Soros on NGOs, Revolution, and the MDGs
Regimes in Central Asia are paranoid about foreign NGOs precipitating “colored” revolutions, a fear countries like Russia have been quick to capitalize on. One of the organizations most often accused of this is George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, which has a mission in Tajikistan. Soros also funds Eurasianet.
When President Rakhmanov visited the UN in September, he met with Soros to personally discuss the revolutions and the alleged role of NGOs.
Well, we had a very frank discussion because, you know, he has been told by [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin that the Soros foundations are working to bring about color revolutions. And I tried to explain to him that this is a mistaken interpretation, that we are not at all in favor of revolutions. Because revolutions are a sign of failure. It means there is a lack of good institutions and the population is fed up. Having a revolution does not make up for that democratic deficit. Making up for it takes a long time and it requires constructive work and not revolutions. And I think that I managed to convince him that it is a false interpretation that we have any intention to have a revolution, either in Tajikistan or any other country.
Soros also said, regarding Tajikistans new plan to meet the Millennium Development Goals:
I think that to have this plan is positive and I think that to make the transition from a piece of paper to reality is the challenge. But it could be a good start. Just having a plan is already a step forward and I think a lot can be done. One of the issues I will urge is greater cooperation between government and civil society because development really involves the entire society and not just the government.
on January 10th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
This is an interesting piece. Especially the part that deals with the alleged participation of NGOs in colored revolution. The concept of an NGO is very new in all former soviet territory and it is quite natural that both public and government seek to understand the motivations of such organizations in the first place. In the world where nothing is free (capitalism) the concept giving aid just for the sake of giving aid is hard to believe.
In western countries such organizations are funded by a number of rich and environmentally conscious citizens. NGOs are an important element of a democratic society. Needless to say how much they have changed our perceptions about environment for the past few years. However, the idea of having such institutions in a post soviet society is quite new and somewhat undermines the government’s interpretation of events. In the past the government was everything and no matter what it did we supposed it was well thought out. Now however we see NGOs coming to these countries and trying to voice concerns of the public thereby to some extend undermining governments complete control over its people. Some governments (including Russian government) inevitably try to get rid of such competition.
While I generally agree that NGOs are the source of new ideas in Tajik society, they could hardly be described as political and aimed at revolution. If anything their presence changes the perception of public about certain issues be it AIDS, family planning, human rights or how juridical and economic reforms should be carried out. It also changes public’s perception about its rights to demand basic freedom and rights from its government. In that NGOs are a great educational tool and the only democratic institution that bring about change in all ex-soviet republics.
It is sad but true that in the areas of health, education and economic reforms NGOs are the only organizations that government listens to. So if they were not present many problems in Tajik the society would be ignored. Let’s face it, Tajik government would not pay a lot of attention to what an average farmer has to say. It would if an NGO was involved because failure to attend to the issues mentioned by NGOs will hurt Tajikistan’s image in the western hemisphere. This would not be an issue if there were no NGOs in the first place.
We all know that politically stable Central Asia is in both US and Russia’s interest and NGOs to the extend that contribute to this are crucial to this process. However, Russia sees that process without NGOs and would support repressive regimes (as evidenced by its strong support of Islam Karimov) while the US sees the same process more complete with some elements of democracy in Tajik society. This is basically what Tajik government does not see at the moment. If they saw this would they be strong enough to deal with differences that NGOs bring about? So far Tajik political elite has been tolerant to the difference in political approches and hopefully this time they will be wise enough to make the right choice. We all know that repressive regimes are nothing short of a time bomb.
on January 10th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Tajik Boy:
You seem to have a lot to say, and plenty of knowledge of Tajikistan. You interested in writing for this blog?
on January 10th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
Not sure how much I can add from the outside (I visit Tajikistan once every 3 years) but I sure be glad to add some thoughts of mine every now and then.
on January 10th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Please submit a comment with you real email address so we can correspond directly.
on January 10th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Here you go. Oh by the way you might wanna move the Tajik flag forward on the picture above. It is covered by the map.