Forms of Social Organizations in the Third World: Notes on Non-Government Organizations (NGOs)

INTRODUCTION

One of the earliest mentions of the term "NGO" was in 1945 when the UN was created. The UN introduced the term "NGO" to distinguish between the participation of international private organizations and intergovernmental specialized agencies. According to the UN, all kinds of private organizations that are independent from government control can be recognized as "NGOs."

Strictly defined, NGOs are a legally constituted, voluntary association of individuals or groups that is neither a governmental agency nor a for—profit enterprise, although it may and often does receive both government and corporate funds. Some would further define NGOs as "non-political", while some would contend that they are having a wider social aim with political aspects, but that are not overtly political organizations such as political parties.

Among others, NGOs are usually involved in relief and rehabilitation, human rights issues, peace, women and youth issues, and community development work in developed and, especially, developing or Third World countries.

Although the history of this kind of social organization dates back to at least 1839, but it was after the Second World War that the term was formally and internationally recognized and such kind of social organization was proliferated. The number of internationally operating NGOs is estimated at 40,000 in 2006. National numbers are even higher: Russia has 277,000 NGOs; India is estimated to have around 3.3 million NGOs in year 2009 that is one NGO for less than 400 Indians, and many times the number of primary schools and primary health centers in India. In the Philippines, the estimated number of NGOs would be around 70,000 in which only around 25% are considered "serious". In Bangladesh, the most conservative estimate of the number of NGOs in the country is at 20,000, although some would say the actual number is much higher.

The decade of the 1980s brought development NGOs into the center of discourse, policy and programming of national and international development institutions and aid agencies. The conceptualization of the growing strength, visibility and importance of the NGOs engaged in promoting development has tended to create an impression that NGOs are essentially representing the third sector or approach - between state-led and market-lead strategies, with the former as the first. Indeed, NGOs have become a significant world-wide political and social actors operating in rural and urban sites of Asia, Latin America and Africa, aiming or claiming to be the “champions of the poor".

This seemingly omnipresence of the NGOs in different levels of affairs and aspects of societies, especially in the developing countries, presents a serious challenge, especially for the Left, that requires critical analysis.

THE PROLIFERATION OF NGOs

Generally, globalization primarily facilitated the rapid rise of NGOs (and lNGOs) in the latter part of the 20th century, most notably in the post cold war era and as neo-liberalism is on the offensive. This proliferation, both in scope (geographical and on issues) and level, took shape and developed in varying experiences and forms of evolution in accordance with specific conditions. Studies show that there is a correlation between the rise of NGOs, both local and international, with the advent of economic globalization, demographic changes such as urbanization, the growth of intergovernmental organizations, economic crisis, and local conflicts, among others.

Neo-liberalism bannered the primary role of markets and private sector initiatives as the most efficient mechanisms for achieving economic growth and providing services, including social services through privatization. Impliedly, this means that the role of governments should be reduced, and that governments should create an "enabling environment" for the private sector provision of goods and services.

Promoters of neo-liberalism see NGOs as an indispensible mechanism in the course of the neo-liberal offensives. This complementary role of NGOs is implemented in the guise of "democratization" as well as for providing goods and services in the developing countries, especially in places where markets are inaccessible to the poor or where governments lack capacity or resources to reach them. For the international donor communities, NGOs are both cost—effective in reaching the poor and are considered "the preferred channel for service provision, in deliberate substitution for the state."

That is why the end of the Cold War has meant an end to using foreign aid to "buy“allies in the Third World to support it against the former Soviet Union. As a result, the strategic and military importance of development aid has diminished (decreased to around 50 percent) and the funding support for "projects and programs that are sustainable and could stand on their own", to be implemented by NGOs has dramatically increased. For example, in 1980, funding from the international donor community "accounted for less than 10 percent of NGO budgets, [but] by the 1990s their share had risen to 35 percent. It is reported that, "from 1973 to 1988, NGOs were involved in about 15 [World] Bank projects a year. By 1990 that number had jumped to 89, or 40 percent of all new projects approved." And in 1997, approved World Bank projects in Third World countries involving NGOs were: 84 percent in South Asia, 61 percent in Africa, and 60 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean. The figures above reflect the shift of focus by the imperialist controlled financial institutions in extending financial aids to the third world. This shift of focus is based on the shift of paradigm of the global power pushed by the prevailing international development during the period.

ROLE OF NGOs IN THE THIRD WORLD

NGOs assumed particular important roles in the social, political and economic affairs of the third world. The upsurge in the amount of founding, the marginalization of the role of the state and the populist and seemingly progressive rhetoric of the NGOs made them gain popularity among the mass of the populace. The NGOs were able to organize some sectors of society around popular issues. In the Philippines, issues on Sustainable development, Land Reform, Urban Housing, Human Rights, women’s rights, democratization, and clean elections gained popularity and were favorite themes for funding opportunities.

