|
Civil Society: Partners, Participants or Pawns in
Development?
The drafters and signatories of the Copenhagen Declaration
and Programme of Action committed themselves to creating an "enabling
environment" for social development. In doing so they recognized that new
"partners and participants" have a key role to play in helping to guide
governments, businesses and citizens in their use of society's resources. These new
participants, known as civil society, are a diverse group that includes non-governmental
and community-based organizations, professional associations, social movements, religious
organizations and many others.
By the time Copenhagen Plus Five takes place, UNRISD will
have completed its own review of progress made in empowering civil society to take a more
prominent role in local, national and international decision-making processes. The review
will consider the following types of questions. Is civil society penetrating the halls of
power? Does it influence the programmes and projects of international organizations,
national governments and local-level actors and institutions? And if not, why? Is this
diversity of organizations and interests a competent, public-spirited, transparent,
democratic and forceful actor in development, and, in particular, in improving the living
conditions of the poor? What steps are necessary to provide further opportunities for
civil society to contribute to development? Findings will be published in the forthcoming
UNRISD report for Copenhagen Plus Five, Taking Global Responsibility for Social
Development: Policy Reform and Institutional Change in the 1990s.
Non-governmental organizations as agents of development
NGOs are perhaps the most visible actor, if not acronym,
associated with civil society in the 1990s. They have become important conduits for
delivering foreign aid and humanitarian assistance, and for implementing development
projects. They also play a key role as global image shapers for the Third World. But how
well do the programmes and projects of international and national NGOs promote social
development? Their direct involvement has expanded tremendously during the 1990s and is
assumed to have had a positive impact on the development process. It is possible, however,
that benefits of this expanded role have been overstated and shortcomings ignored. Is the
advocacy and empowering role of NGOs being subordinated to that of service delivery? Is
the "professionalization" of many urban-based and Northern NGOs straining
relations with local communities and grassroots organizations in the South? As the NGO
sector becomes more commercialized and dependent on aid, is it getting too close to
government—to the mainstream—and losing its capacity for promoting alternative
agendas? The same question can be asked of NGO-business sector partnerships to promote
corporate environmental and social responsibility. Will this co-operation actually change
business practices in any significant way? Or will business accommodate the demands of
NGOs through appealing statements and piecemeal, token reforms of corporate activity?
NGOs in international decision making
Participation in global summits is one example of civil
society's engagement in international decision making. Although summit declarations
reflect the best intentions of leaders who know that legally binding commitments are a
long way off, it is important to assess how NGOs influence these policy processes. Have
NGOs made a significant mark on international decisions concerning social policy, human
rights, relief and development assistance, debt reduction and structural adjustment? It is
apparent that large Northern NGOs (as well as some Southern ones) have gained greater
access to finance and development institutions during the past decade. But this access is
uneven, both in terms of the types of institutions accessed and the NGOs involved.
Southern NGOs remain poorly represented in international fora compared to their Northern
counterparts. And while several United Nations agencies openly court the NGO community,
the doors of other organizations, such as the World Trade Organization, remain essentially
closed. Furthermore, although certain international financial institutions, such as the
World Bank, have attempted to collaborate more with the NGO community, it is unclear
whether such "partnerships" have changed the approach and practices of the Bank
in any meaningful way.
Uneven access is not only a reflection of the institution
concerned, but also of NGO priorities. Most NGOs have been concerned with humanitarian
aid, development assistance, civil and political rights, gender issues and environmental
problems. Free trade, regional economic integration and trends associated with global
finance and investment all have profound implications for social development, yet it seems
that many NGOs have remained focused on other issues. Have they reacted too slowly to the
tremendous policy and institutional changes associated with globalization and economic
liberalization?
Social movements and grassroots activism
If NGOs are the tip of the civil society iceberg, social
movements and grassroots groups form the larger and less visible mass of civil society.
This sector has less media savvy and fewer resources, and is more diverse than the NGO
sector. But it plays a crucial role in defending the livelihoods of disadvantaged groups.
Analysis of social movements shows that the "enabling environment" for social
development cannot solely be designed "from above" by development planners and
professionals. If the urban and rural poor and other disadvantaged groups are to benefit
from the development process, they will have to exert pressure "from below" by
organizing and mobilizing in various ways. What has happened to social movements in the
1990s? Are some becoming weaker and others stronger? If so, why? How effective are
movements associated with peasants, workers, women and the environment in influencing the
policies of government and mainstream development agencies?
Globalization and democratization appear to have created
opportunities as well as constraints for social activism. The expanded potential for
global networking means that a local movement can quickly acquire international status and
allies. Democratization, in some countries, may have reduced the threat of repression
faced by activists. But it has often been associated with fairly conservative party
politics, which can reduce the responsiveness of government to the demands of some social
movements.
The increasing role of NGOs and other civil society
organizations in development interventions requires careful scrutiny. Does this sector
have the capacity to deliver development services efficiently? To what extent have its
evolving roles and increasing diversity sharpened or dulled its political impact? As NGOs
grow closer to the world's elites in government, business and finance, are they becoming
more effective agents of change or simply pawns in a development game?
|
