The Relationship Between Authoritarian Regimes and Civil Society: Rise of GONGOs as a Soft Power Strategy

This study questions Tocqueville’s hypothesis on the association between civil society and democracy by analyzing government-organized non-governmental organization (GONGOs). Current authoritarian regimes prefer to use soft power strategies to control and tame democratic institutions and culture rather than suppression and use of violence. Civil society is among the key targets of soft power strategy. Traditional authoritarian regimes tended to suppress civil society whereas today’s authoritarian regimes use cooptation strategies and create GONGOs. This new type of strategy to deal with civil society in authoritarian regimes, such as Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, China and Venezuela, is used to control foreign funds, gain legitimacy in the international arena and neutralize the democratic opposition within the country. Authoritarian regimes do not want the oppositional civil society organizations to benefit from foreign funds since these regimes want to use these resources for their own benefit and since they are suspicious of autonomous movements, which may pose a challenge against these regimes. Besides, criticisms directed against authoritarian regimes on the issues of democracy and human rights led these regimes to establish GONGOs. Authoritarian regimes are especially concerned about the visibility of human right organizations, which criticize these regimes in the international arena, and attempt to exclude these organizations from public space or reduce their visibility, by creating and funding alternative civil society organizations. In these regimes, the opposition may lose its faith in democratic procedures and prefer contentious politics rather than routine democratic politics. Social movements, which are the prevalent form of contentious politics, are the new opponents of authoritarian governments due to this reason. Since the Colorful Revolutions, authoritarian governments prefer not only to suppress protests but also promote alternative social movements supporting these governments. These pro-government movements are organized by GONGOs and organize rallies to support the government whenever the government is protested. This paper claims that the rise of GONGOs challenges the hypothesized positive relationship between civil society and democracy and that a strong civil society may coexist with authoritarian regimes.

Otoriter Rejimler ve Sivil Toplum İlişkisi: Bir “Yumuşak Güç” Stratejisi olarak GONGO’ların Yükselişi

Bu çalışma sivil toplum ve demokrasi arasında olumlu bir ilişki olduğunu varsayan Tocquevilleci hipotezi, giderek yaygınlık kazanan GONGO’lar üzerinden sorgulamaktadır. Günümüzde otoriter rejimler demokratik hayatın kurumlarını ve kültürünü geleneksel yöntemlerle bastırmayı değil, yumuşak güç stratejileri ile kontrol etmeyi ve ehlileştirmeyi tercih etmektedirler. Yumuşak güç stratejilerinin hedeflediği kurumların başında ise sivil toplum gelmektedir. Geleneksel otoriter rejimlerde sivil toplumu baskılamak tercih edilirken, günümüz otoriter rejimlerinde sivil toplumu ve STK’ları ele geçirmek (co-opt) ya da hükümetin kontrolünde sözde STK’lar (GONGOs) yaratmak tercih edilmeye başlanmıştır. Otoriter rejimlerin sivil toplumla girdiği bu yeni ilişki her ülkede farklı bir deneyim olarak yaşanmakta olsa da, yine de stratejilerde belirgin ortaklıklar bulunmaktadır. Rusya, Belarus, Azerbaycan, Çin ve Venezuela gibi ülkelerde karşımıza çıkan bu yeni olgunun otoriter hükümetler tarafından üç temel amaçla kullandıklarını görmekteyiz. Bunlar sırasıyla; ülkeye giren yabancı fonları kontrol etmek; uluslararası kamuoyu nezdinde meşruiyet kazanmak ve ulus içindeki demokratik muhalefeti etkisizleştirmektir. Otoriter rejimler yabancı fonların sivil topluma aktardığı kaynakların, kontrol edemediği sivil toplum kurumlarına gitmesini istememektedirler. Bunun arkasında hem o kaynağı kendi kullanma arzusu hem de özerk sivil toplum kurum ve hareketlerinin kendisi karşısında bir tehdit teşkil edeceği düşüncesi vardır. İnsan hakları ve demokrasi konusundaki uluslararası toplumun eleştirileri de, otoriter rejimleri GONGO kurmaya sevk eden bir diğer etkendir. Özellikle insan hakları odaklı STK’ların hem ulusal hem de uluslararası toplum nezdinde dile getirdikleri eleştiriler karşısında devletler bu STK’ları kamusal alandan dolaylı olarak uzaklaştırabilmek için alternatif oluşumlara gitmekte ve onları fonlayarak, bu kurumların görünürlüğünü ve seslerini azaltmaktadırlar. Otoriter rejimlerde karşılaşılan bir diğer durum da, muhalif kesimlerin demokratik prosedürlere olan inancını kaybetmesi ve rutin demokratik siyaset yerine “mücadeleci siyaseti” (contentious politics) tercih etmeleridir. Mücadeleci siyasetin en yaygın formu olan toplumsal hareketler de bu nedenle otoriter rejimlerin yeni muarızı olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadırlar. Rejimler özellikle “renkli devrimlerden” sonra toplumsal hareketler ile mücadele yolu olarak şiddetli bastırma eylemlerinin yanı sıra alternatif toplumsal hareketleri ön plana çıkarmaya başlamışlardır. Bir GONGO üzerinden örgütlenen bu “sözde toplumsal hareketler”, rejimi protesto eden her toplumsal muhalefetin arkasından sokağa inmekte ve rejime destek mitingleri düzenlemektedirler. Çalışmanın neticesinde GONGO’ların bu üç amaç üzerinden yükselişinin sivil toplum ve demokratikleşme arasında var olduğu düşünülen normatif ilişkiyi yadsıdığını ve sivil toplumun, otoriter rejimlerle pekâlâ birlikte bulunabileceği iddia etmekteyiz.

