Abstract

Recently passed the Russian ‘Foreign Agent’ law against foreign funding of NGOs and civil society has attracted criticism from almost every quarter. From home to abroad all party concerned (i.e., civil society organizations, NGO groups, donor countries (especiallyAmericaand European countries) as well as some Russian opposition political parties) are of the view that this bill has been introduced to scuttle the independent civic activities and in this way unconstitutional. However on the basis of overall analysis of ‘Foreign Agent’ law in the context of American democratic promotion policy this paper is of the view that this law simply cannot be characterized as anti-democratic, which is against the very basis of freedom and rule of law, by the anti-democratic Russian government but it should be seen as extension of same challenge which American democratic promotion policy is facing around the whole world. It is because of its illegal and unconstitutional method of regime change policy, with the help of foreign funded NGOs, and civil society which has compelled various countries includingRussiato resort this type of law. It is important to note that the promise of peace, stability and prosperity by the democratic promotion protagonists after the fall ofSoviet Unionhas not been realised till today. Instead what post-Soviet states are witnessing today is emergence of chauvinist nationalist government in respective countries which witnessed colour revolution. Whole region is now plunging into economic turmoil, ethnic nationalism, rise of religious fundamentalism and identity politics. Recent overthrow of legitimate Viktor Yanukovych government inUkraineand subsequent decision by incumbent government to exclude Russian as administrative language can be sited as example. That is why former American Republican Congressman Ron Paul is of the view that “US‘Democracy Promotion’ Destroys Democracy Overseas’’. In this context this paper will argue that democracy can only be beneficial when it evolved from within according to the aspiration of native masses and should not be imposed from outside with certain geopolitical interest in mind. Looking at the backlash against this policy this paper will further argue that the time has come when America should think of to review the policy of democratic promotion through foreign funding and simultaneously NGOs and civil societies should instead of fulfilling the agenda of their donor counties should work for making native people politically conscious and should not let the people make sceptic even of its guanine activity.

Highlights

  • Promoting democracy abroad has been one of the main cornerstones of American foreign policy[1]

  • “In his testimony to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the role of non-governmental organizations in the development of democracy ambassador Mark Palmer argued that ‘achieving a 100% democratic world is possible over the quarter century — but only with radical strengthening of our primary frontline fighters of freedom’

  • Writing about detions and development cooperation activities mocracy promotion Nodia is further of the which contribute to the development and view that “one should admit that the most consolidation of democracy in third coun- important and successful foreign policy projtries,” which is to say “all measures designed ect of the EU, its expansion into the forto facilitate democratic development”[8] or mer communist world,has been geopolitiin other words “as the widest range of ac- cal from the start, and Russia is right to see tions that one country with all its actors can it as such

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Promoting democracy abroad has been one of the main cornerstones of American foreign policy[1]. Writing about detions and development cooperation activities mocracy promotion Nodia is further of the which contribute to the development and view that “one should admit that the most consolidation of democracy in third coun- important and successful foreign policy projtries,” which is to say “all measures designed ect of the EU, its expansion into the forto facilitate democratic development”[8] or mer communist world ,has been geopolitiin other words “as the widest range of ac- cal from the start, and Russia is right to see tions that one country with all its actors can it as such It was a concerted effort between take to influence the political development the EU and NATO, two organizations with of another towards greater democratization, a heavily overlapping membership as well as a definition that reflects a broad consensus shared values and institutions.

Foreign Agent law and civil society in Russia
Fear factor
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call