*Topicality/Definitions Democracy Promotion Includes Military Intervention
Civil Society Assistance Fails: General
Download 2.51 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- EXTERNAL FUNDING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO DEOMCRATIZATION – EXCLUDES THE ORGANIZATIONS MOST LIKELY TO BE SUCCESSFUL
- U.S. CIVIL SOCIETY ASSISTANCE FLAWED – NARROW TARGETING, HEAVY EMPHASIS ON TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT AND IGNORED OVERALL LEGAL ENVIRONMENT
- U.S. ASSISTANCE CAN ONLY PLAY A LIMITED ROLE IN AIDING CIVIL SOCIETY
- MULTIPLE PROBLEMS WITH U.S. PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO PROMOTE CIVIL SOCIETY AND DEMOCRATIZATION IN THE MIDEAST
- PROBLEMS WITH CIVIL SOCIETY ASSISTANCE PRECLUDE ADVANTAGES
- MULTIPLE PROBLEMS WITH THE THEORY THAT CIVIL SOCIETY PROMOTES DEMOCRACY TODAY
Civil Society Assistance Fails: GeneralEXTERNAL FUNDING TO CSOs HAS FAILED TO BRING ABOUT DEMOCRATIC CHANGE Francesco Cavatorta & Vincent Durac, International Relations Lecturers Dublin City University and University College Dublin, 2011, Civil Society and Democratization in the Arab World: the dynamics of activism, p. 147-8 Financial issues are in fact also a crucial aspect of the dynamics of activism in the cases examined. The vast majority of civil society actors complain quite strongly that they lack funding to carry out many of their activities. This is not a surprise, as all bureaucratic organizations tend to put forth such a complaint in order to see their funding increased, but, in the countries examined here there is indeed a paucity of domestic resources for associational life outside the Islamist camp. This has two main consequences, first of all, some organizations become even more dependent on the regime because they are then forced to seek public funding, which obviously comes with significant political constrains. Those groups that accept domestic public funding then become controversial actors, in so far as those groups that decline public funding, or have no access to it, perceive them as mere agents of the government, potentially delegitimizing their activities. Second, and more important, given that civil society organizations do not have the resources necessary for operational autonomy, or civil society “self-sufficiency”, most groups involved in democratization and human rights issues seek foreign funding. Such funding is generally available because of the belief held in the international policy-making community that strengthened civil society activism contributes to democratization. Foreign funding is, however, very problematic and merits a more detailed discussion. In developing countries, civil society groups tend to be highly dependent on external resources. This means foreign funding carries significant weight in shaping associational life. The effect of the lack of operational autonomy combined with this, “means that exporting the idea of participation in civic associations to promote democracy in non-democratic states is…problematic.” Supporting the activism of civil society is, however, precisely one of the pillars of Western democracy-promotion efforts in the global south and numerous organizations in the countries under study take advantage of the availability of funds, which has increased significantly since September 11, 2001. Funding for the promotion of democracy in the region comes from a variety of sources: governments through their development aid budget, international organizations, and an ever-increasing number of large non-governmental organizations that are keen to expand their activities in the Arab world and profit fro the relaxation of legislation regarding freedom of association. All these actors work with different partners and operate through different channels to promote their agenda, but all have an impact on the way resources are utilized in the domestic political context. The resources they make available enter a domestic scene where there are already significant institutional constraints on associational life, both explicit and implicit and where ideological divisions among civil society actors are usually entrenched. This flow of resources to the region has been analyzed in great detail by Sheila Carapico, who argues that “foreign funding in the name of things like human rights, civil society and women’s issues sparked controversies, competition, and legal complications almost everywhere,” without succeeding in bringing about change. EXTERNAL FUNDING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO DEOMCRATIZATION – EXCLUDES THE ORGANIZATIONS MOST LIKELY TO BE SUCCESSFUL Francesco Cavatorta & Vincent Durac, International Relations Lecturers Dublin City University and University College Dublin, 2011, Civil Society and Democratization in the Arab World: the dynamics of activism, p. From the perspective of this study, the role of foreign funding is even more detrimental to democratization than Carapico contends, because it significantly contributes to the reinforcement of the very divisions within opposition groups that such funding was meant to help bridge, in order to create a viable alternative to the regime in power. The main obstacle to the success of foreign funding in creating a momentum for associational life towards the achievement of increased liberal reforms is ideological bias. External donors, much like many domestic secular and liberal and organizations, have a deeply preconceived idea of what kind of democracy they wish to see implemented in the Arab world. This vision does not accommodate what can be termed an “Islamic democracy,” which would be a combination of the mechanical procedures of democracy and a restrictive interpretation of liberal rights. In addition to this philosophical conflict on the meaning of democracy, there are also realpolitik issues to be taken into account, whereby the strategic interests of the West in the region might be challenged if popular will were truly to determine policy-making outcomes. It follows that Islamist movements and organizations are excluded from both funding and, more crucially, from the political legitimacy for all civil society groups means that Western actors privilege associations that are ideologically closer to their position over those that might have the greatest impact on regime change. Islamist associations, whether engaged in controversial political issues or mainstream developmental ones, are discriminated against because of their perceived antidemocratic ethos. While this reflects the normative position of the donors, it has the consequence of making coalition-building between the Islamist and secular sectors more difficult. On the one hand, secular-liberal groups might benefit from financial independence in order to distance themselves form the regime, but this increases the risk that the regime would retaliate through administrative procedures to stop organizations from receiving funds or spending them. This in turn might lead external donors to rely mostly on non-controversial organizations that have good relations with state officials.