PDF

___

Atwal M ve Bacon E (2012). The Youth Movement Nashi: Contentious Politics, Civil Society and Party Politics. East European Politics, 28 (3), 256-266.
Baker G (1998). Civil Society and Democracy: The Gap Between Theory and Possibility. Politics, 18 (2), 81-87.
Berman S (1997). Civil Society and Political Institutionalization. American Behavioral Scientist, 40 (5), 562-574.
Berneo N ve Nord P (2000). Civil Society before Democracy: Lessons from Nineteenth-Century Europe. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
Brechenmacher S (2017). Civil Society Under Assault: Repression and Responses in Russia, Egypt and Ethiopi. Washington: Carnegie Publications Department.
Brooker P (2000). Non-democratic Regimes. New York: Palgrave.
Brown C (2000). Cosmopolitanism, world citizenship and global civil society. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 3 (1), 7-26.
Cohen & Arato (2013). Sivil Toplum ve Siyasal Teori. çev. ed. Argun Akdoğan. Ankara: Efil Yayınevi.
Cooley A (2015). Countering Democratic Norms. Journal of Democracy, 26 (3), 49-63.
Diamond L (1994). Toward Democratic Consolidation. Journal of Democracy, 5 (3), 4-17.
Diamond, L (2010). Liberation Technology. Journal of Democracy, 21 (3), 69-83.
Foley M ve Edwards B. (1996). The Paradox of Civil Society. Journal Of Democracy, 7 (3), 38-52.
Foster K. (2001). Associations in the Embrace of an Authoritarian State: State Domination of Society?. Studies in Comparative International Development, 35 (4), 84- 109.
Gellner E (1994). Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society and Its Rivals. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Gellner E(1995). The Importance of Being Modular. İçinde: J A Hall (Ed.), Civil Society: Theory, History and Comparison, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hall J (1995). In Search Of Civil Society. İçimde: J A Hall (Ed.), Civil society: Theory, History and Comparison, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heurlin C (2010). Governing Civil Society: The Political Logic of NGO-State Relations Under Dictatorship. Voluntas, 21 (2), 220-239.
Huntington S (1968). Political Order In Changing Societies. Yale University Press: New Heaven.
Keane J (1994). Demokrasi ve Sivil Toplum. Çev. N. Erdoğan, Ayrıntı: İstanbul.
Kedzie C (1997). Communication and Democracy: Coincident revolutions and the emergent dictators. Rand: Los Angeles, CA.
Lewis D (2013). Civil Society and the Authoritarian State: Cooperation, Contestation and Discourse. Journal of Civil Society, 9 (3), 325-340.
Linz J J (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes, with a Major New Introduction. Boulder and Londra: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Lorch J ve Bettina B (2016). Using Civil Society as an Authoritarian Legitimation Strategy: Algeria and Mozambique in Comparative Perspective. Democratization, 27 (6), 1-19.
MacKinnon R (2011). Networked Authoritarianism in China and Beyond: Implications for Global Internet Freedom. Journal of Democracy, 22 (2), 32–46.
Mackinnon R (2012). Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle For Internet Freedom. New York: Basic Books.
Matchanka A (2014). Substitution of Civil Society in Belarus: Government Organised Non-Governmental Organisations. The Journal Of Belarusian Studies, 7 (2), 67-94.
McLaverty P (2002). Civil Society and Democracy. Contemporary Politics, 8 (4), 303-318.
Mercer C (2002). NGOs, Civil Society and Democratization: a Critical Review of the Literature. Progress in Development Studies, 2 (1), 5-22.
Mulford J (2016). Non-State Actors in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Connections QJ, 15 (2), 89-107.
Naim M (2009). What is a GONGO?. Foreign Policy, 160, http://foreignpolicy. com/2009/10/13/what-is-a-gongo/ Son Erişim Tarihi: 12/12/2017.
Patalakh A (2017). What Makes Autocracies’ Soft Power Strategies Special? Evidence from Russia and China. The Korean Journal of International Studies, 15 (1), 41-69.
Pietrzyk D (2003). Democracy or Civil Society. Politics, 23 (1), 38-45.
Putnam R (1995). Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy, 6 (1), 65-78.
Rutzen D (2016). Civil Society under Assault. in Authoritarianism Goes Global: The Challenge To Democracy. ed. Larry Diamond, Marc Plattner, Christopher Walker, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Schedler A (2002). The Menu Of Manipulation. Journal of Democracy, 13 (2), 36-50.
Spires A (2011). Contingent Symbiosis and Civil Society in an Authoritarian State: Understanding the Survival of China’s Grassroots NGOs. American Journal of Sociology, 117 (1), 1-45. Tocqueville A de (1994). Amerika’da Demokrasi. çev. İhsan Sezal-Fatoş Dilber. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları.
Walker C ve Cooley A (2013). Vote of the Living Dead. https://foreignpolicy. com/2013/10/31/vote-of-the-living-dead. Son Erişim Tarihi, 18.12.2017.
Walker C (2016). The Hijacking of “Soft Power”. Journal of Democracy, 27 (1), 49-63.
Walzer M (1992). The Civil Society Argument. İçinde: Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community. edited by Chantal Mouffe, 89–107. London: Verso.
White G (1994). Civil Society, Democratization and Development (I): Clearing the Analytical Ground. Democratization. 1 (3), 375-390.
Wu F (2002). Old Brothers or New Partners: GONGOs in Transnational Environmental Advocacy in China. China Environment Series, 5. 45-58.
Yom S (2005). Civil Society and Democratization In Arab World. Middle East Review of International Affairs, 9 (4), 14-33.