the author...... 4
AINTRODUCTION...... 5
EESC reference documents...... 5
Definition of "civil society" and use of the term at the EESC ...... 5
Focus on the enlarged EU's Eastern European neighbours ...... 6
Main points of the brief analyses of the four countries...... 6
Stage in Europe's long transformation and integration process...... 7
BCOUNTRY ANALYSES...... 8
1.RUSSIA...... 8
-Profile
1.1Background, specific conditions and current situation...... 8
1.2Trade unions/ workers' organisations...... 9
1.3Employers' and entrepreneurs' associations and informal economic clans ("oligarchs")....11
1.4Other organisations representing the interests of civil society/ NGOs...... 13
1.5Conclusions and future prospects...... 14
2.UKRAINE...... 23
-Profile
2.1Background, specific conditions and current situation...... 23
2.2Trade unions/workers' organisations...... 25
2.3Employers' associations and entrepreneurial clans ("oligarchs")...... 27
2.4Other organisations representing the interests of civil society/NGOs...... 29
2.5Conclusions and future prospects...... 32
3.BELARUS...... 38
-Profile
3.1Background, specific conditions and current situation...... 38
3.2Trade unions/workers' organisations...... 40
3.3Employer and business organisations...... 41
3.4NGOs as the ray of hope for civil society in an authoritarian state with a president for life.42
3.5Conclusions and future prospects...... 44
MOLDOVA...... 52
-Profile
4.1Background, specific conditions and current situation...... 52
4.2Trade unions/workers' organisations...... 53
4.3Employer's associations and representation of the business community ...... 55
4.4NGOs...... 56
4.5Conclusions and future prospects...... 57
CCONCLUSION...... 62
1.Overall conclusions: general and specifically concerning the social partners and NGOs
in the four neighbouring countries...... 62
2.The author's proposals...... 66
APPENDIX:
-Abbreviations...... 72
-Bibliography...... 74
-Brief CV of author...... 79
FOREWORD
Once the EU enlargement of May 2004, after years of negotiations, was finally "in the bag" people began to turn their gaze towards the new EU neighbour states. Although enlargement will abolish some frontiers, it will at the same time create new ones. They will separate other border regions and countries which previously had close economic and human ties. These new frontiers should not be allowed to divide Europe once again. It was with this objective in mind that, at the beginning of 2003 the EESC began work on the Wider Europe: A new framework for relations with our Eastern and Southern neighbours.
At the time I found it astonishing how little attention the EESC paid to eastern Europe. Intensive and very fruitful working contacts exist with many regions of the world. Only our immediate neighbour states at the EU's new external frontiers in the East had been left out. This is not intended as a judgement. I am convinced that the only reason for this was the lack of an intensive cultural exchange between these countries and the old EU Member States over the last few decades. We have changed that situation now at the EESC, not least because the members from the new EU Member States have brought us new experience in this regard.
The decision to commission the study was the result of discussions with civil society organisations in Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Russian Federation in 2003 against the background of the ongoing work of the EESC's new Contact Group on the Eastern European Neighbours. Ernst Piehl served as our expert during the work on the first opinion, and it quickly became clear that we needed to draw up an up-to-date inventory of "our" discussion partners and of the specific structures and conditions for social and civil dialogue in the countries in question, as a basis for that dialogue. The study was intended to be short and informative, to foster mutual understanding and to serve as an introduction and guideline. Ernst Piehl has succeeded in combining these requirements with detail and critical analysis, which perhaps not everyone will agree with, but which will undoubtedly give us all food for thought.
Karin AlleweldtBerlin, 25 November 2004
PRELIMINARY COMMENT by the author
The study is primarily intended as a source of information and basis for discussion for the European Economic and Social Committee conference to be held in Brussels on 19 January 2005. Both these EESC initiatives are intended to develop our knowledge of civil society in the Eastern European neighbour countries and to contribute to the networking of transnational contacts among the civil society players.
In order to allow time for this document to be translated into three EU working languages and into the three official languages of the four Eastern European neighbours, and so that it can be sent to participants in good time, it had to be completed by 25 November 2004. Thus, the role of civil society in the early stages of the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine, against the backdrop of the decisive presidential elections, could be hinted at but not analysed in all its consequences. Subsequent events have dramatically confirmed the importance and topicality of a subject selected by the EESC long before the historic events in Ukraine.
I should first of all like to thank Karin Alleweldt, who as EESC member and author of the 2003 opinion was the driving force behind the whole initiative and who was always ready to contribute advice. I should also like to mention Jacques Kemp at the EESC secretariat for his unflagging organisational assistance. In view of the tight deadline and the unfamiliarity of the terrain, technical support was needed. For their unstinting assistance in turbulent weeks I should like to thank the following (in alphabetical order): Ulrike Karbjinski (Berlin), Renate Peltzer (Brussels), Annie Piehl-Larue (Paris/Brussels) and Kathrin Renner (Brussels).