Amy Hawthorne, Carnegie Endowment, 2005, Unchartered Journey: promoting democracy in the middle east, eds. T. Carothers & M. Ottaway, p. 102-3 The second and larger problem was that civil society aid was based on a flawed vision of civil society, its weaknesses, and its role in democratization. The U.S. conception of civil society equated the sectors it considered politically acceptable—service NGOs and certain prodemocracy groups—with civil society write large. This had the effect of targeting assistance to the groups with the least political influence or the shallowest roots in the community and thus placing unrealistic expectations on them. In adopting such a narrow definition of civil society, assistance providers lacked a full understanding of how these groups fit into the broader sphere of civil society and why some citizens were more drawn to other forms of associative life. Narrowly targeted aid also missed the opportunity to help groups develop links to and build coalitions across sectors.
Amy Hawthorne, Carnegie Endowment, 2005, Unchartered Journey: promoting democracy in the middle east, eds. T. Carothers & M. Ottaway, p. 107 Aiding civil society abroad is more difficult than it might seem. This is not only because civil society is likely to play a more modest role in democratization than is often expected. Improving assistance in the ways described above will require policy makers and aid providers to display a level of patience, flexibility, and knowledge of local history, language, and culture that is typically lacking in U.S democracy assistance, especially when the pressure is on to demonstrate quick results to Congress. Furthermore, despite the hubris that permeates the current U.S. discourse about “transforming” the Middle East, the most important factors affecting civil society’s democratizing potential in Arab countries (or in any country for that matter) are beyond outsiders’ direct influence. U.S. assistance at best can play a modest positive role. MULTIPLE PROBLEMS WITH U.S. PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO PROMOTE CIVIL SOCIETY AND DEMOCRATIZATION IN THE MIDEAST Amy Hawthorne, Carnegie Endowment, 2005, Unchartered Journey: promoting democracy in the middle east, eds. T. Carothers & M. Ottaway, p. 84 The United States, along with European countries, should make assistance for civil society groups part of any new strategy to encourage democratic change in the Middle East. But these countries should do so with some caution, recognizing that civil society is not the magic missing piece of the Arab democracy puzzle. Civil society in the Middle East, as elsewhere, could be a democratizing force but is not inherently one. Civil society organizations are not necessarily easier for outsiders to assist than other parts of the Arab political landscape. Those devising and implementing new initiatives for Middle East democracy promotion must develop a better understanding of the nature of Arab civil society, the record of past U.S. assistance to civil society, and the limitations of outside assistance—particularly from the United States—in altering deeply rooted political realities. PROBLEMS WITH CIVIL SOCIETY ASSISTANCE PRECLUDE ADVANTAGES Marina Ottaway & Thomas Carothers, Carnegie Endowment, 2000, Funding Virtue: civil society aid and democracy promotion, eds. M. Ottaway & T. Carothers, p. 4 What some of the authors question is the assumption that the activities that go under the rubric of “civil society assistance” produce the kinds of far-reaching results that donors implicitly or explicitly promise by framing their aid in such sweeping terms. The problems is not simply that donors’ efforts are limited in scope and thus can have only a limited impact—this is unavoidable with any assistance program. Rather, the problem resides both in the conception of civil society that donors build into their assistance programs and the methods by which they implemented such aid.
Goran Hyden, Political Science Professor-University of Florida, 2010, Engaging Civil Society: Emerging Trends in Democratic Governance, eds. G. Cheema & V. Popovski, p. 251 Civil society is one of the most frequently used concepts in the literature on democratization, but for that reason it also has a reputation of being one of the more abused. There are at least four problems with the way authors use “civil society” that warrant attention here: the tendency to overlook its historical – and philosophical – origin; the inclination to ignore its underlying structural condition; the preference for treating it as an “arena”; and the neglect of the quality of associational life connected with it. We shall discuss each one in turn. Civil society has historically been associated with the rise of democracy in both Europe and North America. This is not the place for a full review of its varied philosophical origins, but it is important to emphasize that it is a product of a specific historical evolution associated with the Enlightenment and subsequent elements of modernization, notably urbanization, industrialization and the rise of modern capitalism. Directory: assets assets -> Northern territory of australia assets -> Number: caveat in the [Will/Will and Codicil/Estate of] assets -> Invitation for Bid Calact/mbta for Standard Floor and Low Floor Rural Duty Vehicles ifb no. 12-03 November 14, 2012 assets -> 12 Step Retreats For Everyone in Twelve Step Recovery Ratner Fellowship assets -> 12 Step Retreats For Everyone in Twelve Step Recovery Ratner Fellowship assets -> Sigaccess annual Report assets -> Central Government is expected to ask the seventh pay commission to consider merging 50% dearness allowance assets -> List of accessible executive records assets -> Emergency telephone numbers Call toll-free from anywhere in France Download 2.51 Mb. Share with your friends:
|