Moving Beyond the “ABCs of Democracy”
Helping Russia’s legislators on their journey to good governance

WHEN THE SOVIET UNION DISSOLVED in December 1991, some of the most pressing issues facing that nation were the future of its vast nuclear arsenal, its sizable foreign debt, and the scary potential for ethnic strife in former Soviet territories. Boris Yeltsin took over the reins of the newly formed Russia on New Year’s Day 1992, and told the Portland Oregonian, “This is the last chance we are going to have [for reform], and we cannot afford to miss it.”

In order to help Russia’s new leaders learn the “ABCs of democracy,” the Kennedy School and the Carnegie Corporation of New York, a grant-making educational foundation, teamed up in 1994 to create the Harvard Duma Program. The aim of this program was to show Russia’s Duma — or parliament — how to begin its country’s journey to democracy.

The program involved bringing 25 deputies from Russia’s Duma to the Kennedy School to learn how Congress works, how to make laws, and how to relate to their constituencies.

Then, in 1997, as they began to mature in their responsibilities, Russia’s legislators called for some substantial changes to the program, says Sergei Konoplyov MPA 1997, executive director of the Harvard Russian Federal Assembly Program, as it became known after admitting participants from outside the Duma. “They insisted that they needed more than the ‘ABCs of democracy,’” says Konoplyov.

As a result of participants’ calls for changes to the program, its goals and expectations have adjusted through the years. Its goals now include engaging participants in open discussions on issues of domestic, foreign, and security policy and helping them to find common ground with their counterparts in the United States; enriching the program by involving members of the U.S. Congress, thereby fostering a sense of mutual respect and building trust between the legislative bodies; identifying ways in which the United States and Russia can cooperate on issues of mutual interest; and expanding Federal Assembly members’ knowledge of American and other pluralistic systems of legislative government, according to Konoplyov.

Today the two-week program is broken up into three segments — three days at NATO and EU headquarters in Brussels, several days in Washington, DC, and a week at the Kennedy School, where faculty members address a wealth of issues, from U.S.-Russian relations to global economic trends to weapons of mass destruction. Participants’ time in Washington, DC, where they meet with members of Congress, allows them to discuss issues of concern to their respective committees.

One of the newest components of the program is the visit to NATO headquarters in Brussels. The opportunity to visit the “very heart of NATO, seeing the institution first hand, meeting with its officials, and, in particular, learning about how the alliance has transformed and entered into partnership with Russia addresses participants’ prejudices about NATO,” says Rolf Welberts at the NATO Center in Moscow. The time spent in Brussels educates participants about crisis management, the campaign against terrorism, arms control, and missile defense.

Most recently, in September 2003, 15 representatives from the International Affairs, Defense, Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and Security Committees of the Duma and the Federation Council — the upper chamber of the Federal Assembly — took part in this program. Selected by the Duma and Council of Federation, participants returned home to many challenges, from ensuring Russia’s continued economic growth and stability to battling corruption, from managing the conflict in Chechnya to securing nuclear storage sites throughout Russia. — AC

Women and Power: Leading in a New World

Women and Power, a program offered by Executive Programs once a year since May 2002, has welcomed nearly 100 powerful women from the public and
nonprofit sectors to the Kennedy School. The Bulletin sat down with Robyn Champion, program director for Women and Power, to find out more about
the program.

Are there particular challenges that women face as leaders? How does the program address those challenges?
One particular issue faced by many of the women who come to the program is isolation. In many cases, they have worked their way up through large organizations, then left to found their own companies or nonprofit organizations. Now they find that they’re a “set of one.” It’s a once-in-a-lifetime experience for these women to be part of a group of women with substantial professional qualifications — it gives them a chance to test their assumptions about leadership and power. This experience also broadens their diagnostic and tactical skills around the exercise of leadership.

How are the dynamics of this program different than what you’d find in an executive program that had men and women participants?
Both the faculty and the operations staff noted how quickly program participants bond in Women and Power. This is very different from many other executive programs. Yet, I was also pleasantly surprised — after the fact — that stereotypical assumptions I had held about the intrinsically collaborative nature of women were wrong. During the program, participants were as aggressive and traditional in their leadership styles as programs with both men and women, but they were also open
to exploring a lot of different options.

What qualities and experience are you looking for in the women who participate in
this program?
I look for women with substantial experience in the corporate, nonprofit, or public sector. Ideally, participants are senior enough in their organizations to be also active in one of the other sectors — a corporate vice president or CEO who has been appointed by the governor of her state to a public commission or a cabinet post, or a women who has held public office and is now entering the corporate world at a senior level. The women who seem to get the most from the program are aware that there are differences to operating in the public/nonprofit sectors and the corporate sector. They’re also aware that the skills that have made them particularly successful in one area may be the skills that don’t serve them well in another area, and they are curious about the differences and interested in broadening their diagnostic and leadership skill sets.