In 1990, NED began funding political organizing and trade union development work by three of its core institutes. Democracy Projects Have Had Mixed Results

		Independent Media

The U.S.-funded independent media program in Russia has helped raise the quality of print and broadcast journalism and contributed to Russia’s movement toward an independent, self-sustaining local television network. They also conducted civic education and grassroots organizing programs for Russians at the national and local level. It is too soon to evaluate the effectiveness of the contractor’s efforts to support reform of the core legal institutions; however, officials from USAID, the State Department, and the Russian government said that systemic changes in Russia’s legal institutions will be a long-term process, given that the needs in this area are vast and complex. Although the Center’s projects may have contributed to democratic reforms, the primary focus of the Center’s projects was to promote privatization and promarket reforms, two areas outside the scope of our review. Our scope was limited to an evaluation of projects in the areas of independent media, rule of law, political party development, trade union development, electoral assistance, and civil-military relations. U.S. Democratic Development Assistance to Russia (Fiscal Years 1990 to 1994)

U.S. democracy assistance to Russia includes projects funded or implemented by a number of agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); the Department of Defense (DOD); and the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) through its annual grants to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Independent Media

The purpose of the U.S.-funded independent media program in Russia is to ensure the quality and self-sufficiency of nongovernment or independent media organizations so that the Russian people have access to truthful information and a forum for open expression. They also financed specific media projects that provide a prodemocracy angle to Russia’s economic and political reform process. GAO’s Comments

1. 3. 2. 4. 5. 6. Thus, we continue to view these programs as political party development. 7. 9. 10.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed U.S.-funded democracy programs of the Agency for International Development (AID), U.S. Information Agency (USIA), Department of State, and the Department of Defense, focusing on whether democracy programs in Russia were meeting their developmental goals and contributing to political reform from fiscal years 1990 through 1994.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) U.S.-funded democracy projects have demonstrated support for and contributed to Russia's democracy movement; (2) organizations and institutions at the center of the democratic reform process have been identified and supported, as have thousands of Russian activists working at these organizations at the national, regional, and local levels; (3) those assisted include prodemocracy political activists and political parties, proreform trade unions, court systems, legal academies, officials throughout the government, and members of the media; (4) the democracy projects that GAO reviewed, however, had mixed results in meeting their stated developmental objectives; (5) Russian reformers and others saw U.S. democracy assistance as generally valuable, but in only three of the six areas GAO reviewed did projects contribute to significant changes in Russia's political, legal, or social system; (6) AID and USIA media projects largely met their objective of increasing the quality and self-sufficiency of nongovernment or independent media organizations, although the weak economy continues to threaten the sustainability of an independent media; (7) U.S. efforts to help develop a democratic trade union movement and improve Russia's electoral system also contributed to systemic changes, although more needs to be done; (8) however, projects in the areas of political party development, rule of law, and civil-military relations have had limited impact; (9) GAO's analysis indicated that the most important factors determining project impact were Russian economic and political conditions; (10) project implementation problems contributed to the limited results achieved from the rule of law project; and (11) State and AID officials acknowledged that democratic reforms in Russia may take longer to achieve than they initially anticipated.