" For a man who criticizes democracy and democratic institutions there is no need to be their enemy, although both democrats, whom he criticizes, and totalitarians who hope to gain by any dissent in the democratic camp, can, almost certainly, call him their enemy
... Democratic criticism is at the core of democracy It constitutes its fundamental distinction from totalitarian criticism of democracy
... The democrats who fail to see the difference between friendly and hostile criticism of the democracy are themselves infiltrated with the totalitarian spirit. Totalitarianism, of course, cannot view criticism as friendly since any criticism of totalitarian authority puts in doubt the very principle of authority ".
Karl Popper
The human rights movement in the USSR, unlike the majority of social organizations, was built "from below" rather than "from above." The anti-totalitarian resistance movement maintained maximum distance from the authority. Such an estrangement determined its relatively independent development from the Soviet state, adopted any measures. including coercive, to weaken and destroy the movement. The same approach was practised against other unorthodox unofficial groups. Despite the terror, the independent movement was growing and extending its influence in society. It should be noted, that the protests of the movement's members bore peaceful character, and altogether in their actions there were no elements of reciprocal violence. Notwithstanding the spontaneity, the absence of efficient organizational structures and a common program, and a number of other parameters that usually characterized the social movements, independent movement united people who at times held quite opposing motivations, but who strove to attain one goal the disintegration of totalitarian regime. The movement was constantly contributing to the destruction of the very regime it had emerged from.
The human rights movement was in the vanguard of all democratic process, especially in the last decades. The communist elite recognized the imminent danger of complete loss of power and skilfully manipulated the inertia of democratic forces. Having used the material technical capacities, the communist elite seized the leadership and, therefore, secured its ability to regulate the process of democratic transformations. Under the banner of "glasnost" (openness) yesterday's allies of democrats, the members of the movement "the communists-democrats", started switching off " the fifth microphone "1.
Thus democratization of the whole country succeeded the process of its electrification?! The power was seized by modernized party elite, which abandoned the clothes of "khaki" colour for patterned suits of European sample.
One way or the other, the split of the communist colossus came about. The progressive or conformist part of the communist party along with " creatively " predisposed intelligentsia came to power and named itself democratic power. Naturally, there could not have been another outcome. Why? Because there existed no other, democratically oriented organized structure. Therefore, witnessed of the creation of " illusionary " democratic regimes, distinguished by their unusual instability. The present instability is the result of public misunderstanding or, in the best case, failure to understand the democratic values. Many perceive democracy as the politics of USA and European states, imposed from outside rather than the normal condition for a man, society and state.
The external and internal pressure caused not only the decay and destruction of the regime but also the disintegration of the regime. It is necessary to emphasize the distinction in the views of the human rights relating the regime and the state. Thus, some were supporters of the collapse of the USSR, some were against it, still others debated different forms of state structural transformation.
The dispute continues until today. What changed is the object of the dispute. Now it is concentrated on Russia and some other post-Soviet states. Political affections and antipathies gain priority over reason and become dominant in the human rights movement.
One way or the other, all faced the same fact the regime was destroyed and the state had disintegrated. And along with this, the human rights movement decomposed, or more precisely, dissolved in the political noise. However, the necessity of its existence increased as the problem of protecting human rights has rose both on qualitative and on quantitative scale.
The supporters of the human rights movement proved inadequate to react to these changes and transform the organizations " in step with the life ." The purpose of the human rights movement has changed. Due to newly appeared national and social conflicts, new directions in the human rights activities emerged.
The supporters of the human rights movement found themselves without commonly recognized goal, and their split coincided with political, national or ethnic segmentation. The image of a common enemy the totalitarian state has transformed itself into a huge quantity of negative national, ethnic, confessional or political stereotypes. What determined the projection of external conflicts onto the human rights sphere?.
Many leaders of the human rights movement were no more. Many emigrated. Many are depressed and unable to work until this day. The human rights movement ceased to recognize its mission, main role and function for the society. All these factors have predetermined the present crisis. The human rights are not protected on the vast post-Soviet territories. Violence and lawlessness reign.
Blood and tears. Immorality and irresponsibility. Despite the consolidation and increase in the capacities of some human rights groups, and the creation of a great number of new groups, the movement as a whole does not have a role in the development of post- Soviet society.
Unless the process of building a new human rights infrastructure, strengthened by stable horizontal connections throughout the territory of the former USSR begins, the role of human rights activists in socio-economic and political process of transformations will be reduced to zero.
One of the fundamental aspects of the civil society a human rights movement will turn into a fiction becoming one of the causes stimulating the strengthening of the illusionary democratic regimes on the post-Soviet expanses. In many regions this process advances fairly " successfully ". Some day these democracies will explode like soap-bubbles, since democracy cannot exist only under the pressure of external forces under the "greenhouse " conditions in which the Soviet state existed for decades. Democracy should be recognized on the level of each citizen, and not on the level of President on duty, or by the group of temporarily rich bourgeois or pitiful merchants, the majority of whom will disappear at the slightest disturbances. The necessity of democratic design of the state must be clearly recognized by all the parts of the society. And this is one of the basic tasks of the human rights movement.
