|
|
|
Edi Cahyono's Page!
• Historical Analysis of State-Society Relations in Indonesia!
|
|
Watchdogs, No More
Greenpeace and others: the importance of nongovernmental organisations in the 21st century: helpful because they focus attention, but their lack of legitimacy is problematic, since they are neither elected or subject to scrutiny
By Walter Homolka
W e are confronted with it daily, and it will shape the new millennium: an economy operating on a global scale is destroying organic social orders and widening the gap between rich and poor. First of all the rich North deregulated and privatised. Now the economic elites are terminating their contribution to social cohesion to pursue the law of least cost. The politicians watch from the sidelines. With apparently no-one at the helm we are drifting towards a new millennium that is very far from promising a universal order and security for humankind.The more the pillars of our national democracy begin to crumble, the more blind hope is being placed in the power of NGOs. Nongovernmental organisations are expected to intervene when the social web has torn and where access to the bare necessities is becoming more and more difficult: work, a roof over one's head, medical care. In the 21st century stable social structures will be superseded by a multiplicity of individual and competing life styles. But such an increase in individual freedom means that our own responsibility grows. In future it must be accompanied by consistent commitment in important areas of nongovernmental but nevertheless public interest. A democratic political culture that permits and promotes civil commitment on the basis of liberal human rights must, indeed, demand that citizens take the initiative. Thus NGOs have come into being, in reaction to a lack of policy-making will and competency in governmental institutions . More efficient and less bureaucratic than governmental authorities, they are expected to react flexibly when governments leave a vacuum. Where the State is unable fully to defend the interests of its citizens, self-organisation comes into play. Not only objective confrontation but also actionist defiance mobilise public opinion. This strengthens rather than undermines government that derives its legitimacy from repeatedly establishing social consensus. But where the sovereign power of the people is taken so seriously, it should not come as a surprise if politicians believe to be right only what can be sold to the electorate as right. And this view does not necessarily produce the best solutions.It is true, however, that NGOs play an important role in shaping public opinion, and help to ensure that new solutions are widely discussed and become politically viable. The State with its institutions is unable to achieve this alone. If the suffragettes had waited for government to act, women would still not have the vote. And it was only with the founding of the "Red Cross" that Henri Dunant's vision of humanitarian aid beyond all ideologies was enabled to become what it is today, an institution whose status is entrenched in international law.The example of the Red Cross is already a hundred years old and nevertheless relevant. But does it offer a workable concept for the coming millennium? Can civil society commitment overcome national borders and bring order to the turmoil of globalised life? Will the new millennium engender a new quality in the development of NGOs, international civil society as the backbone of a universal world order? There is still no answer to the question how a society with an increasingly international orientation and an economy that operates globally can be governed democratically. A reasonable blueprint for a transnational world civilisation is still not discernible. The search for workable forms of order and co-determination will thus have to become more intensive, forms that help when lifeworlds become more and more complex and we have to reconcile local roots with the global perspective. Globalisation presents an enormous challenge, which will engender upheaval of the same dimensions as the social question in the 19th century. People will have to learn to live with hitherto unknown diversity and to deal openly with disparities. In an ever more complex world, people face an impossible task in their search for the meaning of life, because the traditional forms of meaning endowment – through parties, religious confessions, trade unions, and professional associations – are losing their persuasive power. Where the economy, society, and culture adopt an ever more international stance, the primacy of politics is in real danger. We are under compulsion to develop global control mechanisms. But politics is lagging far behind social and economics developments. Leadership in this process is left to two other forces, major industrial concerns with their world-wide links, and non-profit organisations. Globally oriented enterprises are becoming more and more important in shaping our society, and are therefore becoming the natural vehicles of a new culture of meaning endowment and social cohesion. This can be regarded as regrettable, because the meaning imparted is, of course, determined by the perspective and the specific interests of the individual company. Nevertheless it must be acknowledged that business enterprises are also increasingly assuming responsibility for society as a whole. For the future, their far-reaching influence and impact on society cannot be overestimated. NGOs, in comparison, seek to play their important role in shaping our society alongside parliaments and industry. In the international arena only very weak institutions are present, there is no international court for environmental matters and human rights, no world police force. In such areas, internationally active organisations like Greenpeace or the WWF perform a significant watch-dog function. Where anonymously active forces transcending all borders decide on interest rates and jobs, on climatic collapse and the ozone hole, while national governments reputedly stand idly by, NGOs resuscitate the dream for the new millennium that it must be possible to organise life together in the international community on a democratic basis.. NGOs are coming to be regarded as the "fifth pillar" in a future system of global governance along with legislature, executive, judiciary, and the media. But it cannot be asserted that the international community has shown much willingness to be effectively influenced by the very mixed and vociferous horde of NGOs. Despite their inclusion in many world summits in a consultative or observer role, especially since the beginning of the nineties, their influence is rated very differently. The new strategy of cooperation has at least made it possible to liberalise the accreditation practice of the UN, so that several thousand organisations were able to participate at Geneva, New York, and Rio. The deceptive expectation was that dialogue with NGOs as representatives of a virtual international civil society would proceed on the same lines as with other interest groups, acting on the basis of a representative mandate and speaking for the grass roots with one voice. NGOs cannot do this, nor should we wish it. For the vague reference to a broad basis of supporters and members or fantastic opinion poll ratings are no substitute for the legitimating force