|
|
|
|
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 IV: Directions for Reform Chair: Gordon Hein, Asia Foundation The concluding session considered the need for changes in policy and strategy on the part of NGOs, functional interests, political parties, and the state in the developing democracies of Asia, and on the part of international donors that support these actors. Amnuaysilpa Suksri, a Thai academic, delivered a sharp critique of contemporary social mores in Thailand. "Globalization may have made Thailand rich, but drugs are now everywhere," he argued. Mr. Suksri also identified alcohol abuse, sexual promiscuity, a decadent popular culture, and even the growing use of day care by working mothers as serious threats to democracy. To counter these threats, he recommended that NGOs add a moral dimension to democracy education. "We need to follow our culture and the traditions of our ancestors," Mr. Suksri asserted. Guillermo Luz suggested a different approach, one in which NGOs and government agencies adopt techniques from the private sector. The process has already begun in the Philippines, he said: "NGO representatives become politicians or political appointees…politicians establish and run NGOs…and business executives become government bureaucrats and then go back to private companies." Unlike some critics, Mr. Luz did not find it troubling that "the boundaries and distinctions have become fuzzier." Noting that the Filipino president can appoint a thousand government officials, he suggested that the appointment process "become less political and more based on merit, perhaps by using professional headhunters." He likewise argued that business-type reforms could help make elections, campaign finance, and public spending more transparent. As for NGOs, Mr. Luz recommended that they think beyond the wealthy individuals and institutional donors who typically support such organizations. He cited the examples of NGOs that floated bonds to raise millions of dollars or that designed debt-for-nature swaps to preserve wilderness areas from development, calling these "win-win situations." To be successful in such activities, however, NGOs need "brand-name recognition," Mr. Luz noted. "I know that NGOs do not like to get involved with business, but I do recommend it. You cannot divide the world into 'state' and 'civil society.' The key criterion is 'value-added' or 'nonvalue-added,' and we must have a strong preference for value-added." Describing himself as a supporter of civil society, Gordon Hein nonetheless believed it was important to identify and respond to problems within the NGO sector that had led many in the international community to experience so-called donor fatigue. Mr. Hein stressed that the criticisms he was about to present were an overstated summary of views he had heard from others, and that they did not necessarily reflect his own views or those of the Asia Foundation. Nonetheless, he believed that at least some of the criticisms had some legitimacy and needed to be addressed. The first criticism, Mr. Hein said, was that civil society organizations in Asia lacked grounding and legitimacy in their own societies, and that they were too dependent on foreign assistance. The second was that while civil society organizations had played a positive role in opposing authoritarian governments and helping to bring about transitions to democracy in many Asian countries, their roles following the democratic transition had become less clear and less compelling. The third was that civil society organizations, and especially advocacy groups, had raised the number and complexity of demands on governments in ways that made it difficult or impossible for states to respond. At a time when many new democratic institutions in Asia remain underdeveloped and fragile, there is a danger of overwhelming even well-intentioned governments with demands for too many rights and too many services, Mr. Hein warned. The fourth criticism, Mr. Hein said, was that civil society organizations mobilize citizens and citizen demands in ways that exacerbate divisions in society-whether ethnic, religious, regional, class, or gender-rather than reducing or mediating such divisions. The fifth criticism was that the same NGOs that opposed authoritarian governments in Asia and are now working to strengthen democracy also tend to advocate on behalf of an economic policy agenda that is antimarket, antitrade and anti-investment, antiglobalization, and antigrowth. "The same donors who support democracy programs and civil society development are also the key providers of economic development assistance, and these donors tend to support market-led approaches to development and open trading and investment systems that are at odds with the thinking of many NGOs," Mr. Hein noted. The final criticism, he said, was that in the broad universe of civil society in Asia, a fairly small group of advocacy and watchdog organizations had received a disproportionate amount of attention and resources at the expense of a more comprehensive approach to civil society and nonprofit sector development. Marc Plattner added that one cause of donor fatigue may be a lack of transparency in government. Many countries already have achieved a fully functioning civil society, he said, but democracy is still lagging. In many countries there also is a separation of the political class from the citizenry. "How can NGOs address these issues?" Mr. Plattner asked. Korean NGOs do not rely on foreign support, according to Sook-Jong Lee, so many of the problems associated with international donors do not apply to Korea. At the same time, rather than providing social services, Korean NGOs tend to focus on issues of economic justice and political reform, which puts them in the middle of contentious debates. Ms. Lee nonetheless supported Mr. Luz's recommendation that NGOs look for new sources of support, perhaps including the business community. Jingjai Hanchanlash, a member of the executive committee of King Prajadhipok's Institute, also responded positively to Mr. Luz's comments about NGOs that use for-profit affiliates to fund their activities. "Privatization of NGOs is becoming a reality," he said, especially for groups that wish to replace international with local support. "In the Philippines, we cannot divorce political and economic democratization, Ms. Razon-Abad said. "If the poor do not have a stake in democracy, they will always be subject to manipulation." Ms. Razon-Abad said that even if NGOs oppose globalization, they need to recognize reality at the end of the day. So NGOs need to look at various proposals and ask, "To what extent are these reforms doable?" Irena Lasota agreed with Mr. Diamond that the new trend among international donors is to question assistance to civil-society NGOs. But this reveals a sort of paradox about NGOs that work on democratization, she said, for "the better they do, the sooner they should go out of business." "Even after normal democracy is achieved there still will be an ongoing need for good government NGOs," responded Thomas Skladony, an American participant with experience in Central Europe. "International donors may have pulled out of some of the postcommunist countries too quickly after deciding that democracy had been achieved after one or two elections." "We have been in business 18 long years and we are not done yet," Guillermo Luz added. He thus agreed that groups that had worked on a democratic transition could reinvent themselves to focus on improving governance and that this work could continue indefinitely. "Besides, the state and political parties still greatly outweigh civil society, and so NGOs still need more support," Mr. Luz concluded. And Euiyoung Kim also agreed that NGOs still have plenty of ongoing work to do monitoring the government. "In Korea, the state is still dominant, so what is there to balance?" Mr. Kim asked. Marc Plattner acknowledged that NGOs have an ongoing role to play, but said that he was surprised to have heard several participants cite the electoral blacklist as perhaps the greatest success of Korea's NGO sector. "After all, this was a campaign telling people whom not to vote for. Would it not be better to have stronger political parties and a stronger parliament?" Mr. Plattner asked. "There clearly are a variety of frustrations around this table," Larry Diamond noted as he began a brief summary of the conference discussions. "We have heard from people frustrated with the slow pace of economic progress and justice, for example." Mr. Diamond was hopeful that the conference had allowed participants "to appreciate the dense linkage between local governance and poorly organized citizens.…Poor voters are easily swayed because they are poor, but middle-class voters are not so easily swayed," he said, adding, "We need political and economic reform simultaneously." "One thing we have learned is that the 'preconditions approach' is the worst approach. In other words, one theme of our workshop is that we cannot just wait for countries to become economically developed in order to get a stronger civil society and, through its initiatives, better governance. Rather, civil society is necessary to improve governance and thereby foster economic development." At the same time, "civil society organizations need to do a better job in explaining their mission both to donors and to the public," Mr. Diamond argued. "NGOs need to be more transparent about who they are, what they do, and how they raise and spend money." Finally, Mr. Diamond said, NGOs need to consider how they can play a greater role in civic education throughout Asia. |
|
| |