Exactly the renewed social and individual awareness, loyal to its heritage and able to benefit from the experience of world civilization, should become the product or the derivative of many ages of activity of the society's progressive part.
Unfortunately, the transformation in the mass post-Soviet awareness has not reached yet the level which would guarantee the irreversibility of the humanization process in society.
The creation of strong human rights infrastructure is the condition for market economy. The creation and strengthening of organizations protecting the rights of entrepreneurs or farmers, supporting the democratic reforms in the economy is the most important task. It is necessary to determine the relationship between human rights organizations and private sector. It should be an allied one since eventually the tendency of the development of socio-economic relations will depend on it.
Today many are unwilling to admit that if human rights movement was the derivative of the totalitarian regime. Later, the human rights movement itself gave birth to a new regime or, to be precise, took part in its birth. Therefore, the human rights activists bear greater responsibility to society today than before "perestroika." Many do not want or cannot recognize such a responsibility. Indeed, the human rights activists have assisted the democratic forces in coming to power of, and many of them appeared on different branches and levels of power, starting from municipal to presidential position. The facts indicate that in the majority of cases their coming to power has benefited neither human rights movement nor society. They have not benefited themselves either. Moreover, the coming to power of Helsinki Union of Georgia headed by the former president-dissident Zviad Gamsakhurdia brought Georgia to a national tragedy.
Serious dissatisfactions with the present "democratic leadership" of Russia and personally with President Boris Yeltsin, were expressed at the February international seminar of Moscow Helsinki group. Its statement attempted to hold themselves aloof from the "democratic leadership" rather than affect actions in the interests of society. One could get the impression that they were duped. An offended person is not capable of thinking and working in a normal way, and there arises a question: "What was the purpose of watering somebody else's garden?" Or "Who benefited?" "Planted was a democrat and a member of punitive expedition has grown up". This happens in botany as well as in politics. The experience of the last decade, accumulated in the relationship with power, apparently proved insufficient to demonstrate the true danger of political prostitution, reigning in the human rights sphere.
It is painful to watch the way some activists, risking their lives, confronting the chaos of war in Chechnya while others strive to hold on to their position and even attempt to win in the next presidential elections. With their neurotic behavior some of them seriously undermined the authority of human rights movement as a whole.
It is obvious that any movement, no matter how enthusiastic it is about the ideas of spontaneous development under the conditions of "market economy", has to determine its policy toward other state structures, to the media, to other social movements, political organizations and social groups. In a word, it should be capable of self-government, autonomous development and the determination of its own policy, which would assign it a distinct role in the general development and guarantees its public recognition.
Today one of the painful questions is the question of determining the distance between the two methods - human rights protection "from above", via speeding up the democratic processes and direct participation in lobbying by activists; and human rights protection "from below", - via stimulating civil initiatives and strengthening democratic values in the public mentality. "Sitting on the two chairs" can bring nothing but harm both to the human rights movement and to democratically predisposed politicians. The society needs both. Both must recognize each other and develop autonomously for the public benefit, which by no means excludes their co-operation but rather lends this co-operation new qualities, new strength. This relationship could be expressed in the form of social agreements as well as by common ethnic code. At this the rank of societal human rights protection should not be lower than that of political. Only such a system of relationships can yield results that are adequate to the real needs of today's society.
Some politicians may attempt to use the existing problems in the sphere of human rights protection to attain their own tactical and strategic goals. A number of provocative measures were organized; they aspired to mobilize society, whose rights had been violated, and to make it a political resource in the fight against rivals. This is practiced within Russian borders as well as beyond. In particular, some organizations of Russia, under the pretext of protecting the rights of the Russian-speaking population from the local nationalistic groups, attempt to use social or governmental means even striving to achieve absolute victory at the elections. Growing tensions between Russian-speaking and core nationalities of the states accompany the activities of such organizations, especially in the Baltic states. This situation leads to the escalation of the conflicts which range from personal and daily to social and even interstate. The outcome is despicable - Russian-speaking population remains humiliated by the one side as well as by the other and also by its own recklessness.
The support of separatism causes social disturbances and wars, on the territory of Russia itself as well as on the territories of bordering states. According to non-official sources, there are 30.000 refugees from the Abkhazia registered in Moscow alone, which constitutes 10% of all refugees from Abkhazian region. These people do not have refugee status and nobody is protecting their rights. And this is only from Abkhazian region.
Declaration of support for the separatist regimes under the pretext of protecting the people's right for self-determination leads, in the majority of cases, to massive victimization. Death and blood have become the prices for such a policy which is being recklessly declared and supported by a number of human rights organizations and some political leaders. At the same time, insufficient attention is paid to the analysis of causes for the emergence and spread of nationalism and separatism. Instead, the sides focus on mutual accusation rather than the factual protection of human rights. This kind of activity brings about conflicts and provokes the thought about the necessity of creating ethnic code for the human rights activists that would somehow regulate the relationship between themselves and also their relations with the society.