of free and secret elections. And whoever wishes to make mobilisation capability in political campaigns the measure should remember the broad popular acclamation enjoyed by Adolf Hitler on Heroes' Square in Vienna. However, as long as industry is able to exercise far-reaching influence on social decisions in a skilfully operating web of lobbying, there is no cause to fear the limited clout of the far worse organised NGOs. The opportunity to participate naturally always brings a danger of being instrumentalised . If NGOs approach too closely to the scorching heat of power, their wings melt and, Icarus-like, they plunge to their doom. For the so-called realists among the prophets it seems evident that, in the concert of "global players", where major countries, transnational corporations and international organisations call the tune, NGOs will play second fiddle. Unquestionably, NGOs draw their strength from and base their relative success on their concern with clearly defined specific problems. Expanding their purview can rapidly end in failure. At the national level, concentrating on central competencies is a certain key to success; but in the global context it has a drawback. For, from a global point of view, whoever is conversant only with the rain forest, knows nothing about that, either!1)Whoever wants to play in the international arena soon comes up against the limits of his resources, as far as both finance and expertise is concerned. An organisation will be able to stay the course only if it shifts its donation machine into high gear to keep ahead of costs. In general there is a risk that the outcome of responsible involvement must inevitably be integration in the argumentation schema of the opposing side. This means abandoning every confrontational and critical approach in favour of an opportunity to attain good results in detail. The political and cultural multiplicity of the NGO scene, which was precisely its charm and utility in the course of its formation, is now a hindrance in the international context. For coordination between NGOs is extremely complicated and characterised by opposing interests. Moderate NGOs confront fundamentalists and radicals; internationally active NGO multinationals well-established on the donation market confront small regional initiatives; and the contradictions between First and Third Worlds remain. Whoever wants to be a party to socially significant decisions at the international level will inevitably be subject to the constraint of consensus. The irrelevance trap threatens to snap shut, for how can NGOs prove their supplementary utility in the supranational coordination process and present it effectively in the media? NGOs will seek to escape this levelling pressure for tactical reasons and because of their grass-roots democratic stance – thus substantially curtailing their opportunities to impact policy-making. These alternatives show clearly that NGOs cannot constitute the vanguard of global democracy in the new millennium. And they have no wish to assume this task. The former Greenpeace director Burkhard Gnärig considered this exaggerated expectation to be naive: "We mobilise the public, hand out pinpricks – but we can't and don't want to take over politics." Jens Martens from WEED takes the same line: "We only create transparency and ensure more pluralism by not abandoning the international arena to government officials alone." NGOs are watchdogs, no more.Otherwise, indeed, there is a danger that the public will expect NGOs rather than the political system to find solutions to the problems of society . And this constitutes a real problem. The new openness of national governments and international institutions vis-à-vis NGOs can prove to be a stratagem to unload real responsibility on to the well-intentioned backs of individual citizens, who have joined forces merely to give impetus to and provide help in a strictly limited area. Such bear-hug tactics place NGOs clearly on the defensive in their will to bring about change and shape events.A clear trend is apparent for the new millennium. In future, an NGO that wants to play a role at the international level will first have to strengthen its own organisation. This will reinforce a marked hierarchisation within the broad field of NGOs. Concentration on a few transnational centres of competence will increase, and competition for resources and influence will become more merciless. However, this trend will hasten the ossification of the donation multinationals, through hierarchical coordination processes and the counterproductive attempt to keep their own organisations on course across international borders and without regard for the grass roots. For supranational actors, this will be a welcome development. Instead of co-operating with a multitude of heterogeneous NGOs, they will be able to deal with a few selected branded articles, as was the case with the alliance between the World Bank and the WWF, which sought to raise the world-wide rate of forestland placed under protection from the current 6% to 10% by 2000. This poses the urgent question of the democratic legitimacy of international civil society. My warning is: we must fend off the Robespierres among the international NGO multinationals. They act in obedience to the laws of the marketplace. They will succumb to the need to act primarily and pre-eminently in the interests of ensuring their own survival and extended their influence. International participation thus presents considerable dangers for NGOs. In future it could threaten their very existence . But perhaps the solution is offered not by the co-regent Goliath but by the agile David: in a flexible network guerrilla organisation of decentralised and not overlarge NGOs. At the supranational level they would enter ad hoc alliances, could rapidly and effectively place specific problems in the respective national limelight, and exercise influence in the international context by providing the public with specific information in order to raise the profile of a narrowly defined topic. The future course could thus be not to allow oneself to be tied in, but, like Muhammad Ali, to dance a ring about the foe administering short and telling blows.Not everything will change in the new millennium. The most important basis for the legitimacy of NGOs will continue to be the force with which they can offer the public clear alternative action and opportunities to do something themselves to bring about change. It might finally be realised that merely mobilising the media and the masses may very well be action of a kind, but no more than caper-cutting in the circus ring. NGOs will not become control mechanisms in an international world order. Nor do they wish it. Their role ranges from pragmatic alternative action to fundamental opposition. The future development of the NGO scene must not favour the great donation multinationals; ad hoc alliances between well-organised national NGOs of varying sizes will offer a creative alternative. Precisely the extent of virtual networking will make it possible. "Small is beautiful", and certainly not less successful. Such alliances will be strategic in nature – pragmatically calculated and purposefully selected. They will be limited in content and time. And they will be nurtured by the realisation that David finally vanquished Goliath.
|
||
| HOME | LINKS |
|
|
