---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:16:47 +0200 Subject: FW: Naomi Klein: Bush to NGOs: Watch Your Mouths From: Helene Connor <•••@••.•••> Resent-To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> Resent-From: Helene Connor <•••@••.•••> ------ Message transféré Bush to NGOs: Watch Your Mouths by Naomi Klein The Bush administration has found its next target for pre-emptive war, but it's not Iran, Syria or North Korea -- not yet, anyway. Before launching any new foreign adventures, the Bush gang has some homeland housekeeping to take care of: It is going to sweep up those pesky non-governmental organizations that are helping to turn world opinion against U.S. bombs and brands. The war on NGOs is being fought on two clear fronts. One buys the silence and complicity of mainstream humanitarian and religious groups by offering lucrative reconstruction contracts. The other marginalizes and criminalizes more independent-minded NGOs by claiming that their work is a threat to democracy. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is in charge of handing out the carrots, while the American Enterprise Institute, the most powerful think tank in Washington, D.C., is wielding the sticks. ---<snip>--- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:18:00 +0100 From: John Turnbull <•••@••.•••> To: Syd Baumel <•••@••.•••> CC: •••@••.•••, •••@••.•••, Subject: Re: [simpol] Re: [simpolicies-general] Bush to NGOs: Watch your mouths Syd Baumel wrote: >...they do seem to have found an Achilles heel: the >relative lack of transparency, accountability, and democratic interaction >with members/supporters of (it seems to me) most NGOs. > I have to agree - NGOs might do excellent and necessary work in alleviating the worst excesses of the current system, but where is the democratic accountability, the mandate from citizens? This is why real (system) change can only come about through political action. David Rieff, writing in the Nation, looked at this issue (taking a somewhat confrontational stance) in 'The False Dawn of Civil Society' - see http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=19990222&s=rieff <http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=19990222&s=rieff> John T ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: John Turnbull <•••@••.•••> From: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: [simpol] Re: [simpolicies-general] Bush to NGOs: Watch your mouths Cc: •••@••.•••, John Bunzl <•••@••.•••> Dear John, Are you implying there is democratic accountability in our electoral system? Do you believe Bush is operating with a mandate? Do you believe we live under a democratic system? rkm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: John Turnbull <•••@••.•••> From: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: strand of thought in the Civil Society Movement Cc: John Bunzl <•••@••.•••>, •••@••.••• 6/26/03, John Turnbull wrote: > My understanding is that there is a strand of thought in the Civil Society Movement that sees NGOs as one of the three components of future global governance. In other words, the power of governments (and, by extension, TNCs) would be counterbalanced by strengthened global institutions, such as the UN, and some kind of global coalition of NGOs. My point is that, if we want to see real improvement, we need to go to the root of the problem - our dysfunctional systems of democracy and governance - rather than rely on unelected bodies to either a) attempt to negotiate with governments that will simply ride straight over them (can you imagine the Bush regime taking the slightest notice of a coalition of NGOs?) or b) mop up after those governments. This seems to me to be a defensive strategy (as opposed to a change strategy) - treating the symptoms of the disease rather than the causes. (BTW - I'm not suggesting that I have the answers as to how this 'systems change' in democracy and governance can be brought about.) Dear John, I agree completely that NGOs can be no solution for systemic change, not as a counter-force within the current power matrix. Such a strategy would be ineffective, and in fact would serve to help maintain & legitimize the current system. This is of course true of ALL reform projects, for the same reasons. If we want to get to the cause of the disease, we must focus on the question of political power, as you say yourself. We must develop an understanding of power, and a strategy to place it on a new foundation. Without that we are tilting at windmills, scratching at the walls of granite fortresses. In seeking such an understanding, many of us are blinded by a certain illusion. We are dazzled by the layers of corruptions in our current electoral systems. The corruptions are so blatant, and so gross, that it is easy for us to assume that removing them would make a difference. Equal air time & equal funding for candidates, an easy path for third parties, more referendums, etc. etc. If only we had all these things then society would change for the better. As I've come to understand things, this is all an illusion: the Illusion of Liberal Democracy. If you look at the historical record (the empirical perspective), you find that electoral systems have ALWAYS come under the control of centralized parties and elite cliques. The standard patterns were already well-established in the Roman Republic. Despite that we might hope, somehow, to be THE FIRST to 'do it right', to eliminate all corruption -- but then we need to look at the inherent nature of electoral systems. That is, we need to look from a theoretical perspective... When big issues are decided by Yes and No votes, then people naturally seek to form alliances and coalitions in order to prevail on issues they consider important. One can observe this behavior universally in all scales