Committee for Conflict Transformation Support |
CCTS
|
The Role of NGOs, Local and International, in Post-war PeacebuildingWhat is necessary for peacebuilding?I will follow two themes in exploring NGO roles in post-war peacebuilding: whether NGOs can provide checks and balances on people who could abuse positions of power and turn conflict into violence; and whether they can reduce the vulnerability of some people to abusive and/or violent situations. For lasting and prosperous peace the population of a place or a country needs checks and balances on those who have the potential to transform conflict into abuse and violence. To monitor, communicate about and respond to such parties the people need literacy, freedom of information, freedom of speech, freedom of association, a free media. For many people such freedoms are an abstraction unrelated to daily life. To reduce vulnerability to abuse the people of a country need to avoid or escape the insecurity of grinding poverty and gross inequalities. They need access to material and social resources, services such as primary health care and education, independent access to markets, and access to bodies that regulate and enforce equal rights. Access to resources (from a free media to affordable credit) must be equitable if they are not to reinforce vulnerability. Poverty is relational, as people's vulnerabilities are exploited and reinforced by others controlling resources and interaction, whether at the household, local or national level. Confidence or lack of confidence to act against abuses of power is reinforced by culture, affecting people's sense of identity and values. Any structure or organisation that is in a position to tackle such issues would need the will to do so. Contrary to ideological statements by governments and NGOs the whole world over, there is no feature of either that means workers or leaders will necessarily wish to protect and provide for their people equitably. Whether or not the workers of any organisation, from state bodies to NGOs, aim to deliver public goods equitably will depend partly on whether those governing the organisation aim for equitable goals. If those who govern have equitable goals, there is still the question of whether they are likely to be effective. Do they control the structures and processes of their organisations adequately? In the case of Government, none of democracy (rule by the people), oligarchy (rule by an elite) or autocracy (rule by one person) will guarantee that Government has equitable goals or effective control of state organisations. In many cases governments will not wish to deliver equitable public goods of the sort described. In the case of NGOs, although great claims are made in order to reinforce the necessary image of legitimacy, there is no guarantee that those who govern will have equitable goals or effective control of local staff and activities. Given diversity of the people in a country, and existing spatial and social inequalities, equitable protection and provision requires:
In a post war situation a population is also facing total loss. After a war, state structures are unlikely to be oriented or have the capacity to deliver equitable public goods. Even if they do wish to deliver equitably, after war and violence, politicians and civil service managers will not have effective control of the mechanisms of the state. Relationships have been irrevocably changed at national and local levels. Social systems and institution may be in tatters. Diana Francis used a progression of five stages to explore issues and possible actions in making a transformation from violence to politics, being transition, reintegration, participatory politics, socio-economics and culture. I will borrow these headings to structure this discussion, and also draw from her discussion within these headings without attempting to be exhaustive. Initial Transition (ceasefire, inclusiveness, incentives without amends, constituencies for peace, addressing the causes of violence, status of refugees and internally displaced people, security and enforcement) NGOs may be able to offer certain advantages in contributing to the initial transition from violence to conflict through other means where they can maintain some local legitimacy and neutrality to strengthen local and 'vertical' advocacy work. This role would fit with Korten's ideal of 'third generation' NGOs. The flexibility and neutrality NGOs sometimes claim would be an asset, not least when NGOs are taking on the role of delivering relief, as noted by Howard Clark when he referred to NGOs moving between ceasefire lines. NGOs can deliver relief flexibly, though they do not have the scale that INGOs may have to deliver efficiently. Dependence on outside funding sources is likely to undermine flexibility, unless those funders are willing to delegate all decision-making to the NGOs. However NGOs have no potential to protect people's rights or physical well being, which may need force or the threat of force at times. NGOs may have the local sensitivity and knowledge to create communications and delivery systems that create positive relationships and participation by other local people from the start - laying the groundwork for future socio-economic and cultural developments whilst still within earshot of war. INGOs and CBOs may also be able to work towards building constituencies for peace. NGOs may be able to play a special role as intermediaries