Eduardo Gudynas
Transnational Associations1997
It is a common place to state that non government organizations (NGOs) play important roles both in democratization and in globalization. Many NGOs have maintained programs on the problems of democracy, while others have been the vehicles of civic movements fighting for the democratization of their governments. Also, many organizations move in the international arena, forming coalitions and networks, which seem to represent one of the symptoms of the globalization.
However, these types of manifestations express relationships and problems far more complex than are usually recognized and are seldom thoroughly analyzed. In particular, in the European countries, United States and Canada, is not uncommon to find a simplist vision of Latin American NGOs. Thus, there is much need to explore both the limits and potentials of NGOs in the context of democracy in the region. In this paper, 1 briefly explore the most relevant features of this issue over the last few years in Latin America.
Democracy and NGOs
Although the concept of "non government organizations" is diffuse and multifaceted, in Latin America exists a historical bond between them and democracy. Many NGOs have had significant roles in the first line of the democratic transition of the late 70s and early 80s in different countries of the region.
During those times, NGOs of different kinds were involved in actions that favored the replacement of military governments with elected ones; some NGOs from the academic field contributed important studies, others were the expression of social movements and embarked upon actions of protest; some developed original upon works of social promotion in grassroots, etc.
A great diversity of roles developed, especially as a consequence of two particular circumstances: on the one hand, a strong citizen's effervescence of participation in the public sphere, and on the other, the financial support that those NGOs received from the North, gave them wide independence of action.
The process of democratization was a success in all countries, beyond the particular features of each case. But once that process was completed, with the beginning of the 1990s, the situation changed, both within the societies and within the NGOs.
These changes possess at least three facets:
The relationship between the NGOs with the social movements modified, because important sectors of the population lost that political effervescence. That process still advanced more toward a disenchantement with the public sphere, with politics and with politicians.
The available funds for the Latin American NGOs from agencies of the industrialized countries or from the UN system, began to decrease. This ended in a reduction in the number of NGOs, especially for those which were more profesionalized, as well as in a conversion toward new topics and fields of work where financial resources existed.
Lastly, the field of NGOs started to receive a wide new range of organizations after individuals coming from unusual sectors, like politicians, businessmen and even labour unions. This process, of which only the most relevant features are mentioned, has received very little attention, in spite of the fact that it directly impacts the capacities of NGOs and in their bonds with civil society.
Civil society
There is a widespread idea of a close relationship and a correspondence between NGOs and civil society. Some authors even consider both of them as synonymous, but this occurs precisely in a moment when the concept of civil society is being enlarged in an exaggerated way. Furthermore, civil society is usually represented with the best possible attributes and the strongest capabilities. Following that vision, civil society would be the repository of the most positive aspects of any nation (note 1).
However, if a strict approach is followed, it is essential to specify what is civil society. It is usually considered that civil society opposes the State; however, these are categories that belongs to two different classifications. The State should be opposed by a non-state condition, while civil society could be opposed by the political society. Continuing that distinction, civil society corresponds to the manifestations carried out by the people in the public environment and outside the current political practices characteristic of the political parties and of the State. There is no direct correspondence between people and the political and civil societies, because one person could move from one realm to the other at different moments. That is the reason why it is a better approach to conceive civil society as a sphere of social interaction, with persons entering and leaving (note 2).
In that perspective, civil society may manifest itself in very diverse ways: from a neighborhood commissions working on a local problem, to professional organizations, and even to a group of friends. This diversity explains why in so many occasions the concept of civil society is used vaguely, as a synonym of other categories, like social movement, nation, and even society.
But like all social manifestation, civil society besides being heterogeneous is contradictory. Those who invoke it as a reference for all the good found in a society, and in particular as superior to political parties or to the State, forget what happens in reality. Although it is true that in civil society are many expressions of solidarity, fraternity and friendship, there are also other interactions, such as the armed gangs in some Latin American cities, the anonymous violence in public shows and soccer games, etc. A social fragmentation is observed in Latin America within the civil society, with the development of very strong subcultures, used to give unity and security to their members, but also in order to distance them from the "rest." A good example of this are the urban "tribes" in Buenos Aires, where the youth gangs call themselves "nineties punks" "Argentinean heavies" "hardcores," "rappers of the underdevelopment", "pampa's skaters" etc. (in all cases using a mix of spanish and english words). In many districts, people move between new forms of aggression and an increase of crime, to friendship and solidarity links in their work and their security (note 3).
In many cases, the NGOs that emerge from this civil society, reflects all of its contradictions. Some groups are engaged in reactive activities against specific and local problems. Their work usually ends in requests and claims against the State. Also, many manifestations are in fact the expression of a new individuality (the protest for cleaning "my" street, the green space for "my" weekend, etc.), resembling the NIMBY reaction in the US. This explains, in part, the difficulties that those groups face to build horizontal relationships between themselves.