of society, from whole populations, to parliaments, to local school boards. De Toqueville talked a lot about this phenomenon. Out of such associations comes the natural evolution of political parties. In the end, you get parties which are on the one hand selling themselves to the electorate for votes, and on the other selling themselves to wealthy elites for campaign contributions. The contributors get the policy while the electorate gets the rhetoric. You can try to reform away this natural scheme of things, but it's like trying to block a river. The natural flow -- of self-interest, money, and pursuit of power -- always finds a way eventually around the barriers. And once elites get a hold on power even a little bit, then the reform regulations are weakened, and elite rule is soon stabilized. Another way to describe the situation is to say that voting is inherently divisive. For each choice, there's the A camp and the B camp. Over time, voting leads to permanent factions (left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal, etc.) Elites then play factions off against one another -- divide & rule. --- That's a rather brief and incomplete overview of why, but I concluded some time ago that we need to look at other models of governance if we want societies which embody the needs and aspirations of people generally. We need a way of making societal decisions that brings people together rather than one that splits them apart. I looked for other models in many places... in books about utopias, in histories of societies, in current movement practices, in anthropological studies, in various kinds of organizational structures, and in ideas that people toss around the internet. In the end, I became convinced of two foundation principles: local autonomy & consensus. Localism instead of centralism, and consensus instead of voting. There's a lot to be said about why one might narrow down the scope of possibilities in this way, and also lots to say about what the consequences of those principles are likely to be. For now, let me offer a simple metaphor. In the mythology of Pioneer America, one learns about community barn-raising. Someone in the town needs a new barn, and everyone turns out after church with hammers, saws, and basket lunches. Eveyone pitches in and builds the barn. No ideological issues need be settled; no agreement on values is at issue; there is no voting. People are collaborating together to get a job done. I'm not making a point here about communalism. The gesture of offering labor to newcomers was a choice made in the context of private farm ownership, strong property rights, etc. The point is that the focus is on getting a job done, not on debating issues or agreeing on ideologies. My view is that our societal problems are like barn-raisings. We've got problems to work out. They require the application of some intelligence and some collaborative effort. They have nothing to do with agreeing on religion, gun control, abortion, or gay rights. The things that divide us politically are mostly meaningless abstractions. Boogeymen that are conjured up to make us fear one another and distract us from our real oppressors. --- Let's consider NGOs from this perspective. NGOs tend to represent local interests -- the interests of those affected on the ground by corporate abuses. NGOs focus their activities on finding solutions to problems and championing those solutions in places where funding, volunteers, or other support can be obtained. They do have officers and elections, as dictated by law, but most of their time is spent pursuing collaborative activities, not with politics. I may be over-idealizing, but basically I think this is a reasonable description of how a legitimate, savvy, grass-roots-supported NGO operates. Regardless of how NGOs fit into the current power matrix, I think they serve as a valuable working prototype. They provide an example of how people can come together voluntarily and productively, in pursuit of shared objectives, without a private economic motive -- and how they can focus on collaboration instead of politics. Within the current political ecosystem NGOs may be ill-suited to compete, as were mammals in the age of dinosaurs. How fortunate it was for us that those pioneer pygmy mammals stuck it out to the endgame. As future seeds of the new ecosystem, they had always been important, but that importance was not visible. They were like the ugly duckling. --- If one has a vision of a new society, then it is useful to look for potential seeds of that society, and to do what one can to nurture them. From my perspective, legitimate NGOs are among those seeds. Also the consensus processes used by the anti-globalization movement. And all this non-economic discussing and seeking we do on the net. These things cannot eliminate the tyranny of the dinosaurs, but when the dinosaurs fall we'll need as many seeds as we can find wherever we can find them. best regards, rkm -- ============================================================================ For the movement, the relevant question is not, "Can we work through the political system?", but rather, "Is the political system one of the things that needs to be fundamentally transformed?" cyberjournal home page: http://cyberjournal.org "Zen of Global Transformation" home page: http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/ QuayLargo discussion forum: http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/ShowChat/?ScreenName=ShowThreads cj list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj newslog list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog 'Truthout' excellent news source: http://www.truthout.org subscribe addresses for cj list: •••@••.••• •••@••.••• ============================================================================
Share: