The publication is initiated by the Consortium of Women's Nongovernmental Associations.
The Consortium expresses its gratitude to the US Agency for international Development (USAID).

Development of civil society is a major component of democratic process. This is recognized universally, but public debates about the very concept of civil society are still under way in Russia. Some people consider it an abstract and vague ideal of a community of free people. Others refer to existing non-governmental citizens’ associations, which address concrete social problems. Some oppose “civil society” to the state; others assume that the state should create adequate conditions for citizens’ independent associations.

The range of opinion about “ethical” standards of civil society is also quite broad. Some people claim that only those public associations which promote common goods have the rights to call themselves civil associations; others without much hesitation list criminal, militaristic and racist organizations as members of civil society.

From our viewpoint, civil society comprises autonomous associations of socially responsible individuals, proponents of democratic values and institutions, capable of defending their interests by a variety of means, namely, self-organization, self-control and interaction with the authorities. These associations are not striving to make profit or to come to power (contrary to political parties). Active civic position, social sensitivity, commitment to freedom and democracy are inseparable features of their members.

In early 1990s, undertaking to build a law-governed democratic state, Russia faced the necessity of establishing civil society in order to counterbalance and limit government and party bureaucracy, which main goal has always been to subjugate common people. Civil society is an insurance company of a sort, as it ensures citizens’ freedom and independence and provides them with necessary organizational and other resources. As indicated by M.Pavlova-Silvanskaya, a recognized expert in this sphere, civil society allows citizens “to defend their dignity and their rights”. It also rejects “passivity, paternalistic attitudes and belief in the obligation of the authorities to provide for people’s needs. Civil society emerges when individuals are determined to achieve their goals, unite with others towards public purposes and consider this a standard strategy of action” .

In response to this need, within a limited period of time dozens of thousands non-governmental organizations emerged or revived their activities, among them women’s associations, human rights and environmental organizations, consumer societies, business associations, educational and research centers, charitable foundations, etc. Many of them called themselves “third sector” or “civil society” institutes.

Lately, their activities have won state support. RF President V.Putin expressed his support for civil society, in particular, the idea of conducting Civil Forum in December 2001 in the Kremlin, In his speech at the Forum he highlighted the necessity of supplementing vertical power with “public organizations”, and indicated that “without real partnership relations of state and society, neither a strong state or welfare society are attainable; there should be a dialogue of equal parties” .

Regional civic forums followed this initiative. Most fruitful was the Forum in Perm in April 2002. An important document - “Perm Declaration” was developed and signed by three large associations, calling themselves “open partnerships”, or civil organizations of a new type: “People’s Assembly” (Moscow), “Civil Assembly” (S.-Petersburg) and “Perm Assembly”. The adopted document outlined organizational key principles and approaches to establishing constructive collaboration with governmental institutions.

Commission on Human Rights under RF President, set up in early 1990s, was modified and assigned new functions. In the autumn of 2002 it was headed by E.Pamfilova, and within a short time boosted up it activities not only on the federal, but also on the regional level.

Consortium President E.Ershova was invited to represent women’s organizations in Commission on Human Rights under RF President. This decision testifies to the fact that women’s rights in Russia are finally considered an integral part of human rights.

Still, the development of civil organizations in Russia is not easy. Moreover, both the expert community and activists of such organizations doubt the very fact of existence of civil society in Russia. Can one consider “civil” those organizations, which claim to be independent from the government and are “established by free and responsible individuals for defense of their interests” ?

Sociologists are quite cautious in assessing the range of the new social phenomenon. Thus, according to the data provided by head of ROMIR Public Survey agency and based on results of research conducted between 1995 and 1999, only 1%-1,5% of respondents belonged to women’s, environmental, human rights’, youth and other associations. Another recognized public survey agency - "Public Opinion” Foundation claims that in June 2001, 5% of Russian citizens were members of public organizations, among them 5% - of trade unions, 1% - of groups supporting pensioners, disabled and veterans, and 1% - of other organizational types. At that time, 65% of respondents were aware about existence of public organizations per se.

With due regard to the value of this data, quantitative indicators do not fully reveal all aspects of this phenomenon. Qualitative indicators are more significant, and it is them that make experts draw inauspicious conclusions: “in Russia, contrary to Western countries, there is no civil society...Its full-fledged development is very unlikely». The diversity of public associations which cannot be ignored is cautiously called “beginnings” and “isolated and unstable elements” of civil society”.

Why are experts so apprehensive? Ideally, civil society institutes are set up not by order from the top, but by free will of citizens, independent and socially responsible individuals, capable of coordinating their interests with interests of others and taking due regard of the latter. Their key feature is ability to establish trustworthy relationships not only with familiar players, but also with all participants of civil initiatives. Specialists indicate that “public solidarity, or “long-term” public connections of voluntary associations indispensable for civil society, emerge only in the presence of public capital, based on mutual trust”.