NGOs
The NGOs are also heterogeneous, as is the case with civil society. Their limits instead of being sociological, however are legal: in its strict sense, in Latin America the term NGO refers to a legal distinction, it is an institution outside of the government. The legal framework was not prepared for these new organizations, and the great majority despite their significant differences, are either "citizens associations- or "foundations," in both cases non profit. The growth of NGOs was explosive in Latin America, especially since the 70s.
As the term civil society harbors contradictory relationships, a similar situation is found among the NGOs. Since the late 80s, this trend has increased in Latin America.
In first place, the collapse of the former socialist governments in Eastern Europe affected a number of Latin american intellectuals that followed leftist views of Marxist inspiration, and that worked at the NGOs. Some left their institutions, while others contributed to a revision of the theoretical background of the purpose and scope of NGOs.
In second place, the reduction of funds at the international level, has forced several organizations to close or to reduce their activities, or to change the focus of their work, moving to new fields where funding is available.
In third place, problems in the ongoing relationships between the NGOs remain or are even worse. For example, the environmental NGOs coordinate among themselves, but rarely with NGOs from other movements, such as feminists.
Lastly, there is the complex problem as a consequence of the indifference of the citizens toward collective life, which also means a retraction from NGOs. The indifference of the population for public issues will be consider in more detail below, but it is important to mention that this affects some NGOs, as their links with the grassroots are undermined.
In some cases conflicting views developed between grassroots groups and NGOs. In several Latin American countries, but especially in Chile, well known members of NGOs moved into positions in the democratic government, where they have had to support policies that were heavily criticized by the grassroots groups. These groups felt betrayed and their criticism extended to the NGOs.
In this context, in the field of the NGOs new facts are being developed, some of them parallel to the different expression within civil society.
Several NGOs became organizations more similar to a company (managerial NGOs). These entitles sell professional services, usually as consultants (social diagnoses, agrarian plans, environmental evaluations, etc.).
Others specialize in certain activities, and they sell the execution of services (action NGOs). This is particularly common in social policies, where the NGOs execute the government's programs, like child's dining rooms, refugees for the children of the streets, single women's health care, assistance to elderly homeless. Of course there are mixed cases with both the action and managerial components within one organization.
Other sectors, that remain outside the NGOs sphere during the 70s and 80s, like people coming from the traditional political parties and business confederations, started to move inside.
The first wave was the creation of NGOs linked to political parties, especially those started by former high government officials. The emergence of these partisan NGOs, together with the social policies action NGOs, makes the borders between the realms of the non government organizations and the State more uncertain.
The politics of the Multilateral Development Banks (MDB), that in the specific case from Latin America correspond to the World Bank and to the Interamerican Development Bank (BID), further confuse the scene. As a result of the requests for popular participation, those MDBs agreed to integrate the NGOs into their projects, even at the level of direct beneficiaries. But this relies on the old premise that NGOs correspond directly to civil society and that premise is no longer valid. Now, support of an NGO, in Latin America, could mean many different things, like a group of professionals without any connection with the grassroots, or a group of retired politicians. Faced with the existence of that new policy of the MDBs, the governments of the region have attempted to promote their own NGOs, in close sympathy with their positions.
I am neither criticizing nor approving this type of situation, but just calling attention to their existence, because its had not received enough attention in the continent.
Weakening of politics
This complex set of NGOs, maintaining diverse relationships with a heterogeneous civil society, is developing within a general sense of indifference toward politics, in Its wide sense.
It is currently said that the first symptoms of this new disenchantment with traditional political parties occurred in Peru and Venezuela around 1990-1; it increased because the instances of serious corruption (e.g. the removal of president Collor de Mello in Brazil); and maintained due to the economic uncertainty in almost all the countries. It is not a phenomenon restricted to Latin America, but also observed in Europe as well (note 4).
In this process, the people lose interest in discussing collective matters, involvement in the public sphere is reduced, and they withdraw into private spaces. Free time and the personal satisfaction in consumption are becoming more important. The people are distanced from the political parties, and many end up supporting "outsiders" or populist options. Other collective forms of social interactions, like the labour unions, also weaken.
Many NGOs share responsibility for this situation. Some, anchored in leftist radicalism with their continuous criticism of governments encouraged different expressions of that disenchantment. Others, with neoconservative or neoliberal perspectives, supported proposals of dismantling the State to benefit the market.
This retreat from the public debate causes participation in the "old" NGOs to diminish. The traditional NGOs, working on issues like social promotion and assistance, suffer from this situation, with a reduction of membership. Furthermore, work in an NGO, instead of being a matter of activist or vocational effort, is now just "another job".