Another factor for NGO popularity was that it was able to address certain sectors and issues which were neglected or overlooked by the Left. Also, they were able to respond to some issues or services which were neglected by the government. This also pushed the government, on the other hand, to continue to neglect this issues and services because NGOs are doing it. However, the way mainstream NGOs do campaigns on certain issues they take on are made to be very specific and oftentimes deliberately made unrelated to the broader social realities.

For imperialism and its international financial instrumentalities, the importance of NGOs (especially the mainstream NGOs) lies on its supposed role as "deflectors" of discontent from below, following the line of "civil society-free market-alternative development. It also functions as the "middlemen" (some would call them modern day comprador) by marketing and vending poverty (and other issues) using packaging techniques to lure the funders. Some NGOs and financial institutions were also made and designed to be anti-insurgency projects. Examples are the USAID, the Asia Foundation (TAF), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the Peace Corps (which was organized by Kennedy after the Cuban Revolution). These institutions promote and fund “democratization efforts" but within the capitalist framework, like having bourgeois elections. This basically strengthens the ruling system and misleads the working class of the genuine meaning of democracy by reinforcing the idea that democracy is equals periodic elections.

In selecting projects and programs to be approved, financial institutions especially the big ones, would support those which obscures class politics and struggles. By using pre-designed "menus", they would prioritize specific popular issues, like women, youth, environment issues, designed to be unconnected with the over-all broader struggle. Example, they would support civil and political rights for women especially in localities which in effect pitting a working class woman against a working class patriarchal man. But they would not support women workers to strike against an abusive boss or company, or women organizations joining land occupation activities against corporations and landlords. Much more against the impositions of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and other instrumentalities which reinforces the system that promotes patriarchy.

Self help projects, like the much hyped micro—credit, was also very popularly promoted as the way to solve the plaguing poverty. This, however, has the intention of making communities dependent on these institutions, compete for merger resources in specified localities, and instigate acceptance of the prevailing social order. Further, it is designed to mobilize the people to produce at the margins, not to struggle to control the basic means of production and wealth. Bangladesh, where micro-credit was first implemented and in a massive and very aggressive manner, speaks of the inherent ills and worst effects of this program.

The NGOs are also vital for the ruling class in times of deepening economic crisis. Typical and mainstream NGOs would just prioritize "survival strategies" during crisis, rather than organizing radical actions that directly challenges the foundations of the crisis and the system. NGOs unwittingly also serves to cater the social intelligence gathering activities of the imperialist powers through research projects selected and designed by the funders. Such was the case in Chile during the uprising in 1983 — 86.

"Professionalization" among NGO workers is also aggressively promoted by funders. This is not just an effort to "ensure efficient project implementation". Rather, this is deliberately part of the whole paradigm in order to facilitate the creation of a new layer of the society that would "effectively bridge" the gap between the mass of the populace and the international bourgeoisie. This new layer is composed of middle class professionals and some (former) Left intellectuals, who consider the world of NGO as a safe haven against prosecution or a career security.

These so-called "professionalized" NGO workers in fact occupy a more strategic place in the service of the imperialist long term interests. The professionalization tends to lead towards NGOs becoming the "vanguard" of the civil society. On occasions of popular uprisings, they are the ready replacements if and when unpopular governments fall down. That is why, during the process of mass upsurge, these NGO leaders would become very active and would take over as the “spokesperson" of the uprising in order to marginalize the mass of the populace and prevent them and their natural popular leaders to gain control of the political power. Thus, when the process is consummated, the political power is relatively in safe

hands, and it would only take a transition to restore a bourgeoisie democracy. Among others, such was the Philippine case during the downfall of the dictatorship.

The "professionalizing" also goes hand in hand with the so—called "institutionalization”‘ of NGOs. Operating and managing NGOs in a corporate manner are encouraged. This in turn caters careerism and bureaucratization in NGOs, which tend to make clearer the difference between the NGO workers and the class it purported to serve and represent.

The tie that strongly binds NGOs to imperialism is the funding. Local NGOs are always subject to the approval of projects and programs by these funders. Thus NGOs tend to be careful of the "menu" or focus fields and priority programs of the funders, otherwise it risks the danger of running out of operation. Thus NGO managers are shaping the projects to the wishes and guidelines if finance institutions and marketing them to the communities, when approved. This tie further binds NGOs to be transparent and accountable to their patron-funders, rather than to the people. Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are often designed by the consultants and "experts" of the funder or of the NGOs, rather than by the people themselves.

NGOs AGAINST RADICAL SOCIO-POLITICAL MOVEMENTS

One glaring difference between NGOs and Socio - Political Movements is that NGOs emphasize on projects and not movements. They focus more on technical financial assistance aspects of projects and not on the structural conditions that shaped the everyday lives of the common people. Oftentimes, NGOs compete with movements, especially in terms of influence among the poor and other marginalized sectors of society. NGOs co-opt the language of the Left (empowerment, popular power, gender equality, sustainable development, etc). The problem is that NGOs linked this language into the framework of non—confrontational politics. In effect, it depoliticizes resistance, or some would call "NGO-isation of the resistance". Further, most NGOs tend to focus on local and/or specific issues rather than the so called “big picture". Among others, this is the paradigm where funding richly flow.

