FROM THE DESK OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Civil society engaging with inter-governmental organisations: is the feeling mutual?

Release Date: 19 July 2007

By Kumi Naidoo, CIVICUS Secretary-General

Dear e-CIVICUS Subscriber,  

Via conference call from Johannesburg, on July 10^th I participated in a meeting in New York organised by the Non-Governmental Liaison Service (NGLS) of the United Nations. The meeting convened the civil society focal points of various intergovernmental organisations who, during their reflections the previous day on the challenges that they face, noted that they found themselves in a difficult situation. On the one hand they were seen as second class citizens within the various global governance institutions that they were part of; on the other hand they were viewed with suspicion by civil society organisations (CSO’S) due to the fact that many intergovernmental organisations, from the World Bank to the United Nations, had deep democratic deficits.  

The organisers had invited Neth Dano from Third World Network in the Philippines who powerfully pointed out that there were several challenges that civil society faced in terms of their engagement with intergovernmental organisations. These included resources, access and capacity. She argued that the kind of resources that was needed for civil society to engage in global policy-making summits and other global meetings were considerable. This holds particularly true for the global South. Consequently, very few organisations are able to participate. Even more so given that most of these intergovernmental institutions are located in the North in relatively expensive cities.  

And even when civil society organisations secure the resources to participate, they might still feel that they are mere window dressing to legitimate various global processes. Often civil society representatives find themselves with very limited access to the formal governmental processes; sidelined is the word that springs to mind. There is the suggestion that we are given a right to speak, albeit limited, but civil society is hardly ever taken seriously as those with power rarely really listen. For example, recently at the CONGO meeting in Geneva, after the opening session where senior UN officials spoke only a handful of UN representatives stayed for the subsequent meetings. Disturbed by such clear display of disinterest, I openly questioned how serious the UN was about their engagement with civil society. While we appreciate the fact that they come to speak to us, we would be equally if not more appreciative if they were willing to listen to our views and perspectives. How else can they incorporate even the slightest bit of our concerns?  

The capacity hurdle is particularly challenging for civil society. Even though we might have perspectives and views that are more in tune with what ordinary citizens want from these institutions, the distinctive way these institutions operate is quite bureaucratic and alienating. For instance, the volumes of documents that is frequently made available only at the last moment is a stumbling block. Not only for one person to digest, but especially when civil society organisations would like to consult their constituency and networks to develop positions to articulate at these forums. After all, we want and need to be accountable to our constituencies. Another difficulty is the procedures used to conduct some of these meetings, which require a particular skill set and a whole lot of tolerance and patience.

In my contribution to the NGLS’ focal point conference, I pointed out that the global governance system suffers from four deficits about which civil society organisations are concerned. The first being the democratic deficit which results in developing countries hardly having voice or influence in intergovernmental organisations. Take for example the unwritten rule that the head of the World Bank is to be an American citizen while the head of the International Monetary Fund is provided by the European Union. Clearly in times when accountability is key, this is nothing but unacceptable. Another democratic fallacy is the fact that the UN Security Council has the five permanent members it has, with veto power no less. Even when one accepts the notion of veto power, the membership of France and the UK might have made sense in 1945 when the UN was formed because their colonial control over hundreds of millions of people, today’s population sizes hold no justification for their position. Unless of course we agree to reward those who have weapons of mass destruction, in which case the permanent members should include several other nuclear weapon-wielding countries like Israel, North Korea, and soon Iran.  

Second point of attention is a coherence deficit, with ministers of finance having to service their country’s relationships with the World Bank and IMF, the health minister tackles the World Health Organisation dealings, the Foreign Minister is dealing with the UN Secretariat and General Assembly and so on.  More often than not, this results in the different ministers indulging in unproductive competitive cultures, shielding the cards they play. It is true that such incoherence is partially lack of will, and partially a lack of coordination, but that does not make the results thereof any less appalling. Thus, we get one arm of the country’s governments pleading for global disarmament in one forum, while another arm of that same governments fights to keep arms exports credit schemes recognised as official development assistance.

Of great concern is also the existence of a catastrophic compliance deficit. Many commitments made by governments at high profile global summits are simply not implemented, or at least not with any sense of urgency or commitment. So while we see countries putting their money where their mouth is in trade negotiations, we, and even more so the poor, are faced with an inexcusably inadequate delivery track record on promises regarding environment, gender equality, HIV/AIDS and poverty eradication. This understandably raises questions on the part of CSO’s about whether the hard work they have done to influence and foster these processes, particularly since the 1992 conference in Rio around the environment, is worth their investment of time, energy and resources.

Not surprisingly, all of these deficiencies beg questions regarding the accountability and legitimacy deficits of most of these institutions. While CSO focal points complain sometimes about not being put to good us by CSO’s, I pointed out that for those who continue, in good faith, to engage with these institutions their own legitimacy is threatened as a result from some parts of civil society.  And while CSO focal points complain about the multitude of organisations each with their own slightly different mandate, civil society too does not know where to put its energies given the multiplicity of overlapping entry points, and accreditation procedures that we have to navigate.

Most of the men and women who serve as CSO focal points take their responsibilities very seriously. In fact, many of them come from within civil society in the first place and have great affinity and commitment to opening up spaces for civil society to engage. I therefore encouraged them to continue to seek possibilities for civil society to have real voice and choice, and to continue to reach out in their own internal advocacy to mainstream their and our role in these institutions.

