|
|
|
|
International Forum >> The Democracy Forum for East Asia>> "Civil Society, Political Parties, and the State: Balancing Democratic Development in Asia"
|
|
|
Introduction
Session I: Relations between the State and Civil Society Session II: Relations Between Political Parties and Civil Society Session III: Domestic and International Linkages of Civil Society Session IV: Directions for Reform Agenda Participants |
Session III: Domestic and International Linkages of Civil Society Chair: Jinjai Hanchanlash, KPI Session III focused on how Asian civil society organizations can nurture and increase the involvement of citizens of their own societies, while also drawing support from transnational civil society and from the international donor community. Irena Lasota, a U.S.-based participant, described the recent development of civil society in East-Central Europe and the former Soviet Union, a part of the world whose countries were ruled by communist regimes for much of the twentieth century. Under communism there was no independent civil society; in most places the Communist Party was the only legally recognized political entity. When communism collapsed in 1989-1991, a new generation of leaders emerged from preexisting nationalist or anticommunist movements or from scientific professions that were relatively less tainted by politics during the communist period. Rather than joining political parties, many of these individuals established or took over civil society organizations that, with the help of international donors, began pressing for social and economic reforms. In popular discussions such reforms were often categorized as "democracy" and a "market economy," Ms. Lasota said, but the terms had different and often imprecise meanings for people in the region. The citizens of Romania wanted 'democracy' in 1989, for example, but in the immediate aftermath of their revolution what they meant by democracy was "heat for their apartments and adequate food." For young people democracy often meant the freedom to travel or to read whatever they wished, while for displaced workers it meant higher prices and corrupt privatization deals. Ms. Lasota acknowledged that domestic NGOs in East-Central Europe and the former Soviet Union often accepted money for projects that were driven more by the interests of international donors than by domestic priorities. The real test, she said, comes after international funding dries up: "If I see an NGO continue to work on an issue even after its foreign funding is cut off, I conclude that it must be a legitimate domestic issue." "Promoting women's participation helps promote democracy," according to Suteera Thomson Vichitranonda, who directs a number of Thai advocacy groups that strengthen the leadership skills of women. The groups initially planned to work on as many as 50 different issues, Ms. Thomson Vichitranonda said, but early on they decided to focus on a few key problem areas-such as employment discrimination and the recruitment of rural girls for prostitution-where they believed they could have the greatest impact. The groups also developed an awards program for "Woman of the Year" and "Man of the Year" that not only helped them forge links with international partners but also got political parties interested in women's issues. And although 'gender' was not even a word in the Thai language when Ms. Thomson Vichitranonda founded her first organization, the groups had recently organized three successful workshops on gender equality with the help of women's associations from other Asian countries. Unfortunately, she said, "women still do not have full equal opportunity in Thailand.…There is much room for improvement." Gordon Hein said in reply to Ms. Lasota that Asia also had a few postcommunist countries. He suggested Mongolia as a promising example, noting that the Asia Foundation had recently received a call from government official there who said, "We too want to have a democracy, political parties, and elections." At the other extreme, however, was Cambodia, where progress was much less apparent. The biggest question mark, he added, was China, where even Communist Party officials talk about "a small state and a big society" and where the government continues to relax its control over economic activity. Mr. Hein thus agreed that the post-Soviet European experience did have relevance for East Asia. "In most places when we talk about how civil society can strengthen democracy," Kim Ninh of the Asia Foundation noted, "we tend to assume that civil society consists only of groups that fit Western models of NGOs, such as activist groups, monitoring groups, consumer organizations, and professional associations. I want to emphasize that we need to pay greater attention to other forms of association, such as the traditional clan-based organizations one finds in Vietnam, that do not fit neatly within the Western model." Conversely, many experts consider the Philippines a good example of a country with a well-developed civil society, Ms. Ninh continued. She noted that there has been a lot of discussion in the past decade linking a vibrant civil society with political reform, and that this had led to a focus on civil-society development to the exclusion of working with the state on reforms. But if there is such a close correlation between these two things, "why do we not see more reform in the Philippines?" Ms. Ninh asked. "If we in Thailand have been successful in pushing policy reforms on some issues," Borwornsak Uwanno countered, "it is because of our leaders" in the domestic NGO community. But since most NGOs concentrate on action, it is essential that they be supported by policy research organizations, Mr. Borwornsak added. His own organization, King Prajadhipok's Institute, serves as the secretariat of the Civil Society Network of Thailand, whose leaders meet once a month to discuss their latest work on anticorruption, rural poverty, and other issues. "Well-respected academics can do more than unknown NGOs," Mr. Borwornsak asserted. King Prajadhipok's Institute also administers projects at the national and grassroots levels in such areas as youth training and the development of local media. But while recognizing that international support is still needed in many countries, Mr. Borwornsak stated that "foreign donors often put too many conditions on grants," a phenomenon he termed "directed democracy from above," adding, "We do not impose such conditions; we allow the locals to decide." Marvic Leonen said that foreign donors usually attach conditions to grants that local recipients sometimes find inconvenient to fulfill. Some foreign donors encouraged local recipients to criticize the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, for example. And many donors ask recipients to show how their grants had had "impact." But he believed that international support remains essential: "I fear we are looking at a dark future for Philippine NGOs…There are so many good causes and good individuals, but foreign donors are pulling out while local fundraising has yet to take off," Mr. Leonen argued. "Civil society may make a lot of noise," replied Henedina Razon-Abad, "but at the end of the day the bureaucracy has to act to improve the quality of life for poor people." She added that she was not discounting the importance of NGOs but arguing that long-lasting social change requires a mutuality of interests among NGOs and the permanent institutions of government. "My own organization, which is part of a broad international NGO network, was started to be a watchdog organization, and we have learned valuable skills from our foreign partners," Sandra Moniaga said. But there are important differences between her native Indonesia and Thailand, for example, that complicate the development of civil society linkages. Indonesia consists of thousands of islands, for example, and its citizens not only speak many languages but are often illiterate in their native tongues. In addition, only about 20 percent of Indonesian NGO activists speak English, so communication is a problem among domestic NGOs themselves, to say nothing of communication with the global NGO community. And there are far fewer progressive academics involved in the NGO sector in Indonesia than there are in Thailand or the Philippines, Ms. Moniaga said. India, by contrast, has a large, well-developed civil society, according to Gautam Adhikari, an Indian journalist now based in the United States. India is also a center of regional NGO cooperation in South Asia, which is not surprising when one considers that much of the region was one country as recently as 50 years ago. In addition to well-established political parties and a healthy free press, India also has strong election and anticorruption commissions. The NGO sector, which developed more recently, is consequently less involved in monitoring government institutions per se. It focuses instead on women's issues, environmental concerns, child labor, and civil liberties. Through such work NGOs complement the political parties by bringing neglected issues to the table. Unfortunately, in neighboring Pakistan the military government has continuously intervened to stop the development both of political parties and the NGO sector, Mr. Adhikari observed. "Cross-border networking is generally difficult," added Cho Hee-Yoon of Korea's People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy. Three conditions are necessary for such networking to be effective, Mr. Cho said: international solidarity on specific issues, more open civil societies, and international support for cross-border projects. Describing himself as "a supporter of continued international aid to civil society," Larry Diamond asked to hear concrete examples of what various NGO projects had accomplished. He also wondered if local organizations could institute annual membership fees at nominal, low-cost levels to demonstrate symbolically that citizens value these organizations and identify with their missions. Could they respond to growing donor concern that too many organizations collect grants but then do not produce much? And, finally, could they address the assertion that the recent focus on civil society had left political parties and the state underdeveloped in too many countries of East Asia? |
|
| |