FOCUSING AID ON NGOs AND “CIVIL SOCIETY” BUILDING COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO PROMOTING A DEMOCRATIC STATE
Jens Stilhoff Sorensen, Research Fellow – Swedish Institute of International Affairs, 2010, Challenging the Aid Paradigm: Western Currents and Asian Alternatives, ed. J. S. Sorensen, p. 98
Conventional wisdom on democracy in ethno-plural societies emphasizes the role of power sharing and vetoes for minorities on issues essential to identity and cultural affirmation.
In his by now classical studies on the theme, the Dutch political scientist Arend Lijphart compared dozens of political systems (states) and concluded that some form of consensus model and power sharing was necessary in ethno-plural societies, since the flexibility necessary for majoritarian models of democracy is lacking, especially in pluralistic societies that are strongly divided along religious, ideological, linguistic, cultural, and/or ethnic lines into de facto separate sub-societies with their own parties and interest groups. Constitutions, state frameworks and institutional arrangements to address this problem have existed in both liberal democracies and non-liberal socialist states. This principle has been applied in such diverse states as Switzerland, Belgium, Lebanon and Socialist Yugoslavia. The federal principle has been applied to address this issue. In a number of post-conflict reconstruction missions, from BiH to Iraq, this lesson has resulted in efforts to accommodate various ethnic, religious or tribal groups in the institutions of the state. In the difficult task of overcoming widespread ideological, inter-ethnic or inter-religious animosities within such societies and resistance to state-building, there has been a reliance on fostering liberal-oriented values through the promotion of civil society. However, a conclusion offered from the discussion in this chapter is that observations such as those offered by Lijphart on the electoral system and institutional design in ethno-plural societies should be extended and amended to the non-state sphere. In already highly polarized and ethnically mobilized societies, or those otherwise polarized along particularistic interests related to crucial issues such as identity, support given to NGOs as an element of civil society may contribute to creating platforms for further polarization. This is particularly delicate in cases where the state is weak or its role is withdrawn from being a service provider and agent in social and economic development.
Targeting Aid to NGOs Undermines State Building – Counterproductive
US CIVIL SOCIETY ASSISTANCE SEEKS TO DECREASE THE ROLE OF THE STATE
Doyle Stevick, Education Professor-University of South Carolina, 2008, Advancing Democracy Through Education: US influence abroad and domestic practices, eds. E. Stevic & B. Levinson, p. 101-2
As Sutton and Arnove (2004) explain, the American emphasis on civil society is part of a neoliberal agenda that,
“calls for a diminished role of the state, which is often seen as inefficient and corrupt, combined with an expanded role for civil society. The argument is made that NGOs can be more responsive to local needs and more efficient in the delivery of basic social services than governmental agencies. By encouraging local participation in important decision-making processes and strengthening grassroots advocacy organizations, NGOs contribute to the building of social capital…and to greater levels of democracy.” (p. viii)
In much of postcommunist Europe, the state was discredited and the nonprofit sector was untainted by association with government, making these societies receptive to such views.
WORKING THROUGH NGOs UNDERMINES US INFLUENCE AND UNDERMINES STATES
Doyle Stevick, Education Professor-University of South Carolina, 2008, Advancing Democracy Through Education: US influence abroad and domestic practices, eds. E. Stevic & B. Levinson, p. 102-3
Civil society was an ideological aspect both as an “end” –an emphasis within and goal of civic education, for example—and a “means”—their chosen avenue for promoting reform. The Americans’ choice to work primarily through civil society, however, sometimes undermined their own potential influence. Some institutions, including USAID, “have preferred to circumvent national governments to promote programs through NGOs, which they view as more efficient and accountable than the state.” Without the participation of government personnel, there was little chance that important policy changes would be made.
The ideological emphasis upon civil society is just one example of how donor organizations in civic education partnerships are not neutral. First, those using public funds must serve the national interest and face public pressure. Second, some are transparently ideological or explicitly advocate certain ideas or positions. Third, and perhaps most common, “aid agencies tend to promise neutral technical solutions, [but] they nonetheless reflect political ideologies that have important unanticipated consequences for the recipients” (Wedel, 2001, p. 10).
TARGETING ASSISTANCE TO NGOs COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO CREATING EFFECTIVE STATES
Dirk-Jan Koch, Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2009, Aid from International NGOs: blind spots on the aid allocation map, p. 149-50
The proponents of the complement view reject the claim that international NGOs can be effective in countries with poor governance. First, if international NGOs were to receive significant amounts of financing and local governments were not, then unaccountable parallel structures would emerge that would lead to an unbalanced society (DFID 2006). Second, international NGOs point out that in countries with poor governance they have difficulties finding good partners. This is consistent with theories on state formation and civil society, which argue that badly governed countries or those with a weak state often have an underdeveloped civil society. They argue that the conceptualization of the countervailing power of civil society and its disciplining effects on states are theoretically unsound. One of these theories, the state-in-society approach, postulates for example that states often reflect the struggles within a society at large and that poorly performing states often coincide with weak civil societies. This approach argues that it may seem appealing to support local NGOs as a countervailing power vis-à-vis states, but that in reality civil society may be too weak to play this role (Kalb 2006). Financing weak local organizations from abroad can even to be counterproductive, as the center of accountability gravitates towards external donors and away from their constituency (Heaton Shrestha 2008: Pelkmans 2005; Biekart 1999).
Share with your friends: |