Russian society still lacks such “public capital”, or has lacked it so far. Its accumulation was limited by long-term customs and traditions of the authoritarian state, which consistently instilled the culture of subjugation and rejected the values of individual freedom and responsibility. Very short periods in Russian history are marked with introduction and enhancement of these values, namely, Alexander II reforms, constitutional monarchy (1905 - 1914), and the reforms of 1990s.
Is there an indication, that during the last decades in Russia there have emerged pople, ready to take upon themselves the burden of civic responsibility? What specific personal features should they possess to meet civil society ideals? Sociologists believe that first and foremost it is high level of independence from society and its institutions, primarily from the state power. These individuals are capable of constructive interaction with others towards attaining common goals, interests, values and ideas. Their civic responsibility is reflected in their readiness to subjugate personal interests and means of their achievement to common goods, stated in legal norms, i.e. in respect for the law.

What is the status of our society with regard to this ideal? Some researchers claim there are no individuals of this sort in Russia, and civil society is merely “a fashionable public mentality myth”. Others argue that though most Russian citizens are unable to pull their efforts together to solve burning social problems, the overall picture is not so negative. Modern Russian realities generate opposite trends; namely, there is evidence to emergence of new democratic culture of civic participation in organizations, which call themselves civil society institutes.

Our organizational activities provide enough arguments and facts to support this opinion. Since start, Consortium of Women’s Non-Governmental associations has defined itself as a civil society structure, which not only undertook to defend women’s rights as human rights, but also to promote democratic procedures and tools in Russia. Our activists’ perceptions of civil society and the role of women’s NGOs therein, also an overview of Consortium’s activities testify to our commitment to incorporate civic initiatives into political decision making on socially significant issues, i.e. to promote and enhance democracy.

The short background history of Consortium of Women’s Non-Governmental associations allows for understanding the context of operations and realities faced by one of the largest organizations of the independent women’s movement.

Historians indicate that first women’s groups associating themselves with the independent women’s movement emerged in Russia in 1980-1990s, in line with Russia’s democratic development. Their types and backgrounds were different, but all were unanimous in rejecting the role of “CPSU transmission belts”, obligatory for public organizations of the Soviet era. They were determined to operate not by the good will of the authorities, but as an independent public force, and as such - to defend women’s human rights. This is how the term “independent women’s movement” appeared.

The movement was developing fast. In 1998 the Ministry of Justice registered over 600 women’s associations of the federal level. In addition, hundreds of organizations were registered as regional and local ones. In 1990s in every big Russian city there were from 10 to 40 women’s organizations, both registered and unregistered.

They addressed a whole variety of problems. As researchers state, most common were human rights activities. Women’s human rights organizations made up 3/5 of the total number of women’s NGOs. They undertook to defend not only women’s rights, but also the rights of other social groups, such as recruits and soldiers. The second largest category was NGOs addressing women’s discrimination in the labor market by way of retraining and professional training. A similar amount of women’s NGOs addressed violence against women. Other two major spheres of interest were information and education. Many organizations provided support to families, conducted charitable activities, helped develop women’s business skills, etc. Very few women’s NGOs positioned themselves as political ones.

Initially, members of independent women’s associations focused on enhancing women’s skills to help them become independent from the state, develop civic values, creativity, and, finally, understanding of participatory democracy. The question is - to what extent were they able to achieve these global goals?

Social experience accumulated by women during the Soviet period cannot but impact their attitudes, priorities, values and political preferences. On the other hand, members of women’s organizations were committed to developing new democratic norms, values and favorable public environment as prerequisites for educating “public individuals” with ingrained sense of civic responsibility. This was a point of conflict between obtained social behavior norms and new ideals and goals. Hypothetically, the conflict could be resolved in two ways. First, norms and values of members of women’s movement rooted in the Soviet experience are too rigid to allow for emergence of new social practices of civic independence and civic initiatives. Second, new social practices are effective enough to destroy patriarchal traditions and Soviet stereotypes.

In order to obtain understanding of development trends, a number of public surveys were conducted, the first two - in October and December 1999, during seminars for Consortium activists from provinces, Moscow and the Moscow region. In both cases two types of indicators were used - qualitative and quantitative. Quantitative methodology stipulated for filling out a questionnaire related to respondents’ status. Qualitative methodology was applied in focus groups to help clarify respondents’ social and political attitudes.

Another research was conducted in May 2001 at Consortium’s seminar, attended by members of regional women’s organizations. This time the questionnaire was focused on respondents’ public perceptions and social and political attitudes.

The research results helped reveal that life positions of Consortium members’ differed radically from those of average Russian women. According to public research data, majority of Russian women demonstrates “lack of confidence in future, apathy and seclusion”. They are “not satisfied with their financial status and indicate a decrease in their income... An important component of their social moods is fear about potential loss of jobs”. It also turned out that Consortium members are dynamic, sure of themselves, concerned about social and political issues and willing to defend public interests.

The research helped draw a summary portrait of Consortium members. These are “women without age”, majority have university education, families and children; they are entrepreneurial and perceptive, interested in social problems; their level of optimism is high, they are able to adapt to social changes, meaning, among other things, their readiness to look for new jobs, engage in public activities, and at the same time - maintain good relationships in families and to educate children and grandchildren.

