Resurgent authoritarianism: the case of Russia's new NGO legislation

Following the protest demonstrations of the 2011–2012 electoral cycle, tensions between the limited modernization efforts of Medvedev and the resurgent authoritarianism of Putin have become increasingly manifest. These are seen not only in the relationship between society and the state, but also in the “para-constitutional” institutions of the dual state. This article argues that whereas Medvedev created an arena for liberalization within these para-constitutional structures, Putin has firmly rejected these policies, among other things by revising the 1995 law on NGOs amended in 2006. Using the perspective of the dual state, the article argues that with the introduction of the Law on Foreign Agents (2012), the original law draft On Public Control (2014), a key element in Medvedev's modernization program, was delayed and substantially altered. Together, these amendments create precarious conditions for NGOs, pressuring their independence by threats of dissolution and reducing the quality of civil control over state organs.     

Implementing Global Nature Protection Agreements in Russia

The article discusses Russian implementation of the Ramsar Convention, the World Heritage Convention, CITES and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The country's international obligations are part of Russian law, but little has been done by Russian authorities to implement the agreements on the ground. Compliance with the international agreements is the result of Russian protection measures that exist independently of the conventions. Environmental concerns have been given reduced priority since the early 1990s. An independent environmental protection agency no longer exists, and the number of inspectors has been drastically reduced. Implementation activities are undertaken primarily by international NGOs, and partly by regional authorities.     

Conflicting Opportunities or Patronal Politics? Restrictive NGO Legislation in Russia 2012–2015

Abstract

After the 2011–2012 electoral protest cycles, the opportunity structures for a broad range of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have been narrowed. This essay argues that increased control over NGOs mirrors a deeper conflict of governance models, which is endogenous to the Russian political system, between bureaucratic modernisation and patronal politics. The modernisation sought by the Kremlin under Medvedev’s term brought a greater demand for organisations capable of fulfilling the dual purpose of public communication and state advisory functions. This required clear legal definitions, areas of competence and rules of conduct. However, patronal politics dictate that NGOs should bow to the state, and be governed by diffuse principles of loyalty.     

Pacts,Parties and Elite Struggle: Ukraine's Troubled Post-Orange Transition

This article resuscitates some of the theoretical arguments of transition studies to shed light on the complex institutional and political developments in post-Orange Ukraine (2004 – 2007). In December 2004, Ukraine's elite agreed to embark on a complex transition involving power-sharing between the Rada (parliament) and the government on one side, and the presidency on the other. The new electoral law was to be based on a fully proportional system. In the subsequent period of 2005 – 2007, two consecutive proportional elections have been held, Ukraine has had several governments, and the Rada was incapacitated for a longer period. Rival elites engaged in a zero-sum game over reforms, and attempts were made to resolve differences by several pacts. This article analyses the post-Orange transition in terms of three variables: the effectiveness of pacts, the need to abide by the transition scheme, and the effect of elections. It is argued that Ukraine has failed to deliver on pacts and timetables, but has delivered on elections. This means that its political system may be considered a minimalist and electoral based one.     

The police patrols and children experiencing domestic violence

Using data from a study on police officers’ encounters with domestic violence victims and a study on children experiencing domestic violence, this article examines how officers decide whether and how to communicate with children in emergency situations, and how children experience these encounters. Officers’ views on such communication diverge; usually, communication is motivated by the need to determine next actions. Children recall little communication and describe officers as faceless, nameless and genderless. The authors argue for recognizing the preventive role of officers on emergency calls. Official policies and guidelines should formally acknowledge and clarify the importance of communication with children.