In conclusion, it is worth noting that there is a great diversity of opinion within civil society about whether in fact engagement with these institutions is strategically appropriate. We have identified in the past three broad approaches to engagement: firstly, a principled non-engagement position, where civil society organisations take the view that institutions such as the World Bank are that part of the problem and that dialogue with these institutions is unlikely to advance the interests of the poor and marginalised. The second category is those that take a selective engagement approach, where they consider each possibility for engagement on a case by case basis depending on the merits of each possibility. And finally there are those that take a comprehensive engagement position. Those taking this position often recognise the limitations of these institutions but feel that, notwithstanding their various deficits, they cannot be wished away and engagement offers the possibility for pushing for change, however incremental.

It is not for CIVICUS to suggest the most appropriate strategy for any CSO. These are choices that each CSO will make based on their own specific reality. However, it is worth noting that the slogan that was popularised around the time of the Rio conference on the environment in 1992, “think globally act locally”, is widely contested today since real power around trade, environment, poverty and so on, rests at the global level. Engaging solely locally, when real power is shifting to global levels, constitutes a problem since it means that local and national actors are removing themselves from where real power rests and where key global solutions need to be found.

To engage or not to engage, that is the question I guess? And if you choose to engage, then the next question will be how to do so. I hope that wherever this article finds you, whether you engage locally or globally or both, that you are able to have the impact you seek to advance the interests of your organisation and networks.

Warmest regards,

Kumi Naidoo

Below you will find all previous columns published. 

• 07/07/07: Reflection on the mid-point of the Minimalist/Millennium Development Goals

• Towards the Legal Empowerment of the Poor

• Continuity and Change: The position of CIVICUS' Secretary General

• Continuity with change: Governance change at CIVICUS

• From a whisper to a whimper: Reflections on the on the G8 Summit

• Will the G8 deliver according to its broken promises?

• CIVICUS World Assembly need you to set the agenda 

• "We' re Living in a World of Global Economic Appartheid" 

• Renewed dedication to the Call for Poverty Eradication and Equality  

• Wolfowitz must resign to regain World Bank's credibility  

• Criminalising Human Rights in Zimbabwe

• Who's accounatability to who and why?

• Civil society and the progress of the feminist movement in transitional democracy

• The role of civil society organisations in promoting corporate citizenship

• Civil society faces increasing challenges in Zimbabwe

• The road to Accra: Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness

• CIVICUS Youth Assembly to urge for ‘Accountability to Future Generations’

• International Women’s Day, 8 March 2007: Men will never be free until women enjoy full gender equality

• The World Economic Forum is too important to be left to economists alone

• From Nairobi to Davos: Reflections on the World Social Forum and World Economic Forum

• The role of civil society organisations in managing for development results

• World Social Forum 2007: Another World is Possible for Africa

• The importance of civil society in the year 2006

• International Advocacy NGO Accountability Charter: Walking the talk

• Human Rights Day: Righting the Wrongs

• Sharing member impressions and why civil society should be part of CIVICUS’ alliance

• 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence

• CIVICUS strategic planning takes centre stage

• Reflections on the CIVICUS Civil Society Index country reports

• Civil society and the challenge of Regional Integration in the Pacific

• Over 20 Million People 'STAND UP AGAINST POVERTY' to Set New Guinness World Record

• People created poverty. Only people can eradicate it." World-wide commemoration of October 17: International Day for the Eradication of Poverty

• Campaigning Works!

• If only civil society was taken seriously: Reflections on the fifth anniversary of the tragedy of 11 September 2001

• Help set a Guinness world record by standing up to poverty

• Civil society takes centre stage at the AIDS Conference

• Can we reform the International Finance Institutions?

• Article on the Doha collapse

• Civil Society and the Middle East Conflict

• Reflections of a Meeting with the Russian President, Vladimir Putin

• You can participate in the CIVICUS World Assembly even if you are not going to be there in person

• Can Civil Society make a difference in Iraq?

• The Ethics of Cherry Picking: The dilemma of where you live, work and play!!!

• Former CIVICUS Board Member passes away

• Reflections on a visit to prison

• The struggle for justice is a marathon not a sprint: A personal reflection

• Can Civil Society make 2006 a year of more and better coherence, coordination and communication?

• What 2005 means for civil society?

• Argentina: Thriving without the IMF

• Can legal frameworks strengthen civil society? Is the time right for a Campaign for Civil Society Rights?

• Why trade justice matters to you

• December 2005: Determined, Dedicated and Diverse Dimensions to Direct Action For Justice, Human Rights and Equality

• Reflections on the United Nations Summit

• Civil society gears up for the UN World Summit

• Reflections on the G8 Summit

• Nelson Mandela: Inspiring civil society efforts to create a just world

• Children, youth and the struggle for a just world

• So we think democracy is growing?: Rethinking social exclusion

• You can make difference on ‘Whiteband Day’ - 1 July 2005

• CSW Monthly Bulletin provides a global forum to protect the rights of civil society

• What does democracy really mean today

• The absence of democracy at the World Bank

• Grassroots activism: ordinary people making an extraordinary difference

• Madrid, Manhattan, Manica and Musina: Civic activism driving the agenda for social and political justice

• On International Women's Day civil society wonders if this is Beijing Plus Ten or Beijing Minus Ten

• Internal governance: Responding to the challenge of civil society legitimacy, accountability and transparency

• Poverty or social exclusion - What unites civil society in the North and South?

• Should civil society engage with governing institutions even when they have deep democratic deficits?

• One month gone, eleven to go: Is 2005 the year civil society focuses on its common shared values and agrees to disagree on strategy and tactics?

• The beginnings of the biggest ever mobilisation against poverty launched at the World Social Forum

• Civil Society gears up for a major global campaign against poverty

• What the Tsunami Tragedy means for Civil Society.

Back to CIVICUS Home page.