between knowledge and power systems (local people's structures and culture and international bodies' for example), precisely because of the unusual experiences and languages NGO staff are likely to gain in negotiating funding relationships with outsiders, giving them insight and alliances on both sides. Psychological Change and Reintegration (dealing with the past, knowing and acknowledgement, apology, reparation, compensation, punishment rituals, recovery from trauma, reintegration of refugees, community relations work, role of education and the media, maintenance of security) A theme that emerges in many works, that seems to fit under this heading, is that of building or rebuilding community after war (also Korten's 'second generation' of NGOs). The purpose of building community seems to be about creating greater harmony, tolerance, liberalism, even consensus between conflicting local parties. In this sense it is almost tautological to say peacebuilding requires community building, it is as if community is peace. This general view is challenged by equally wide recognition that conflict is inevitable, and probably desirable in a dynamic society, so long as it is manageable and managed. People are driven to act on the basis of their subjective interests, which may not be selfish, but are often contrary to other people's interests and are inevitably a source of conflict. The view of community as peaceful co-existence is also challenged by the recognition that a sense of community is often bound up with identity issues, which can spill into violence. When trying to build communities and relationships, are NGOs aiming for harmonious consensus and cooperation? This seems unlikely, but such dreams can be found in NGO writings and in some writings arguing that NGOs or 'civil society' will build a better future for ordinary people. At best we will create systems and cultures where conflict does not destroy people's lives. At the stage of attempting to reintegrate formerly warring parties, the issue of NGOs' need for local legitimacy comes up. Here is a difficulty for NGOs. To be able to act locally, NGOs need local support and to get that they need local people to see them as having some legitimacy in their approaches and actions in that specific local situation. But that image of legitimacy is subjective and local support will be linked to finding favour with certain interested parties amongst many, groups with shared social or political identities and ideologies, that are likely to be deeply affected by the experiences of the previous months or years of war. Legitimacy with one party can rule out support by another or even a workable relationship. NGOs may have the potential to disseminate unpopular messages, but if they do so the staff and supporters risk alienating sections of the local population. The staff and supporters of an NGO are not likely to be free of historical, social, ideological history and associations either. It is likely to be those very associations that enable an NGO to work within an area and with a degree of understanding and sensitivity. At this psychological, personal, culturally sensitive level, NGOs and CBOs will have a considerable advantage over INGOs or Government if they wish to use it. INGOs simply do not have the local understanding and sensitivity needed. They can recruit local staff to enhance their understanding, but it is managerially more efficient to support local NGOs to fulfil this role from their independent efforts. Government is constrained by law and bureaucratic needs from certain kinds of negotiations. The state - if it is aiming to distribute benefits equally - is constrained by objective criteria created to simplify the task of rationing scarce resources in fair or equitable ways. Thus equitably-oriented state bodies are hampered in negotiations between local parties, because a successful process depends on the development agency being able to adapt to local conditions and negotiate special arrangements with diverse parties. Were Government agencies to do this it would be a form of corruption. The scale of Government operations and the managerial demands of rationing systems limit Government flexibility, preventing the responsiveness to local realities that is necessary if an agency is to bring angry unhappy people together in a way that may be helpful. NGOs do not face such constraints. However, I don't feel there is clear evidence that NGOs generally make the most of this potential for local adaptation, though certainly cases are reported where a few do. In addition, where international funding is fuelling a rapid expansion (in number and size) of NGOs, that funding comes with conditions about priorities and management processes, that reduce NGOs' potential to respond to locally specific situations (Wallace et al 1997). Geographical spread is also a factor. What wider impact can NGOs working at this level hope to have, as work to facilitate individual and personal recovery from trauma is so localised, draining and ongoing. When such effort is required to recreate relationships within a small group of former neighbours, how many places can benefit? And can NGOs' localised efforts contribute to peace across a wider land? There are forms of grieving and recovery in all cultures. NGOs may be adding to these, but it is more likely that they are building on cultural forms and opportunities that already exist in widespread forms. Participatory