But the public domain has not remained empty. There are new types of collective manifestations, different from those observed in the 70s and 80s, and more independent of the political parties. Many of them are the result of the new social movements, such as the environmentalist, feminist, the new indigenous movements. There are also manifestations in the collective actions against corruption (especially in Brazil), and on human rights and pacifism (in several Central American countries, Chile and Argentina).
These are expressions of a new politics, different from the traditional one, and although they stay in the public realm, they seem to exist untied to the traditional parties and the State. This is not completely new, and similar developments have been noted in Europe.
The interesting point for this article, is that these new manifestations in turn have promoted a new wave of NGOs in Latin American countries. They are less interested in their profesionalization, they are less structured, some are fleeting reactions to local matters (therefore invisible at the international level), and are very reticent to work with the traditional political parties.
The Argentinean essayist Javier Franzé warns that civil society tends to adopt an ambivalent attitude, on one hand criticizing the State, leaving the idea that it should by, itself hold the government, but on the other, making decisions and actions where it moves away from the State leaving the public administration in hands of the market. Civil society seems to move, in Latin America, with the illusion that the market offers the participation and control mechanisms for State policies. However, in fact, the market could not replace the State and its intrinsic mechanisms further erodes the realms for collective discussion (note 5).
In these vicissitudes of civil society, between the loss of public topics and the citizens' reluctance to engage in public discussion, prevails a disenchantment in the public realm, and thus people are turning to a new kind of privatism. Without a sustained participation in public matters, the essence of democracy (and the concept of citizenship) is being affected.
As privatization prevails, NGOs linked to the grassroots are being affected because their origin and support stem from the public spaces of society.
While in the past the grassroots NGOs were the counterbalance of the traditional politics, and with this they strengthened the political discussion, their present diminution reduces the possibilities of that debate. The other new types of NGOs, particularly the managerial and action ones, do not promote that social effervescence as long as they are functional to the State or to whom hire them. The old NGOs were like impugnators, these new ones are functional.
It is noteworthy that both those NGOs that are radical critics to the State, and those that work in silence with it, increase even more the suspicions of the social groups toward the public domain. This condition is further increased by some features of globalization, like the patterns of consumption, or the agreements of free trade and financial relationships, as they reduce the feeling of being part in decisionmaking processes in their countries.
The strengthening of public policies
The new roles played by NGOs in a civil society that retreats from public issues has not been properly analyzed. Many NGOs are contributing to the increase in the gap between the private and public domains. Instead of doing that, the NGOs should work to reduce it.
I do not mean that the managerial or action NGOs should be eliminated or prosecuted, but instead warn that too much emphasis is being giving to those kind of activities, leaving unprotected the flank of the political work, and of democracy.
Several analysts of the Latin American situation are calling attention to the need for strengthening the political foundations of public life. Some insisted that politics has priority over economic and social issues (note 6), while others pointed out that the advance of market relationships could not supplant the social interactions in collective spaces (note 7).
It is essential that NGOs focus on political issues, not in a strict sense related to political parties, but in its wide and diverse meaning. To reach that objective they should enter new fields. The first indispensable step is to recognize the diversity of organizations that are found under the label of NGO. Among that diversity, the organizations clearly linked to citizens' movements offers the best chance to achieve that end. One might could consider it too simple to distinguish between different types of NGOs, but this is rarely done. Furthermore, this also means a revision of the present day mechanisms for funding, both by national governments and international agencies.
The second step is to maintain and strengthen those NGOs working on research with a strong bond with citizen's groups. One of the weak aspects of many new social movements is the lack of technical support and evaluation of their proposals. Particularly in Latin America, these movements are uncritically adopting proposals mainly developed by their European partners. Although that kind of comparative material is much needed, there is an urgent need of independent research groups developing new proposals adapted to the Latin American context.
The third step is to support social groups or NGOs exploring and working on politics in its wide sense, that is promoting discussion at the public realm. This will, in turn, means to strengthen new strategies that are independent of both the State and the market.
At this level, the task is to avoid the trap of taking the shortest way, where the strengthening of public politics is reduced to working closely with the government. While that strategy may have some positive features, it is also necessary to explore other ways to rebuild politics from their social foundations. The same is true with the market, so mercantile relationships should not replace social ones.
There are many experiences on this area that should be more widely known and supported. Just to mention a few, it is important to point out the experience of the new indigenous municipalities in Bolivia, the local councils in the districts of Montevideo, participatory budgets and plans in some local governments in Brazil, and alternative agriculture and trade co-operatives in some Central America countries.