Most favorable environment for their activities is provincial centers and big provincial cities, which facilitate public activism “by the call of one’s heart”. This opinion was shared by majority of members of regional women’s organizations: one of every four mentioned that public activities bring joy to their lives. Big mega polis like Moscow with anonymous everyday life, big distances between place of residence and place of work, tight competition and high level of social stratification create a more difficult environment for such attitudes and mode of life. Still, new forms of social activity emerge there as well, and their proponents are feeling much more confident of themselves.

In July 2002, during the Forum “Women for Survival of Our Planet” (Irkutsk) analysis of life positions and social and political views of Consortium members was continued. This time we used detailed individual interviews with leaders of largest national women’s organizations, namely, “Angara” Women’s Union (Irkutsk), Women’s Chamber of Komi Republic (Syktyvkar), Women’s Crisis Center (Ulan0Ude), Resource Center (Arkhangelsk), Consortium’s Moscow affiliation, etc. The interviewers asked for opinions of leaders of women’s NGOs about key issues related to developing civil society, namely, definition of public activities and social responsibility, reasons for existence of women’s organizations, necessity to strictly observe or possibility to neglect laws, delineation between the state and society, etc.

The following most typical and most emotional answers reflect shared civil “philosophy” of Consortium members.

The first issue raised at the interview was the respondents’ opinion about the necessity of public activities and their underlying principles. The answers were as follows:

- Public activities presuppose certain responsibility; one may say - “civic responsibility”. It is responsibility for the status of society where we have to live and work. It is responsibility to the older generation, to one’s parents, to the present, to our future and to that of our descendants.
- These are activities of the whole society, spontaneous or organized, which result in individual development and a broader access to opportunities for individuals, which make up society.
- Public activities mean serving society. They are aimed at improving not lives of individuals, but the life of society at large, which means a better life for individuals as well.
- This is one’s willingness to improve things. It means doing what I want to, and what I consider necessary to do for people.
- I believe the state will become stronger when there appears strong civil society and an operational (even though unwritten) ethical agreement between citizens and society. There are written agreements, but they are not observed.
- Public activities grow from individual’s vital necessity to react to emerging problems, which nobody can solve, but oneself and the people one has recruited. One cannot solve the problems and has to involve other people - this is how public activities start.
- It is unselfishness in a sense of not expecting any profit or favors, because no money grows on this field. It is also responsibility for those whom one has involved in solution of problems - here and now.

Evidently, the key concept for our respondents is civic responsibility for everything happening with themselves and the country. They refer to this concept when explaining reasons for participation in women’s movement. In addition, the following words keep repeating: “duty”, “service”, “solidarity”, and «public goods”, “defense of women’s interests”. In answering the question about the place of women’s organizations in Russian society, the respondents shared.

- I believe that we are responsible for our kids. Men also initiate many things, but they usually lack responsibility. Women’s organizations have a future. Women implement serious projects. We do not strive to seize power, we act parallel to power structures, we try to be incorporated into decision-making, i.e. this is an innovative approach.
- Yes, we do have women’s movement, and we do demonstrate solidarity. I communicate a lot with other women’s organizations. When we had joint project with international organization, or with our partners, we had more chances to meet women’s organizations from other regions.
- Women’s movement is primarily support, common vision and like-minded people. It is hard to solve problems on one’s own. There are a lot of problems. In order to identify them one needs to interact with others and to receive feedback. When people meet, they share opinions and experiences, and sometimes change their mentality. This must be the key reason.
- Quite often women’s organizations do what the authorities should do, e.g. crisis centers for women, rehabilitation of invalids and drug-addicts.
- They exist to support women. When losing a job, most women also lose a basis to lean upon, which results in psychological crisis. “No one needs me, I cannot do anything, I am worth nothing, and even the state has rejected me”. At special trainings we try to show what women can do and what they are worth.
- In order to protect and promote citizens’ interests, to educate society about real democracy, to fight against any discrimination; to explain to the authorities, to society and to people that society consists not of abstract individuals, but of concrete men and women, who have different interests and different public experiences.
- My duty to society is to do what I can do. I believe with all my heart in what I am doing. I am a social “constructivist”, I want to rebuild society on different grounds, and from this viewpoint I bring a lot of use... I believe I am useful..
- We solve certain problems, which the state does not solve; we attempt to do something for common good, to help people around us to live better. No one makes me work with drug-addicts, but I still do. I am doing it for common good.