Ernst Piehl Lacanau/Brussels, 25 November 2004
AINTRODUCTION
(1)The European Economic and Social Committee began at an early stage and on its own initiative to take part in the debate on the future shape of relations with those countries which, after eastward enlargement, would border the EU. Since May 2004 the political map of Europe has changed, which has also prompted the EESC to concentrate more on reorientating its external relations. This process is given added urgency by the need to ensure that no new walls are put up or divisions created in Europe, but that, rather, a common area for economic development and social progress is created.
The Committee sees its role in this process as that of an active participant, wishing to bring to bear its experience and expertise gained through cooperation with the new Member States in Central and Eastern Europe (CEEC), as well as through additional contacts arising from its work with partner organisations from organised civil society in the CEEC.
Against this background, in December 2003 the EESC adopted its opinion on the Wider Europe Communication from the European Commission, which, at the proposal of Karin Alleweldt, concentrates on the four Eastern European neighbour countries and incorporates the findings of a report drawn up following the visit of a Committee delegation in July 2003. It was decided at that time to commission this study on the complex situation of civil society in the four Eastern European neighbour countries. The study is intended as a preparation for an initial conference to be held in Brussels on 19 January 2005, which will bring together members of the EESC, representatives of the other EU institutions and representatives/experts from civil society in the four Eastern European countries.
(2)The concept of civil society has had a very chequered history in political discussion. It is an old concept which, in the decades before the collapse of the Soviet empire, was neglected, discussed solely in academic circles, before re-emerging as a "re-import" from the CEEC.
Seized on by the dissident/opposition movement in Soviet-dominated Central and Eastern Europe, the concept of civil society, which in the West had been almost forgotten, suddenly became the focus of theoretical discourse and practical political discussion once again. In the debates of the democratic opposition on the authoritarian systems led by the Communist Party (CP) the concept was by turns a synonym for the values of "bottom-up democracy", for a market economy with guarantees of the freedom of the individual underpinned by the rule of law, and for a political strategy aimed at the creation of a social counterweight. Thus, around 1989/1990, it became the "focus of an alternative social identity"[1] and took on varying degrees of importance for opposition movements in all the countries previously dominated by the Soviet Union.
Thus the concept of civil society also became a code for the desired "return to Europe", particularly in the BalticRepublics, Poland and (West) Ukraine.
(3)Admittedly, the variety of meanings attached to the concept and the indiscriminate use made of it resulted in its losing its value as a point of reference in the post-communist debate in the CEEC. However, in the (late) 1990s it (once again) became a key concept in the debates on reform in the western parliamentary democracies at national level and in relation to the institutions of the European Union. Thus it is no coincidence that the Forum of Civil Society initiated by the European Movement in the mid-1990s made proposals for a European Constitution which, via the Convention process, were taken up by the EESC's Liaison Group with the main civil society organisations at European level. The Committee thus exerted influence on the draft European Constitution which now awaits ratification in all 25 EU Member States. In the debates, which are in some cases highly controversial, trade unions, employers organisations and active NGOs have a historic task on their hands, as the draft Constitution is currently highly controversial in some countries, often for domestic party-political reasons. As players involved in finding day-to-day solutions for problems which are increasingly European in nature, it is to be expected that the overwhelming majority of civil society actors will seek to ensure that the European Constitution is not sabotaged by nationally orientated politicians mainly concerned with gaining or retaining power.
In the study preparing for the 2005 conference the practical EESC definition of civil society is used, i.e. representatives of the three organised groups: employers, employees and "various interests", with Group III increasingly also embracing NGOs which are increasingly active in all European countries in broad areas of economic and social activity.
(4)As, after 15 years of transformation, there is an increasing variety of socially active groups in the EU's neighbour countries too, it is all the more justified to concentrate on the Eastern European neighbour countries, particularly as this area includes Russia, the largest country in the world, and Ukraine, the largest in Europe. Given the sheer scale of this area, stretching from the river Bug to the Pacific, from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea, generalisations should be made only with caution. Based on their differing history and culture, politicians in these four countries too have also taken their own approaches to transforming their countries.
Given the common Soviet heritage over a period of several decades in the 20th century, there are similar questions to be addressed, and the four country studies take a look at the differing answers to these, albeit briefly, in order not to exceed the scope of these short studies:
How have these four countries, centrally organised on the Soviet model, with an all-embracing command system, built up and developed independent civil society organisations (not dependent on the all-powerful CP) since 1990/91?
What measures were taken to counter the lack of civil society virtues, such as self-determination, responsibility, civil courage, tolerance and attachment to the common good?
What are the main problems currently faced by civil society players in the four countries and what are the prospects, particularly with a view to shaping relations with an enlarged EU?
