State of Civil Society

2011 State of Civil Society Report

via State of Civil Society.

via State of Civil Society.

Have NGOs Become Irrelevant? |

By Elisa Peter

International NGOs are the verge of facing irrelevance, if not extinction. This is one of the main messages of CIVICUS’ latest report, which warns that many well-established non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have become disconnected from people’s aspirations and concerns.�

The report argues that citizens are increasingly coming together in new and informal forms of association to affect social change in their communities, often disregarding traditional NGOs. Ingrid Srinath, the Secretary General of CIVICUS, notes that “civil society organizations must embrace people’s movements to connect better with the public and renew themselves in order to survive”.

The genesis of the Arab Spring seems to provide a case in point: individuals using social media to connect with one another led to the fall of authoritarian regimes, while established organizations watched from the sidelines.

The report starts by reviewing the state of the world’s civil society, building on the work done by CIVICUS in the past four years to track the political, institutional, social and cultural constraints faced by civil society in various countries. The erosion of the political space for civil society is a reality in many parts of the world. Restrictive legal environments, intimidation, criminalization and other repressive measures are silencing NGOs.� To make matters worse, many NGOs are still recovering from the financial impact of the global economic crisis on their organizations. This affects the capacity of NGOs to outreach, mobilize, engage/disengage and advocate effectively.

The CIVICUS report brings up a number of important questions, which ought to be taken seriously not only by NGOs but by anyone trying to affect social change. In essence, it looks at the nature of civic activism and mobilization, and asks what types of social structures are most adequate to deliver the change that people aspire to today.

The following elements, which are missing from the report, also ought to be taken into consideration when discussing the dynamics of change and democratization:

The report is surprisingly silent about the gender dimension of social change.� The cover of the report shows a large group of visibly angry men in a mass demonstration (on the streets of Cairo?) and one wonders what kind of change will take place when half of the population is nowhere to be seen on the streets. The discussion over form (NGOs versus decentralized citizens movements) should not preclude a discussion over purpose. NGOs as well as grassroots movements have both historically failed to include women in their top decision-making processes worldwide (with a few exceptions). Women need to be included in any type of formal or informal activism if change is to lead to stable and representative societies based on the rule of law and the respect of women’s and men’s universal human rights.

The report argues that many NGOs are perceived as urban and elitist organizations, but is silent about the capture and instrumentalization of grassroots independent movements by vested interests. I would argue that decentralized movements are as, if not more, vulnerable to internal power struggles and external cooptation than established NGOs. Unfortunately, the indigenous peoples movement is a sad example of this worldwide.

The report focuses only on countries and movements in the global south. I would argue that many of the issues faced by southern NGOs and movements are also increasingly relevant to northern NGOs and movements. Lack of funding, the rise of conservative governments in Europe, the concerted battle on terrorism, high unemployment rates, etc. are all redefining the social contract between citizens, their elected representatives and the role of member-based organizations. The recent social uprisings in Greece and Spain were not led by traditional organizations (trade unions, NGOs) but by an active citizenry expressing its discontent with the lack of regard for their everyday concerns, rights and aspirations.

The report concludes by urging organized and less formal civil society to come together as each has distinctive and complementary capabilities as drivers of social change. Will CIVICUS’s next report provide actionable recommendations as to how to (re)build these connections in support of participatory and progressive change?

Elisa Peter is a Master of Public Administration candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School and a Mid-Career Fellow at the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations.

via Have NGOs Become Irrelevant? |.

Addressing accountability in NGO advocacy: Practice, principles and prospects of self-regulation

M

Michael Hammer, Charlotte Rooney, and Shana Warren
ISSN 2043-7943 Briefing paper number 125, March 2010. One World Trust.

“Global and national non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are the most distinct organisational form of civil society, and as such have become increasingly involved and influential in forming public opinion and policy through targeted and professional campaigning and policy advocacy. Yet their growing power has also raised questions about the basis on which they engage in these activities, including their accountability and legitimacy in view of frequent explicit or implicit claims these organisations make to social representation, the quality of their research work, and the public benefit they provide.

Based on a world-wide survey of civil society self-regulatory initiatives undertaken by the One World Trust this paper examines how NGOs have begun to address the accountability challenges they face in particular when engaging in advocacy and explains some of the strengths and weaknesses of existing self-regulation for NGOs engaged in advocacy.

Research presented in the paper suggests that both normative and instrumental reasons account for the adoption of accountability principles by advocacy organisations through self-regulation, and that lessons learnt from the One World Trust’s parallel work on accountability principles for policy oriented research organisations can be usefully applied also to strengthen accountability of advocacy NGOs.

The briefing identifies for each major dimension of accountability a set of initial good practice principles for advocacy organisations, including on:
• transparency of the evidence basis used in advocacy, of funding and funders for specific campaigns and activities, and around forward looking information such as strategy, and the processes used to determine advocacy priorities;
• opportunities for participation of beneficiaries and other key stakeholders of the organisation in the development of advocacy objectives and their review; and
• the development of criteria for evaluating the impact of advocacy with beneficiaries and other stakeholders, and the establishment of feedback and complaints handling mechanisms to address individual experiences and problematic impacts.

The paper concludes with the identification of remaining challenges for research and self-regulation practice to strengthen accountability in advocacy by NGOs: how to deal with inherent tensions between objectivity and messaging in purpose driven advocacy; how to protect independence, freedoms and role of NGOs in the public policy process, and how to strengthen the connection between ethical practice in fundraising and selfregulation of policy advocacy work”

Posted in Accountability, Advocacy and campaigning, Civil Society / NGO | No Comments »