Another important set of questions was aimed at clarifying our respondents’ attitudes to law and to the necessity of observing laws under unlimited rule of criminal in Russia. The following dilemma was offered: “Russian laws may and should be observed”, and “There are no normal laws in Russia which should be observed”. The range of opinion was as follows:
- Laws are rules of the game. Once we adopt them, we should observe them. Even little kids observe rules of the game in their sand boxes: this is my shovel, and this is your toy car. Unfortunately, in the game, which our state plays with us, both the shovel and the toy car belong to the state.
- Law is an unshakeable foundation for society and for democracy; no democratic society can operate without laws.
- Law should limit the power of the state. There should be one law for everyone, without any exceptions whatsoever. In my opinion it should be the main limiting factor for citizens and state institutions.
- The law as such is not operational, and everything that happens now is outside legal framework. This is really terrible, because nothing is guaranteed. This refers to pension funds - both state owned or private - nothing is guaranteed. This is violation of the law.
- Our country is notorious in a sense that “law is not the same for different people”.
- There exists ingrained necessity to live according to laws. But until law becomes a norm of life... anyone, who violates the law, automatically limits certain rights of other people.
- I hate the expression “dictatorship of the law”. With due respect to law, the word “dictatorship” in this context just kills everything. One may say “supremacy”, which sounds more decent, or “priorities”, or “principles of law”. These are little nuances, which refer to morality.
- I believe law is a certain norm, a rule that I should observe to let other people live a comfortable life next to me. Law is something people agreed upon and should observe. Special bodies should check that people do not violate the law. This is theory, and this is how I understand law. But there is practical life, and in this practical life law is something vague. Vague for everyone. People do not understand and do not know a lot; e.g. during privatization they make so many mistakes, and sometimes they are even pushed to make these mistakes so that other people could benefit from the situation. People are like kids, and this is the scariest thing. They are absolutely legally illiterate. This legal illiteracy is not limited to one person per village, almost everyone is illiterate.

Our respondents are evidently committed to the principle of law as essential component of organized life in society and in the country. This is true both about their ideals and practical activities. Violation of the law is the first problem they come across in everyday life; for this reason in their critique of existing rules they highlight first and foremost this particular side of Russian life.

- Which norms and rules are violated in Russia most often? Civic rights, all human rights. Almost everyone breaks legal norms. One may even attend special consultation on how to break the law. It is both funny and sad. The next morning after enactment of the law on alternative military service, an ad was placed in S.-Petersburg subway: “We may help you legally avoid military service”. At such moments one thinks about morality, also with reference to the third sector.
- A state, as I see it, represents some kind of agreement among citizens. The state should protect citizens’ interests. But our state protects first and foremost, the interests of bureaucracy.
- Currently I am under the impression that the authorities have unlimited power and may always interfere with everything. The main thing is our ingrained fear of the state and of the authorities. You never know what to expect from them.

Why do our respondents spend time, efforts and nerve? How do they imagine an ideal democratic state? Without hesitation, they list the following attributes:
- Transparency. Opportunity to exert influence on decision-making - if not for individuals, but at least for groups. Division of powers and non-violence. Moral responsibility to one’s people. Not everyone can do it immediately.
-Justice, i.e. provision to everyone of possibilities and rights to develop one’s potential, one’s opportunities and rights and to fulfill one’s responsibility to society and the state. People should not be born in slums. Medical security is justice. Everyone should have equal starting conditions for education.
- Individual freedoms and respect for individual rights.
- Observance of laws and rules of the game.
- Power of the law in the first place and power of moral norms. Individual freedom may extend up to the point when violation of rights of other individual begins. We should learn to respect rights of other people.

In reading these words, one cannot but admire the respondents’ civic maturity and comprehensive vision of their goals. They are ripe enough to be called civil society actors and full-fledged public individuals. They consciously aspire to modify principles of interaction between citizens and the state, and put these relationships under the control of law, morality and justice. Their final goal is participatory democracy, which ensures involvement of all committed society members in public activities.

The research testifies that this position is shared by majority of members of Consortium, which since start has encouraged our compatriots, primarily women, to seek their legal rights and power as full-fledged citizens.

We are convinced that this activity helps promote civic mentality both on the individual and mass level, i.e. helps establish civil society.

Presently, Consortium is an All-Russian association of women’s non-governmental organizations, with 160 members in 52 regions of Russia. Many of these organizations have grown into regional networks of local NGOs and women’s groups. They protect women’s rights on the grassroots level and support Consortium activities on the federal level.

Development of so-called “social solidarity practices” has become our primary activity since start. Consortium has consistently and tirelessly worked towards expanding the network of women’s member organizations. Still, they preserve their independence, make their own decisions, set their goals and select means of their achievement.

Consortium coordinates their efforts, promotes sharing of experiences, highlights best practices and provides information and technical support. Overtime, Consortium has developed new democratic practices, namely, regular collective discussion of most efficient projects designed by member organizations. Twice a year or more often, Consortium conducts seminars for regional organizations, also meetings and discussions with Moscow organizations. Virtual discussions by Internet and e-mail are another tool. Relevant information and materials are placed on Consortium Web-site. We consider e-mail and Web-site significant tools of enhancing the network of member organizations. Consortium’s logistical support helped equip many of them with modern means of communication to operate in informational environment of Russia.

Another focus of Consortium’s activity is civic education of various layers of Russian society, especially mass media and the youth, about human rights and women’s rights. Our favorite operational sites are TV School “Praktika” in Nizhny Novgorod (seminars for young journalists from all regions of Russia), and a special workshop for journalists in Pskov. Consortium has initiated a special project related to dissemination of legal knowledge and gender equality concepts among young people. A group of trainers from regional organizations, trained by Consortium, deliver lectures on gender equality in 7 universities in Irkutsk, Omsk, Syktyvkar, Pskov, Saratov and Moscow. Association of Women Journalists headed by N.Azhgihina has for a number of years conducted seminars in the Law Department of Moscow University.