(5)In the interests of transparency and comparability, the four country studies each have five chapters:
The current situation of each country, against the background of its history and culture, is described in a brief introduction.
In the following three chapters the organised civil society players are examined in greater detail.
At the end of each country study a conclusion is drawn.
(6)The final section of the study contains overall conclusions in which the similarities and differences between the four countries are summarised and evaluated. In addition, a number of suggestions are made, aimed at the EESC itself and the other main EU institutions, for promoting civil society in the four countries and developing contacts between EESC members and civil society partners in the four Eastern European neighbour countries.
Those involved should not be discouraged by the view expressed by the Anglo-German sociologist and former member of the European Commission, Sir Ralph Dahrendorf, in 1990, that, while the formal process of Constitutional reform would take at least six months and the effect of economic reforms might be generally felt after six years, sixty years would hardly be sufficient to lay the foundations of the road to freedom[2].
CESE 1709/2004 DE/ET/HA/Ho/SW/JP/MW/GW/MR/NT/ss.../...
- 1 -
BCOUNTRY ANALYSES
1.RUSSIA
PROFILE of the Russian Federation (see end of chapter)
1.1Background, specific conditions and current situation
The Russian Federation (RF), also officially known as Russia, is the legal successor of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), which was dissolved in 1991. Of the 15 former Soviet republics which are now separate entities under international law, the RF is by far the largest and most powerful successor state of the USSR. With its land mass of 17 m. km2, Russia is still by far the largest country by land area in the world, although it accounts for only about 75% of former Soviet territory. A quarter of Russia is in Europe while the other three quarters of this enormous country is in Asia.
According to the most recent census, the population of the country is about 145 m., of which some 80% are ethnic Russians. The remainder of the population are divided between over 100 ethnic groups, of which the Tartars, at 4%, and Ukrainians, at 3%, are significant[3] minorities.
The social structure of the RF changed radically with the transition from the Soviet planned economy to a market economy. The economic transformation which has taken place since 1991 first manifested itself in a wave of privatisations. At the beginning of 1992 price controls were removed, which coincided with raging inflation and a drastic fall in industrial production. It also resulted in growing social inequalities in terms of both the structure of the economy by occupation and of income distribution. Some of the most striking features were the growth of a class of entrepreneurs and businessmen at the upper end of the scale and a growing army of unemployed and poor at the lower end. At present over half the Russian population have difficulty making ends meet. The proportion of the population living below the poverty threshold has increased significantly. Monetary incomes are concentrated on a small upper class, and a new middle class is emerging only slowly[4].
Even a decade after adoption of the new Constitution the political system is still pursuing a path towards democracy which is full of contradictions. There is still uncertainty over institutions, with informal power structures outside the Constitutional bodies dominant. Moves towards a vertical and horizontal division of powers have been curbed rather than stepped up by President Vladimir Putin, although he is clearly managing Russia's role in world politics more efficiently than his predecessor. As long as the political leadership, operating within Putin's own version of a super-presidential system[5] influenced by the FrenchFifthRepublic, is not based on political parties with roots in society, bureaucratic clans and groups and economic complexes and oligarchs will remain the driving forces in State and society. In a statement to parliament before his re-election as president Putin promised to promote the development of parties and civil society. However, in reality both seem to be declining further in importance in his second term of office. In political science the current regime in the RF is described as "managed" or "defective" democracy (Russian authors like Michaleva and western experts liked Schulze) or as an "authoritarian system with democratic elements" (Mommsen).
1.2Trade unions/workers' organisations
Among the formal representatives of labour and capital, trade unions have a long tradition in Russia as mass organisations, although during the Communist period they were merely the Stalinist mouthpiece of the all-powerful Party. After the dissolution of the USSR the Soviet trade unions restructured themselves as an umbrella organisation for the old sectoral unions. They restyled themselves the Federation of Independent Trade Unionsof Russia (FNPR). Whereas in the USSR the rate of unionisation was almost 100%, the membership of the successor organisation shrank drastically. Since the mid-1990s the union membership rate has been about 30% and it seems to have stabilised at this level, which is about average for a pluralistic society. By its own estimates the FNPR has some 40m. members; it is made up of 44 individual trade unions and has strong, relatively independent regional organisations. Since 2000 the FNPR has belonged to the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and at the same time to the loose umbrella confederation of the CIS trade unions.
Alongside the old trade unions, new unions have been formed, dating from the first waves of strikes in broad areas of the energy and transport sectors in 1989 and 1990. These include the Independent Miners' Union (NPG). These alternative organisations soon began to compete with the traditional trade unions. Among these alternative bodies, the Social Union should be stressed. It brings together some 1,000 individual plant-based groups. This politically committed, cross-sectoral union has above all attempted to defend workers' interests through advantageous collective agreements. It received EU funding for a number of years in the framework of the ICFTU and its programme for monitoring trade union rights and building international cooperation.