Security and democracy and on the term ‘foreign agent’ in Russia

Employment of the term ‘agent’ in the scope of security is apt to be confusing for the articulation of the protection of fundamental rights, freedoms and the democracy. “Agent”, as known, is measured in proportion to an assumed ‘standard’ / threshold or the so-called “official ideology”, “official values”, etc. by the State, (which is not really a remaining approach after the WWII) whilst evaluating political, ideological differences as a penal issue.

If a political standpoint of a usual citizen is intersecting with the foreign security doctrines of an intelligence agency of an another state, the citizen, (or a journalist anyway) is, without intentions, applying (de facto) an agency. There are variety of cases for such situations limit the freedom of thought and cause an assumed (de facto, and sometime -unfortunately- legal) hierarchy, in the end, between the fundamental freedoms, democracy and the state security.

If a foreign security intelligence officer in an another state shares the same approach, ideology etc. with the officials of the country of residence, it may not be qualified as an application of agency as well, in respect to the assumed axioms of the relevant thesis which is constantly in relation with the proofs ought to be laid in the presence of the jurisprudence.

Lord Byron’s influence on the 19th century Russian writers could also be qualified as a cultural agency, or Prussian influence on the 19th century modern Ottoman army was also a near situation, the whole European art was a cause of –an agency- of the Italian art in the 18th and 19th century and those had impacts on variety of issues in these countries.

Yet foreign agent is also tautologic because such “relationship” should also be foreign anyway, a question necessary to be observed.

In the security terminology, within the scope of the Intelligence Agencies, agent is both different from spy and agent provocateur, foreign milice and also different variations, like “(political) impact agents” are also terms used in the debates recently -important to be discussed in the modern centuries whereas the modern world may show another more examples for the necessity of these to be articulated with attention.

And counter-espionnage, counter-terrorism should be separated in regards towards “foreign agents”, as well. This also is quite related to the Troll problem of the social media platforms which seems to be taking more and more a remarkable part from the classical press in its important relation to the democracy. And yet, trolls can be taken into account for the necessary line between the authority and the democracy and its consequences when this line is vague can be observed apparently.

Before the entrance of the nation states to the History, in the time of empires, there were “foreign courts” that could be utilized by the foreign subjects residing in those Empires, should also be noted, as such controversy is not that new yet the coherence of the States for being in accordance with their regime by legislative norms may also suggest a framework as well for a better consideration.

There are wide range of issues for the States of maintaining the foreign policy in balance with democracy and the Rule of Law and inbalancies are also causing de facto arbitration of the legally approved professions focusing on, in general, information such as journalism which is also an other important aspect to be considered for the security of the bases of democracy, yet either a security intelligence officer or not: journalists and their subjects of work are not that transparent especially where the freedom of press and freedom of thought, freedom of expression is not well established and provisioned: which obscures the very responsibility of the press to be part of the democracy within its legal rights to inform the public yet the relation of the press and the Rule of Law and the line or relation between them is also another important subject.

Yet it is not only the states to define / set the thresholds, standards, propagation of “norms” but, as the journalism is ipso facto a direct dialogue with the public, the line between the authority and the press may turn more vague in the states where inbalancies are very often and in a wide range within both the foreign policy and the fundamental rights and freedoms.

Russia's history on legislation on these issues can also be found in these documents:

Russian Federation - Opinion on federal law no. 129-fz on amending certain legislative acts (Federal law on undesirable activities of foreign and international non-governmental organisations) adopted by the Venice Commission at its 107th Plenary Session (Venice, 10-11 June 2016) 

Opinion on Federal Law n. 121-fz on non-commercial organisations (“law on foreign agents”), on Federal Laws n. 18-fz and n. 147-fz and on Federal Law n. 190-fz on making amendments to the criminal code (“law on treason”) of the Russian Federation 

Opinion on the Federal Law on the Federal Security Service (FSB) of the Russian Federation adopted by the Venice Commission at its 91st Plenary Session (Venice, 15-16 June 2012) 

n  Comments of the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Russian Federation government on the Federal Law of the Russian Federation on combating extremist activity