But there are many types of activities that the Latin American NGOs are still reluctant to approach. Two of them should be mentioned. One is to work between citizens groups and local and national legislatures. The links of those bodies with the grassroots are even more weak than those of the executive branches of the government. It seems that new procedures for a parliamentary approach would be very useful, both for the political and civil societies. The other field is the judiciary system. It is very common to minimize the fact that a strong democracy needs a strong, clear and enforced law system. The NGOs should develop bridges between the judiciary, as an independent branch of the State, with the capabilities to support its legal structure, and civil society.
Finally, is necessary to explore government structures that include institutions with a mixed composition, such as a co-administration between the political society and the civil society. For example in Uruguay, CLAES has been promoting a forum in sustainable development for more than three years, with a mixed composition between politicians, labour union leaders, business managers and environmentalists, with the main objective to show that dialogue among different sectors is possible and useful.
Deconstruction of globalization
The challenges of globalization, instead of resolving these problems, make them more pressing. Especially, because some of the consequences of globalizations are to further increase the general disenchantment with politics.
It is necessary to acknowledge that globalization has many facets. In Latin America some of them are forgotten, while the focus is on new products for consumption and communications options. But globalization is more than buying the same biscuits that are sold in Denmark or enjoying a US computer linked to the Internet. Large sectors of the population actually face the promise and aspiration to a level of consumption that is unlikely they will ever reach. Furthermore, they will probably reach a distorted consumption, where a youth from the slums will lose his savings to buy a sport footwear in fashion. This explains the social crisis in Latin America, an issue beyond the scope of this paper. In any event, it should be kept in mind that on the continent, about the 40% of the population is under poverty conditions. For this reason, almost half of population in the continent does not count as "consumers" in a market society.
The NGOs, especially those that maintain their bonds with the grassroots, should face these problems with more energy, and in turn, the international agencies should recognize the importance of that work.
Globalization should also be politicized. This means to remove it from an economic reductionism and deconstruct all its components, such as consumption patterns, communication options, the role of transnational fashion, world finance, as well as the reactions of people (e.g. nationalism, fundamentalism, etc.). In the face of challenges of that breadth, it is essential to collectively discuss the objectives for our societies, and how to reach them, which features should be protected from globalization, and which should be included.
This kind of effort should not be in the hand of a small group of people. It is also too much for a government. Is a challenge for an entire society. But this kind of discussion at the social level is only possible if a collective political space is available and strong enough to give sound answers.
The NGOs of Latin America, as well as their partners in the industrialized countries, should contribute to an articulation of political society and civil society, and the State with the no-state spheres (note 8). Being either a consultancy enterprise or a radical protest organization, puts them outside this discussion. Perhaps we need to find new ways to express the old commitment with the people.
Notes:
(1) Many different definitions of civil society exist. For example, R. Dahrendorf conceives it as a creative chaos of associations that don't beg from the State, in "Ciudadanía y sociedad civil: Desafíos actuales de la democracia", Lumpen Ilustrado, Mexico, 8: 38-47, 1995;J.C. Alexander defines it like the "we" of a national community, in "Las paradojas de la sociedad civil", Revista Internacíonal de Filosofía Política, Barcelona, 4: 73-89, 1994. Back to text
(2) See N. Bobbio, Stato, governo, societí , Per una teoría generale della politica. G. Einaudi, Turín (1989, Fondo Económica Cultura, Mexico). Back to text
(3) See as example Hopenhaym M. 1994. Ni apocalípticos ni integrados. Aventuras de la modernidad en América Latina. Fondo Cultura Económica, Santiago de Chile. Back to text
(4) As an example, many of the european analysis have been edited in Latinamerica (e.g. the italian debate in "Modernidad y política, Izquierda, individuos y democracia", J. Tula, ed., Nueva Sociedad, Caracas, 1995; or the french Alain Touraine, 1995, "Qué es la democracia?", Fondo Cultura Económica, México). Back to text
(5) Franzé, J. 1994. La sociedad civil frente a la crisis de la política. Nueva Sociedad, Caracas, 134: 102-117. Back to text
(6) Touraine, A. 1996. "Six hypothesis on Latin America", paper presented at the Montevideo Circle. Back to text
(7) Lechner, N. 1996. Las transformaciones de la política. Revista Mexicana de Sociología, México, 58 (1): 3-16. Back to text
(8) Keane, J. 1988. Democracy and civil society. (Democracia y sociedad civil, 1992, Alianza, Madrid). Back to text
Executive Director of the Latin American Center of Social Ecology (CLAES), PO Box 13125, Montivideo, Uruguay.
Results are part on a major study on sustainable development policies supported by the F. Ebert Foundation. I acknowledge Ken Cline (College of the Atlantic) for his review of the final draft.This article was published in Transnational Associations, 4, 1997, pp 199- 204. All rights reserved.