On the other hand, radical socio-political movements are usually, either implicitly or explicitly, anti-neoliberal globalization. While campaigns and advocacy works by NGOs have mostly limited goals to achieve, movements tend to push for systematic changes. NGOs and radical movements inevitably and frequently come into conflict, owing to its nature and characteristics. An example of this was the “Global Campaigns" emanated from NGOs in the North who seek following from in the South, with a top-down methodology. Another would be the "identity politics" that NGOs would banner, as against the Class Biased politics that Radical Social Movements are built upon.

NGOs (including funders and INGOs) are also inherently undemocratic. Typically organized NGOs have very powerful Boards, which are usually detached from actual social realities. This small group of people hires and fire NGO workers in a more or less corporate way and they decide on projects and programs “in the name" of the marginalized sectors. Social Movements, on the other hand, are led by their natural popular leaders which are democratically elected either directly at-large or through representation, in the case of federations.

NGOs target to hire Left personalities and social movement leaders and integrate them into the NGO world. This is detrimental to the Social Movements as it does not only consume the movements’ valuable Caders but also could de-politicize and de-radicalize these movements.

Radical movements, especially those community or associational types are more democratic in essence. The representatives are elected (in various modes), and they share the risks of the movements: failures and victories. Aside from those being de-radicalized, movements are not tied to international funding, and thus can freely stage political struggles directly challenging the prevailing system that produces the conditions of poverty, powerlessness, etc.

Movements are important because they create the potential for a sustained comprehensive change, not only institutionalizing reforms but consolidating transformation (people-ising change) towards a structural/systemic change.

ALTERNATIVE NGOs

Certainly, there are NGOs doing valuable works, especially in relation to their concrete situations. Most of these NGOs, however, are in one way or the other, aligned with the Left forces or elements. Most often, these NGOs receive much smaller funding support compared to the typically mainstream kind. This is because, only very few and small funding institutions support progressive initiatives, mostly set-up by churches and small groups in Europe.

In the Philippines, for example, most of these NGOs are either influenced or created by the Left. This also means that the conception of these NGOs are much influenced by the particular Left block they are aligned. Those aligned with the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) view NGOs as part of the transmission belts for Cader recruitment and NGO works as part of the Guerilla Zone Preparation in service of the People’s Protracted War (PPW) Strategy.

On the other hand, those who split and rejected the old framework of the CPP, become more open to the concept of NGO alternative development works. Recognizing that the Left is on the defensive and neo-liberalism is on the offensive, these Left blocks, although in varying degrees, appreciates the strategic importance of NGO development works in relation to the over-all revolutionary project. The dominant framework is that NGO development works is an integral form of struggle in the democratic reform stage of the struggle, and that it should have a clearly defined political stance. This is an implicit recognition that this form of struggle is just part of the over-all strategy towards the eventual seizure of political power.

The new conception of NGO works promotes NGO - Peoples Organization (PO) partnership. Thus, trying to avoid the typical tendency of NGOs to subjugate the POs. These partnership is coupled with activities where NGOs facilitate the "capacity building" of POs, to avoid NGOs having the monopoly of skills, information and funding, which often happen even among Left leaning NGOs.

SOME CHALLENGES (and the list could be longer)

1. The so-called Alternative NGOs are confronted with perpetual temptation towards reformism and de- politicization, and worst either consciously or unconsciously, a swing to the right in overt and covert ways.

2. Even in Left Block aligned NGOs, the tendency for NGO workers to be "a new thin layer" in society, above the marginalized section is a reality. This eventual emergence of the new layer is the product of the professionalization, institutionalization and bureaucratization of the NGO world.

3. Although autonomous as a legal institution, a clearly defined political stance should be embedded in the conceptualization of NGOs. Thus making NGOs, by nature, a staunch partisan for social transformation, that challenges the structural and systematic causes of poverty.

4. NGOs have legitimate, very important agenda to fulfill. However, the importance of Political Parties to be the cutting edge of a more comprehensive political struggle and to provide a comprehensive vision and organizing that would push the progressive, revolutionary agenda forward, should always be observed.

3. On a practical and political level, mechanisms should be placed to avoid NGOs substituting the role of Social Movements; particularly POs. Relationship of cooperation between the NGOs and POs should be enhanced, made dynamic and mature.

4. Primacy of the political struggle against accessing funds should always be observed. This however is not easy in reality, and puts to test the principles of the Left NGOs and the relationship of NGOs and the Party they are aligned with.

5. For Parties, internal organizing within allied NGOs should be pursued constantly to deter the tendencies of careerism, opportunism, reformism and bureaucratization, and to safe guard class politics and struggles against identity politics that obscures the class content.

6. For Alternative NGOs, the need to deeply ponder on moving away from the mainstream definition, operation and paradigm of NGOs, and how and up to what, is a very serious and a non-ignorable question. This will spell out the role and path of the Alternative NGOs in the future.