Promotion of gender-sensitive and professional women to decision-making bodies and to power structures is a priority task of women’s movement, imperative not only for women, but also for society at large. So far the knowledge, skills and social experiences of women, which make up the majority of RF population, remain underutilized. The share of women in power structures testifies to this statement: there is only one woman in RF Government, 7 women in the upper chamber of Russian parliament (Council of Federation) among 178 representatives of 89 regions; and 35 women in the lower chamber (State Duma) among 450 members. There are no women among governors and mayors of big cities.

What negative consequences does this entail? First, this is violation of the key principle of democracy – equality of rights and possibilities of all members of society – both men and women - to participate in public life. Second, women’s separation from power results in the country’s lopsided development. Male interests are focused on the military-industrial complex, power structures and security. Women are primarily concerned about families, children, education, health care and culture, i.e. social problems. It is these particular spheres that are under funded in Russia. Third, according to UN data, parliaments turn to children’s problems only when the share of women-MPs is at least 20%. Legislators start promoting women’s interests when there are at least 30% of women in Parliament. In this, Russia lags far behind Scandinavian and other European countries, Canada and Australia and many Latin American and African states.

In order to introduce changes in this sphere, Consortium has initiated a project aimed at training women with prior experience in public and political activities and promoting them to power. Following traditions of pre-Revolutionary Russian women’s movement, the project was called “Women’s Higher Political Courses named after A.N.Shabanova”, and is in fact a comprehensive training course. It is common knowledge that women-candidates possess fewer financial and administrative resources than men do, but they can minimize these “deficiencies» with their spotless reputation, high professional level and good preparedness for conducting an electoral campaign. The latter resource is most significant, but it is the one, which is usually missing with majority of women.

In addition, the project is a test of methodology of conducting electoral campaigns by women-candidates and envisages training of trainers for project multiplication on the regional level. High-level professionals were invited to deliver lectures, among them political scientists, sociologists, historians, economists, psychologists, image-makers, producers, representatives of largest political associations and acting MPs.

The first group has completed the training course, and the graduates intend to run for regional and federal parliamentary elections. Consortium believes that majority of them will succeed at the elections due to acquired knowledge and skills.

The project is also important for testing various approaches to interaction with the authorities, to which Consortium has devoted special efforts. We believe that only joint efforts of independent public organizations and the state will result in establishment of effective and sustainable democratic society. Attainment of this goal entails a variety of mechanisms of social partnership with power structures. We are convinced that presence in the echelons of power of people, which understand and share our goals, will help facilitate this process.

Recently, the authorities have displayed increased interest in public organizations, actually, both sides are moving towards each other. A number of public commissions, including women’s commission, were set up by G.Poltavchenko, Authorized Representative of RF President in Central Federal District. The Council of Federation established public Council on equal rights and equal opportunities for men and women. Council of public organizations was set up under Chair of the State Duma. Consortium members collaborate with all these structures.

These contacts are of interest to both parties. Thus, the jubilee conference devoted to 10 years of Consortium’s activities (spring of 2003) in addition to Consortium members from 40 regions of Russia was attended by the representatives of legislative power (L.Sliska, First Deputy Chair of the State Duma; MPs Ivanenko S.V., Goryacheva S.V., Lakhova E.F., Belousov A.N.) and officials from RF Ministry of Labor, Ministry of Economic Development and Presidential Administration. Former USSR President M.Gorbachev, now leader of Social-Democratic Part of Russia, conducted an informal meeting with Consortium activists and members. Representatives of well-known public movements E.Pamfilova and L.Alexeeva submitted greetings to Consortium and expressed hope for future cooperation. Consortium maintains relationships with a number of international organizations and foundations, which was highlighted at the conference by C.Peasley (USAID Director, Moscow), G.Constant (Embassy of Canada), one of Consortium founders E.Smith and representative of MacArthur Foundation in Russia T.Zhdanova.

Currently Consortium maintains permanent contacts with various branches of power, among them Presidential Administration, committees of State Duma and Council of Federation, Central Electoral Committee, and with a number of departments and agencies, among them RF Ministry of Labor and Social Development, RF Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, ministries of health care and education.

Consortium member organizations adopt similar strategies in their relationships with regional and local authorities. In addition, due to Consortium support regional women’s organizations have an opportunity to partake of federal level activities. Consortium members are regular participants at meetings of the former Commission on Women, Family and Demography under RF President, State Duma Committee on Women, Family and Youth, permanent Round table of women’s NGOs in the Ministry of Labor and in public hearings in State Duma. Such events help regional organizations get acquainted with various aspects of national policies, expand their vision and establish direct contacts with the federal authorities. Among issues discussed at these meetings were promotion of equal opportunities for men and women, training in methods of defending women’s interests, domestic violence, gender analysis of draft labor legislation and draft reproductive law, political parties’ development, electoral rights, gender budget and micro-loans. Overall, about 150 meetings have been held recently.

