Committee for Conflict Transformation Support |
CCTS
|
The Role of NGOs, Local and International, in Post-war PeacebuildingWhat distinguishes NGOs from other local institutions?If one looks beyond the advocacy and hopes of NGO writers there are only a few features of NGOs that are essential to them and that, necessarily, distinguish them from other kinds of organisation such as local Government bodies or CBOs. Of those distinct features some are about what NGOs cannot do, rather than what they can do. A first issue regards income and control of resources. NGOs cannot raise funds through taxation, though they may be able to generate some income by charging fees for local activities, such as services. They cannot enforce payment or contributions from supporters or others who may gain from their work. NGOs depend largely on unreliable sources of income such as public subscription or international funders, and therefore depend heavily on maintaining the goodwill of their funding constituency. Maintaining that support is more crucial to the survival of the organisation than legitimacy with the local population that is likely to be affected by the NGO's activities. NGOs do not ultimately control their own funds, or do so increasingly only by the grace of funders, especially if they are part of a boom wave in new NGOs brought about by policy shifts and new funding sources made available on condition of NGO registration. Where receiving international funding, NGOs are in a completely unbalanced power relationship. In comparison, the state can tax the public and enforce payment, and in doing so has a renewable and autonomous income. However, many Governmental organisations that have development briefs depend on other parts of Government for their funds, or even depend on outside funders, so this distinction is not absolute, especially as sections of Government or semi-autonomous units 'QUANGOs' are often acting as if they are NGOs. CBOs can require contributions from CBO members as a condition of them being members and benefiting from the CBO's activities, though such income is limited by what the members can offer. Another distinctive feature of NGOs is that they cannot enforce people's rights. NGOs have no recourse to legitimate coercive force or the threat of force to protect people. They can only appeal other structures of justice and enforcement such as the police, where policing exists. This contrasts with Government and CBOs. Government, if it wishes, can theoretically make legitimate use of force to protect people and their rights (eg. police, army, judicial punishment). Government can call on legitimate authority, (where body A gains the willing compliance of other bodies because the latter consider A's claims to be justified), whether because of charismatic, traditional, or legal-rational authority, backed up if necessary by legitimate use of force. NGOs may be able to gain authority through charismatic or traditional authority, but not through legal-rational authority. CBOs may not legally be allowed to use force or threats, but as part of local society, CBO members can take co-ordinated and more or less covert actions such as physical restraint or social and economic blackmail to sanction neighbours. CBOs can use these kinds of tactics for many ends, of which protecting people's rights and justice is only one. A third distinctive feature of NGOs is that they are likely to be somewhat restricted in their geographical spread. They are unlikely to be country-wide, or if so, to be active evenly across all parts of a country. The same is of course true for Government, but Government does start, in theory at least, from a country-wide spread. CBOs are located in one place only. Fourth, there is the issue of NGOs' local accountability and legitimacy, by which they claim the right to act and entitlement to apply for international resources. NGOs are rarely truly accountable to local people whom they affect through their activities, and it is perhaps this lack of accountability that gives them the potential flexibility so prized by funders and supporters. I will return to this issue in more depth later in the paper. What of INGOs? INGOs cannot tax or fund-raise locally, and do not have a tax base at home either. As with national NGOs, INGOs rely on unreliable, often goodwill sources, including popular appeals or large multi-lateral or bi-lateral Governmental aid funds. They cannot use force or the threat of force at any time without risking staff being thrown out and local staff left extremely vulnerable to retribution. INGOs may have a reach across an entire country, whether directly, through local NGOs and CBOs, or by operating at national policy fora. This piece is not about undermining the idea that NGOs can play a significant role in peacebuilding, but is seeking to explore the features of NGOs that are particular to them and likely to be an asset in peacebuilding, and distinguish features they may share with other possible agencies in this task.
|