Global Policy Forum

Should Civil Society Engage with Governing Institutions
Even When they Have Deep Democratic Deficits?

By Kumi Naidoo*

A matter that has raised much debate recently is whether civil society organisations should engage with local, national and global intergovernmental institutions such as the World Bank or the United Nations.

What really is engagement? Engagement can take various forms. These can include: submitting petitions, letters of appeal or correspondence which puts forward a case that runs counter to the policies and actions of such institutions; participating in meetings with these institutions when they seek to ‘consult' with civil society organisations; participating at the micro level in a joint venture around project delivery; participating in policy shaping processes such as the Extractive Industries Review undertaken last year by the World Bank; or simply participating in events of governing institutions whether it be the annual meetings of the World Bank and the IMF or a conference of a department or ministry of a national government.

Allow me to use the World Bank as an example of a powerful global institution, which is owned by member governments, albeit unevenly, with rich countries dominating control. Civil society organisations have long argued for a voice around the policies and actions of the World Bank.

The old slogan: "Think Globally Act Locally" does not work on its own anymore, since real power, particular around fundamental economic issues that affect the lives of ordinary people all over the planet, is held at the global level. For civil society organisations from developing countries to act solely locally means removing themselves from where, increasingly, real power resides.

Civil society, as also reflected in CIVICUS membership, has three different approaches to engagement with an institution such as the World Bank. A growing number have adopted a Principle Non-Engagement Position. Those that hold this view believe that global institutions like the World Bank are stuck in the geopolitics of 1945 when many of these institutions came to life.

Given that the World Bank is governed by a principle of "one dollar one vote" means that rich country governments, often without the express approval of their citizens, exercise a disproportionate degree of influence around the policy and practices of the institution. They argue that institutions such as the World Bank are part of the problem rather than part of the solution and engagement is a waste of time, energy and resources.

A second approach might be called a Selective Engagement Position, where civil society organisations make a choice on which of the opportunities of engagement that present themselves provide the possibility of pushing for meaningful change in policies or practices. Each opportunity is determined by a cost-benefit analysis of what might be achieved if civil society engages with the relevant part of an institution such as the World Bank.

A third approach might be called a Comprehensive Engagement Approach, which is premised on the reality that, notwithstanding the shortcomings of institutions such as the World Bank, it is important for civil society's perspectives, views and participation to be pushed for and secured. This is to control the damage of any harmful policies and practices of the World Bank or to secure more meaningful development outcomes in projects that have promise and potential.

Clearly, civil society organisations have to make a controversial and complex set of strategic and tactical choices. Our challenge right now is to agree to disagree on the different tactical approaches our colleagues within civil society might adopt. While it is critical that we respect those organisations that adopt, for example, a Principle Non-Engagement Position, it is equally important that those that adopt alternative strategies are not dismissed as "collaborators" when their overall work is clearly in support of social, economic, political and civic justice.

CIVICUS members, as well as several other partners in civil society, have debated these issues rigorously over the last few years, given that CIVICUS is leading an initiative to develop a set of recommendations on how the World Bank could transform its engagement with civil society. This transformation is aimed at having greater accountability for previous engagements, as well as to ensure that such engagements are transparent, legitimate and subject to democratic accountability.

This work will come to a climax with the delivery of a set of recommendations which has received several inputs ranging from those who are highly critical of any form of engagement to those, particularly from developing countries, who have not had the opportunity to engage in the past.

Given that many of our global public institutions are located in the developed world, it is not surprising that previous engagements with the World Bank, for example, have had a disproportionate level of participation by our colleagues in developed countries. Apart from a conscious political decision of non-engagement, as was the case with the South African NGO Coalition, where I previously served as Executive Director, the factors that have prevented southern engagement include location, financial resources, access to information and the fact that the majority of civil society organisations in the South are currently heavily engaged in project delivery, rather than policy advocacy. Thankfully, many civil society organisations in developing countries are finding that putting all their eggs in a project delivery basket with tackling policy deficits, does not get us very far.

About the Author: Kumi Naidoo is the CIVICUS Secretary General and Chief Executive Officer