In building relationships with various institutions it is essential to focus on legal tools of attaining one’s goals. Efficient activities of women’s NGOs as well as other civil society players call for specific legislative environment. Without it, one cannot overcome legal nihilism, neglect for human rights, typical for public mentality, and disregard of women’s discrimination by the state. We have looked for and have identified various ways of applying these tools.

One of them is design and adoption of the law “On State Guarantees of Equal Rights and Equal Opportunities for Men and Women in the Russian Federation”. On the one hand the law is to confirm Russia’s commitment to the principle of gender equality stipulated by RF Constitution (Art. 19, Part 3), and on the other hand – to ensure concrete political measures aimed at attainment of gender equality, which are to be implemented jointly by the state and public organizations.

In spring of 2000, Consortium proposed to the Committee on Interaction with public associations and religious organization of the State Duma to design such a law. This idea was accepted, and E.Lakhova, member of RF State Duma, was made responsible for its implementation. Working Group including Consortium members was established for design of draft law.

In spring of 2003 the draft law passed the first hearing in the State Duma: 342 MPs from among 345 present voted in favor. Such results were not unexpected. Prior to the first hearing, public expertise was conducted, and the draft law was approved by women’s organizations from majority of regions, by participants of the Civic Forum (November 2001, Moscow) and of pubic hearings “Women’s Dialogue with the Authorities” in the State Duma (March 2002). Governmental Commission on the Status of Women and Round table at the Council of Federation were also in favor. Experts highly evaluated the draft law as a timely and significant mechanism of Russia’s democratic development, in line with its international commitments. In addition, women’s organizations, among them the Consortium, conducted a large-scale regional campaign in support of the draft law, arranged meetings with their MPs, monitored draft discussions in regional legislatures and actively participated therein.

Other forms of Consortium’s legislative activities are gender expertise of adopted laws and introduction of amendments and additions to draft and current legislation.

Recently Consortium has focused its efforts on draft Labor Code, pension reform, micro-loans, draft laws on prevention of trafficking, domestic violence and reproductive health, also amendments and additions to the electoral law.

Consortium has conducted thorough gender expertise of the labor legislation, which is a major regulator of social and economic processes. This sphere is marked by evident gender discrimination. Analysis of employment structure in Russia allows for formulating a “gender rule” of a sort: prestigious and well-paid positions are not meant for women, they are welcome only at jobs where one has to work a lot but earns little. No surprise women suffer from delayed payment of salaries: budget debts accumulate in social spheres with predominantly women’s employment. For this reason women prevail among 30% of the population officially registered as poor.

Evidently, the situation cannot be changed overnight, but certain efforts have been made to eliminate most evident and blatant faults of legislators, which developed the Labor Code. Amendments to the draft law were necessitated primarily by our desire to protect pregnant women and mothers of little children, to prevent gender discrimination at the work place during hire and fire and to ensure retraining opportunities of workers with family responsibilities and with little children.

See below the document submitted by Consortium to the State Duma, which is so significant that it should be quoted in full.

“Articles 79 and 259 are most blatant examples of gender discrimination.

Article 79. Discontinuation of the Fixed-Term Labor Contract at the employer initiative.

This article contains direct discrimination: it provides employers with the right to discontinue the labor contract in case of “single severe violation by the employee of labor duties and other guilty actions...”. This stipulation is true for pregnant women, for mothers of little children or of invalids, and is reinforced by Art. 259, which is meant to protect their interests.

Even more discriminatory is p.11 of the given article, which lists among reasons for discontinuation of the fixed-term labor contract “presenting faked documents or information known to be false by the employee to the employer at the conclusion of the labor contract’. It means that women at early stages of pregnancy (4-5 weeks), who are unaware of their position, may be fired several months later “on legal grounds”. Again, Article 259 does not protect the rights of pregnant women.

In order to eliminate this discrimination, Para. a), p.3, last paragraph of Art. 259, should be deleted, also p.6, 10 and especially p.11 of Art. 79. The listed paragraphs of Art. 79 should read “with the exception of pregnant women, mothers of little children and of invalids”.

Art. 62. Guarantees in Signing the Labor contract.

The article does not duly clarify reasons underlying refusal to conclude the labor contract due to applicant’s family circumstances. They were present in the previous Code of Labor Laws and served to protect women’s labor rights.

The following addition should be introduced to Art. 62:

“It shall be prohibited to refuse to conclude the labor contract with women and to decrease their salaries for reasons associated with pregnancy or availability of children”.

Art. 68. Probation During the Hiring Process

The paragraph starting with “The probation during the hiring process shall not apply to” should be supplemented by “pregnant women” and “women after return from maternity leave”.

Art. 74. Removal from Work

The paragraph starting with “in case of revealing contra-indications, as specified in the medical statement, to fulfill the work envisaged in the labor contract by the employee” should be supplemented by “with the exception of cases stipulated in Art. 252 (pregnancy)”.

The given article does not stipulate for payment of salaries in case of removal from work due to medical contra-indications. It should be supplemented by “in case of removal from work due to medical contra-indications, employee shall be offered another position without decrease in salaries”.