politics (democracy?, politics and identity, political regulation of conflict, accountability and corruption, role of civil society, political cynicism, media role, values and ideals, security, external support) Participatory politics is about people taking part, intentionally and actively, in their own system of managing power and decision-making in matters that affect them and others in the same population. It is about a system of negotiations between conflicting interested parties, who often do not have the same potential to ensure the systems serve their needs. Participatory politics needs systems that can reflect and cope with conflict, without abuse of power. It needs a rule of law, and systems of arbitration, justice, representation and review. A citizenry needs to keep checks and balances on those who are in positions of power and who have the potential to abuse those positions, transforming conflict into violence, amongst other things. Those who are vulnerable especially need equitable access to these systems of arbitration and representation. Participatory politics goes beyond Government decision-making, and starts from decisions over people's behaviour in one's own street, even in one's own home. We must take seriously the idea that the personal is political if we are ever to tackle gender vulnerabilities and abuses. Participatory politics is about managing relationships, about power and inequality in relationships. What role do NGOs have? Let me consider the issue of social or local organisations generally, taking NGOs and CBOs into account and recalling the earlier discussion on civil society and civil society organisations. Participation is grounded in conflict between interested parties who are acting intentionally to serve their interests. Participation in this context clearly requires skills and resources, and those who are already relatively advantaged and powerful can participate more easily. Cultural and social matters such as gendered expectations or opportunities will be highly significant. Organising is one way to strengthen your potential and effectiveness in participatory politics. But organising requires yet more special skills and resources. More vulnerable people in a society are often less able to organise than those who are already relatively advantaged. Civil society organisations including CBOs and NGOs are created by and represent the interests and perceptions of elites. To over-emphasise support for civil society organisations is to promote oligarchy, not equitable, participatory democracy. NGOs are not democratic organisations - in the sense that they are not ruled by the people - despite extensive claims that they are a key channel for local people's voices. NGOs may genuinely aim to represent and serve the people, but as noted earlier, their primary need for organisational survival is to maintain their funding constituency. The funding constituency is probably either an interested local constituency, a mass audience responding to popular appeals, or international sources. None of these counts as local accountability, and as constituencies they are unlikely to be the same as the population affected by the NGO's activities. The state may not take any great efforts to be accountable to its citizenry, but it does have a defined constituency. The state is governed by a Government system, and branches of local Government and municipal authorities not only have a defined local constituency, but often have systems in place for local voices to be heard. Whether those systems work or are used is another matter. There is potential in local Government structures to create systems for equitable participatory politics, and that potential does not exist with NGOs. NGOs may be able to lobby, educate, even train local Government workers so they are better able to listen to local people, but such actions are at the discretion of NGO workers and executive and are not an essential feature of NGOs. For international agencies, Sphere's declaration that international organisations have a fundamental requirement to be accountable to those they seek to assist is a sound principle, but there is no body outside the organisations themselves that can enforce it (Sphere 2000:9). It is something INGOs can choose to do or not, and I am not aware of any arbitration or representation systems that can require INGOs to meet such commitments. Socio economic foundations (exclusion and marginalisation, poverty and wealth, do no harm, human thriving) & Culture and personal assumptions (no escape from cultural bias, culture and gender, conflict prevention not a goal, cultural, structural and behavioural violence and abuse, war and social development) In discussing peacebuilding related to socio-economic foundations and culture there is a clear transition to themes often seen as development concerns, possibly social development issues. As INGOs such as ACORD have found and argued many times, there is no separation between development and relief in conflict or other emergency situations. There is an established principle that effective delivery and sustainable development depend on locally appropriate and grounded structures from day one. Some activities can be undertaken effectively by NGOs, but NGOs can never provide the integrated services, systems and scale of operations across a whole district or whole country that are needed for just and equitable long-term development.
|