The trading of the human rights at the political level has acquired a menacing international character. For example, the black marketing of the rights of Serbs, Croats or Muslims is nothing else than the use of interethnic conflicts with the aim of distribution of influence on the Balkans among the major states. The similar polities facilitate the development of national puppet regimes in many new countries. The society is not protected from the tyranny of the politicians. Human rights organizations consciously or unconsciously constantly render these politicians assistance, being thus drawn into the place of political conflicts and new groups of society. Bearing no moral responsibility, they exchange human rights morals for political ones. Nobody thinks that the international court in Hague will sometime be considering the affairs not only of military criminals but also the ideologists who have provoked inter ethnic massacres at the end of the 20-th century. Unless the human rights activists change their priorities, a big tragedy will happen.
Mistrust of democratic values pave the way to new totalitarian society. And it is in the best case. It should be noted here that in many regions the human rights organizations do not exist at all or do not function. And the international human rights movement do not undertake the corresponding measures and, therefore, condemning people to forced fleeing or violent resistance. This concerns above all the conflicting regions of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and a number of others. The efficiency of acting, however, can be very high sometimes. Thus, through the activities of local HCA groups in Stepanakert, more than 200 hostages and captives were discovered and exchanged with the support of Azerbaijanian, Armenian and Georgian groups. All the Transcaucasian organizations could not have reached these results if it were not for the support of international organizations and national human rights organizations of the European countries and the USA Without the serious support of international community, everything could have been much worse. With their support, the new civil network of non-governmental organizations was created.
However, the current mechanisms of human rights protection are incapable of shielding the young democratic society from massive violence. The quantity and types of violations increase with unusual speed. The growth of alternative opportunities of prevention or overcoming these violations is disproportionately low.
The methods of work are old-fashioned anyway. Not all western formulae are adopted successfully. Many of them are simply ridiculous. The traditional spontaneity and mutual hostility are predominant among human rights activists. There is excessive politicization and loss of own distinct face. The image of "fighter" is replaced by the image of the "victim of totalitarianism", martyr who needs help. One way or another, we should pay more attention to the chaos reigning in the movement itself. Disorganized, depending on accidental people, the human rights movement cannot be effective, and the layman is often right in his evaluations. Acting separately, many lose responsibility to contemporary society, which is way too different from the one that give birth to the phenomenon of dissidents.
The loss of independence and increased politicization prevent the human rights organizations from uniting their efforts for the resolution of essential tasks of human rights protection. Unfortunately, born behind the barbed wire, the human rights movement remains incompatible with today's objective reality. Seclusion, isolation and orientation towards politics rather than society, unprofessional participation in the political games, loss of ground after a "dizzy" success, incompatibility with its own philosophy could not have brought other results.
Many consider lopsided involvement in politics a gross blunder. Others consider it means of survival. Not many, unfortunately, think that the politics should be determined by the human rights activists, who would take into account the real problems of the society and, therefore, would be responsible to the society for their outcome.
There is a new stage in the development of post-Soviet society - the stage of creation rather than destruction and elimination. The human rights activist must come as new, strong, knowledgeable, not the one who forcibly sacrifices himself to the society, but the one who acts professionally. Today people do not need "kitchen" human rights. Although still this is not true everywhere. The search and implementation of new forms is needed, which does not mean, unlike the bitter tradition, rejection of good old days. The education and training of personnel is problematic today and will be problematic tomorrow and after.
Prevention must become today one of the most important instructions for the professional activists. Theoretical, analytical approaches in the human rights movement must be given serious consideration. The determination of strategy and tactics of human rights movement is unthinkable without serious theory. What is needed is not the mechanical unification, but publicly realized division of functions. It was exactly realization and sympathy that were the distinctive characteristics of old dissidents, gave them strength and source of energy. The similar qualities must form the essence of the new type of human rights activists: individualism, diversity, unity in this diversity.
Multifunctionality, The creation of new, albeit small, but purposeful and highly effective organizations, new elements of civil society. The use of different forms of co-ordination and corporation, in the name of human rights organizations as well as outside of it. Goal-oriented international corporations will probably assume the important role which implies deeper integration on the civil level. The particular interest will have the similar systems on the regional levels.
The determination of politics relationship with other non-governmental, non-state organizations is particularly important. They could become excellent partners. It, in fact, means acknowledging itself an indivisible part of Third sector, possessing without doubt much more power than the constituent part of it. It is worth pondering over the possible mechanisms of such co-operation. This is exactly why the necessity to reassess the existing order of things and the search for new decisively new solutions arises. The new Tactics and New Strategy are needed. Moreover, it is necessary to discuss the question of studying New Paradigm of Development of Human Rights Activities. This is not only the task of human rights activists but of all of the society, that is why the primary task is the legalization of problems existing in the human rights sphere.
This must not be done by the leaders of human rights organizations themselves. The earlier the discussion of common problems begins, the earlier it will be possible to avoid the destructive influence of existing already today inter-organizational conflicts on general situation.
Alexander Russetsky,