Art. 71. Changing Essential Conditions of the Labor Contract.

Paragraph 1 does not clarify the term “essential conditions of the labor contract”, and should list salaries, work and leisure regime, work duties and labor conditions.

In order to prevent gender discrimination, the paragraph addressing large-scale employee dismissal should be supplemented by “in case of large-scale employee dismissal – over 1/3 of the total number of employees of a company, enterprise, organization, etc., the amount of dismissed persons of one gender should be proportionate to the current gender composition of personnel in the company, enterprise, organization”.

Art. 72. Temporary Transfer to Another Job in Case of Operational Necessity.

The term “ Operational Necessity” needs to be clarified.

The provision about “ work requiring lower qualification” should be supplemented by “ the average monthly earnings shall be preserved”.

Art. 194. Employer's Rights and Obligations Regarding Staff Training and Retraining.

The following wording should be introduced: “the employer should organize and pay for skills enhancement of mothers of children under 8 y.o. during their working hours, without decrease in their salaries ”.

Art. 195. Employees' Right to Professional Training, Retraining, and Skill Enhancement.

Paragraph 1 should be supplemented by the following: “Said right shall be granted to workers with family responsibilities on parental leave with children under 3 y.o.”.

Section “Social Security” needs to be introduced in to the Labor Code. It is an essential component of labor relations and the cost of labor force, a significant social guarantee for workers, primarily those with children. This section should stipulate for 100% payment of maternity leave.

Art. 251. Jobs in Which the Use of Female Labor Is Limited.

This article should be excluded as evident discrimination, as it leads to women’s mass exit from the sphere of employment under decreased demand for labor force. As a rule, women working at such jobs lack high education or professional skills. The article does not stipulate for their retraining and does not guarantee a new job for them. Many enterprises with heavy and unhealthy work conditions are “town-forming”, and losing jobs, women lose an opportunity to support their families and provide for their children, which results in increased unemployment and social tension.

One should also mention that no research has ever been conducted about the impact of unhealthy work conditions on male reproductive functions. Without doubt, dealing with lead, arsenic and mercury is harmful for male health (p. 23, 258 and 243 of the list of jobs). By allowing men to do heavy labor involving harmful and/or dangerous work conditions, the state discriminates against men and disregards their reproductive health.

Still, women are able to do some of the listed jobs despite heavy conditions. During the war, women worked as fitters (L.Tselikovskaya heroine in the movie “The twins”), pilots, navigators, aviation mechanics (there were three women’s aviation regiments, one of them - a celebrated one). Evidently, recruitment to these jobs should be voluntary, and women should be provided with their full description, including harmful impact on health. But in every case, the decision should stay with women, not with the state.

Harmful “town-forming” factories affect negatively not only the health of employees, but also of other citizens, from kids to old people. This means that a wrong approach to heavy and harmful labor is stipulated in the Labor Code. Such factories should be modernized to avoid contamination of workers, community and environment. In the absence of such opportunities a radically new approach needs to be designed, supplemented by a special mechanism of employment guarantees for dismissed female workers, i.e. new and harmless jobs and professional retraining.

Cases of violation of current legislation are quite numerous. The list of harmful jobs approved by RF Government does not prohibit women’s entry to pilots’ or navigators’ schools or military academies. Still none of these institutions is open for women. In 2000 RF Minister of Defense Sergeev issued a special order prohibiting women’s entry to military academies, which is a direct violation both of RF Constitution and the Labor Code.

The access of women and men to heavy labor involving harmful conditions should be preconditioned by:

At the same time, factory managers and the authorities (local and regional) should seek ways to modernize harmful factories.

The list of harmful jobs should be subject to public expertise.

Another area of Consortium’s concern is analysis of draft reform of the pension system. Its necessity is obvious, but at the initial stage the reformers’ intentions were blatant discrimination. For a number of reasons they consciously set the average rate of “female” pensions at 40-60% of “male” ones. The reasons are as follows. First, lower women’s salaries for calculating basic pension rate; second, more durable intervals in women’s work record related to pregnancy, delivery and childcare; third, longer pension duration due to earlier retirement age and longer life span of women.

These comments were provided to M.Zurabov, Head of RF Pension Fund, who considered them justifiable and necessary for consideration during the reform development. The proposed amendments relate to the section of the draft law which deal with deductions to accumulative pension fund during maternity leave. We proposed that this period be included into the work record for calculating pensions, and the state undertake to pay the above deductions. Promise was given to consider these remarks; Consortium keeps monitoring the reform progress and results.

Consortium and its member organization Women’s Micro-Finance Network helped create legal environment for activities of micro-financing institutions. Currently, Women’s Micro-Finance Network is working in 6 regions of Russia with over 3000 active members and applies these legal provisions.

These initiatives were directed at changing the economic status of women in Russia. Consortium also works persistently towards eliminating their discrimination in politics. Much effort was taken to include a special provision into the law “On Political Parties” (Art. 8, Part 4) and to provide men and women with equal opportunities for representation in governing bodies of political parties and in party lists for elected positions. The law was adopted by RF Federal Assembly, signed by RF President and enacted. Following the call of women’s organizations during the Civic Forum (Nov. 21, 2001, Moscow), Consortium submitted a letter to Mr. Chaika, Minister of Justice, asking to consider the conformity of party charters to this legal provision at the time of the registration.

