The Public Chamber, an independent government body of 126 national elites from the private sector, is set to convene on Sunday for the first time. The purpose of the chamber is to discuss the state of civil society in Russia and devise ways of improving it. Civil society, the nongovernmental social institutions of a country, is an essential component of both stability and prosperity; civil society is heavily related to social trust, which is also essential to growth and governance. Civil society in Russia has traditionally been weak, often facing significant interference from the government, and its historic absence is one reason that Russia has had such trouble developing a modern economy and system of goverment like her European peers. Already, however, Putin’s critics are declaring the new body a tool of the Kremlin that will prove utterly ineffective.

Only four of the Public Chamber’s 126 members are independent of the Kremlin, analysts from two major think tanks said as the chamber heads for its first official session on Sunday. […]

Putin proposed setting up the Public Chamber as a bridge between the state and civil society after the Beslan school attack in 2004. Critics say the chamber will be toothless. It can issue nonbinding advice to the government on domestic policy and legislation and request that federal authorities investigate allegations of breaches of the law.

The four chamber members who are clearly not Kremlin loyalists are lawyer Genry Reznik, pediatrician Leonid Roshal, Moskva magazine editor Leonid Borodin, and the head of the World Wildlife Fund’s Moscow office, Igor Chestin, said Tatyana Stanovaya of the Center for Political Technologies and Vladimir Pribylovsky of Panorama.

The four could raise loud protests if they disagreed with the rest of the chamber, but they would not be able to influence any decisions, the analysts said.

Although it’s indeed a possibility that the Chamber will turn out to be a toothless organization created only to assist Moscow in pushing its agenda, that outcome is far from foreordained. The Kremlin recognizes the value of informal social institutions, and has not tried to destroy them; rather, what political elites in Moscow fear is political opposition, and that’s why they’ve been trying to get a grip on the country’s nongovernmental organizations. They fear that some NGOs are fostering political opposition to the current government, and by putting NGOs under government authority they hope to quash such dissent. This necessarily impacts civil society for the worse, true; however, much of what supports a healthy civil society is apolitical in nature, and the Kremlin would no doubt like to see these essential social service providers remain in operation (to provide services the government cannot or does not want to offer itself).

I think Peter Lavelle, in his essay on the Chamber, is entirely and exactly on the mark.

Just about every word written on the chamber in media claims it is “toothless.” Why should it have “teeth?” Russia has two houses of parliament for the passage of laws. There is no reason why the chamber should be a substitute for parliament. The chamber’s role is very different. The chamber’s purpose is not to pass laws – it is designed to speak out on the behalf of society. Speaking-out with moral authority can be more powerful than having the right to pass or veto laws.

I find the subliminal characterization of chamber members as being “stooges” in the service of the state an insult to some of Russia’s most respected and liked citizens. A careful review of the members informs me that if the chamber is expected to be a rubber stamp for the authorities’ own PR many members will simply walk away. All members have a “day job” – none of them should be considered as “rent seekers” to perform the role of “yes men.”

There has also been criticism that too many chamber members come from the world of business. I think that this is the way it should be. Civil society is, in my opinion, not so much an idea, but a process – and different everywhere. Nonetheless, business people – more times than not – represent the interests and identity of society. Those who claim that business interests will be promoted within the chamber are simply being naïve. Of course this will probably happen – what is wrong with this proposition? Promoting the interests of business is an important way to strengthen the interests of any modern civil society.