Consortium is also involved in modifying electoral legislation. Relevant issues addressing gender equality were discussed at a meeting of women’s organizations with leaders of 4 “centrist” factions of the State Duma (“Yedinstvo” (Unity), “Narodny Deputat” (MP), OVR (Fatherland - All Russia) and “Regions of Russia” during the so-called “Women’s Dialogue with the Authorities” in the State Duma on March 5, 2002. In addition to 200 representatives of women’s organizations and leaders of 4 “centrist” factions, the meeting was attended by representatives of executive power: Vice-Premier V.Matvienko, Head of the Central Election Committee A.Vishnyakov, Minister of Labor A.Pochinok, Head of Pension Fund M.Zurabov, First Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs V.Vasiliev and others.

Women’s organizations demanded from the authorities to clearly state their attitude to the draft law «On State Guarantees of Equal Rights and Equal Opportunities for Women and Men in the Russian Federation” and to amendments to the Election Law which stipulate equal opportunities for women and men in electoral process in accordance with RF Constitution (Art. 19, Part 3) and the Law on Political Parties (Art.8, Part 4). The leaders of centrist faction claimed support for adoption of this draft law and inclusion of gender equality amendments into the electoral legislation.

Still, during the hearings of the draft law on electoral system in the spring and autumn of 2002, these amendments did not win the majority of votes and were not included into the law. We do not consider this as defeat of women’s organizations. Many members of the State Duma are unaware of gender equality, and debating the necessity to observe it and voting for amendments to and promotion of the law «On State Guarantees of Equal Rights and Equal Opportunities for Women and Men in the Russian Federation” help educate our political elite on gender issues.

We are not going to give in. Since spring 2003, when regional legislatures started debating new electoral laws, women’s organizations in Irkutsk, Kaliningrad and Rostov-on-Don have initiated inclusion of gender equality norms into these laws. Even though they were not approved, Consortium members will continue their efforts both on the regional and federal levels.

Consortium’s cooperation with the authorities is not limited by design of legislation and gender expertise. Consortium is represented in almost all structures of the National Mechanism of Improvement of the Status of Women. Our experts were part of Commission on Women, Family and Demographic Issues attached to RF President (until its dissolution in 2000) and the State Duma Committee on women, family and youth. In 1997-1998 more than 10 Consortium members were part of Public Council attached to this Committee. The Concept of legislative activities toward ensuring equal rights and equal opportunities for women and men was designed jointly in the course of this cooperation and approved by the State Duma Council in 1997.

Consortium maintains broad international connections and is a proponent of “open society”. Our activists participated actively in all national and many international conferences of the last decade. Among them were conferences organized by Commission on Women, Family and Demographic Issues under RF President, Ministry of Labor and Social Development, various donor foundations, research institutions and public organizations, namely, two European conferences in Vienna (1994, 1997), IV World Conference (Beijing, 1995), Special Session of UN General Assembly “Beijing +5” (New York, 2000), and two “Vital Voices. Women in Democracy” conferences (Vienna, 1997; Reykjavik, 2000).

Consortium and its member organizations conduct serious analytical research and gender studies. Among Consortium members are Moscow Center for Gender Studies, similar centers in Petrozavodsk, Omsk and Irkutsk. Gender research is under way in such organizations as “Doveriye”, Association of Women Journalists and also conducted by independent researchers. Consortium has formed a real expert community: S.Aivazova, N.Azhgihina, M.Baskakova, E.Ballaeva, L.Boitchenko, T.Zabelina, Ye. Israelyan, G.Kertman, T.Klimenkova, L.Korbut, E.Mezentseva, I.Nedyak, T.Pachina, S.Polenina, N.Shvedova, A.Shirobokova, O.Khazbulatova, Z.Khotkina– these are but a few of researchers which are welcome to any research center in Russia and abroad. Their efforts have contributed enormously to the progress of women’s movement in Russia.

Consortium has solicited funds to publish a variety of books on establishment of crisis centers, history of women’s movement in Russia, international documents on women’s and children’s human rights, etc.

Only a few of Consortium activities have been highlighted so far. The history of Consortium of Women’s Non-governmental Associations is a vivid evidence to the growth of women’s grassroots organizations into a major factor in the life of the country. These organizations contribute to establishment of civil society and demonstrate in practice their abilities for equal partnership with the authorities for the sake of Russia’s democratic development.

We admit that we do not always succeed in attaining our goals. Still, even partial victories raise self-awareness of those who participate in our activities and help them develop from “subjects” to citizens possessing real rights and dignity and able to declare: “we not only have rights, but we can do it”.

We always remember that we are only part of the continuum of non-governmental organizations currently operating in Russia, and that many Russian citizens – though not all – make similar efforts towards development of civil society. This means that despite all complexities and contradictions of current political and social situation, there are good prospects for establishment of legal and civic culture in Russia.