Power of NGOs and States, Essay Example

Since the middle of the 20^th century, the significant role of non-profit organizations in the international promotion of human rights and protection of collective global good has been evident. For several years, the so-called non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been participated in recognition, enforcement, and regulation of people’s rights (civil, political, economic, social, humanitarian, etc.) (Abraham 2011, p. 3). Moreover, the active functioning of NGOs within the context of the globalized world has obviously limited the power of national governments, and therefore, the states (Mathews 1997, p. 50). The present essay focuses on NGOs and their power, and aims to reveal whether NGOs can be considered to have more power than states.

Being formally originated from the UN, the term NGO means a legally constituted organization (domestic or international one) operating independently from any form of government, and functioning at local, regional, national, and international levels. One of the characteristic features of NGOs is the exclusion of governmental representatives from membership in the organization. According to Abraham (2011), an NGO is an organization formed under different legal identities (including a limited company, society, and trust); it usually works “for a social, cultural, economic, educational, or religious cause” (p. 4). Overall, NGOs are usually associated with the organizations pursuing wider social aims that have political aspects; at the same time, they cannot be treated as openly political organizations. Although NGOs may have different orientation, their functioning lies in the fields of human rights, environmental, or developmental work. NGOs can also be called civil society organizations, social movement organizations, and non-state actors (Maiyegun 2007, p. 1).

The increasing power of NGOs has not been underestimated in the world for centuries. The participation of NGOs in international affairs dates back to the 18^th century, when numerous NGOs made a significant contribution to the development of international law. At that time, NGOs manifested themselves as the organizations opposing slavery, violation of social rights, and trade barriers (ibid., p. 8). In the middle of the 20^th century, NGOs’ active functioning led to the formal establishment of the UN, and since that time, NGOs can be called “the arm of the UN for human rights” (Mathews 1997, p. 53).

Since the end of World War II, the important role of global leadership in the formation of collective global good has been internationally recognized; in this context, the essential role of NGOs has become evident. After the collapse of communism, all-round spread of democracy, and revolution in information and communication technology resulting in the globalization process increased the power and popularity of NGOs (Maiyegun 2007, p. 1). Moreover, after the Cold War, a novel redistribution of power among states, markets, and the civil society brought major changes. Losing autonomy in globalizing economy, national governments became sharing their powers with a multitude of civil groups also known as NGOs. By the 21^st century, it was obvious that owing to the increased influence of NGOs, the steady concentration of power within states was over (Mathews 1997, p. 50). This way, the role of NGOs grew with time, and was determined by international, social, and political changes.

Today, NGOs are associated with powerful organizations that serve as harbingers of social positive changes. For example, it is extremely difficult to imagine the solution of the present-day large-scale problems (including transnational organized crime, global warming, HIV/AIDS spread, etc.) without the involvement of NGOs (Maiyegun 2007, p. 1). Naturally, these global problems cannot be solved by the national government; for this reason, the partnership between states and such non-state actors as NGOs becomes valuable nowadays. Hence, NGOs currently play a significant role in the international policymaking and regulation of burning issues of the contemporary society.

Depending on the case, NGOs can demonstrate themselves as both powerful and powerless organizations. For example, in cases of global problems (including social, political, and environmental ones) requiring immediate solutions or burning issues (for example, terrorism, wars, etc.) demanding humanitarian intervention, NGOs are obviously powerful, since national governments are often unable to overcome this kind of challenges alone (ibid., p. 1). However, NGOs are almost powerless in the cases when they cannot find support of local governments (often authoritative governments of the countries whose culture limit civil society’s functioning); in this context, NGOs’ influence is limited by a lack of authority, access, and legitimacy (Flowers 2013). Overall, only in the context of democratic governments and Western societies, NGOs’ functioning is welcomed and supported.

Overall, the major global influence of NGOs is evident, since the abundance of civil society organizations can be traced in both developed and developing countries. According to the statistical data, approximately 35,000 NGOs are located in developing countries (12,000 NGOs are found in South Asia alone), while in the context of developed countries, their number is higher (for example, in the USA, almost two millions of these organizations are registered); however, the true number of NGOs is associated with millions rather than thousands (ibid., p. 53). It is reasonable to admit that NGOs have a major global influence not only owing to their great number around the world, but also owing to their ability to draw international community’s attention to burning issues and problems, advancing knowledge and mobilizing public opinion. As Dalal-Clayton, Bass, and United Nations Development Program (2002) clarified,

“In developing countries, NGOs play a vital role undertaking development programs in poor urban and rural communities, have much better knowledge of community problems and concerns than government and can play a key catalytic role in engaging communities in voicing their concerns. In developed countries, the NGO movement is very sophisticated and maintains a dialogue with industry and government” (p. 100).

It is necessary to admit that for the exception of the Middle East, China, and Japan (the countries with conservative and authoritative governments that do not welcome non-state actors’ functioning), NGOs can be considered powerful organizations in the context of both developed and developing countries (Mathews 1997, p. 53). In the majority of countries, NGOs successfully function at the national level. In the context of the industrial states, NGOs usually consult national governments on strategic planning processes by providing necessary information, gathering statistical data, and commenting on the implementation of national strategies. In cases of developing states, NGOs are usually viewed as main vehicles of the national progress and multifaceted development (Dalal-Clayton et al. 2002, p. 101).

Both state governments and NGOs are powerful and vital institutions for democratic societies. For example, the core functions of all state governments include creation and enforcement of national laws, control of political decision-making and problem-solving processes, and serving the mechanism of a state policy (primarily focused on national education, health, and safety issues) design and implementation (Teegen 2003, p. 117). Correspondingly, the activities of state governments are limited to legislative, administrative, and arbitrary activities. NGOs’ power can be seen through the lens of their own functions and activities. The functions presented below reflect NGOs’ evident practical value that may seem bright against the background of a conventional state government:

• mobilization of the public or certain groups;
• provision of the detailed information on social and environmental conditions;
• encouragement of a community or organization;
• conduction of research on global problems and burning issues;
• provision of policy analysis, advice, and specialized training;
• facilitation and improvement of social and political processes,
• delivery of services (for example, disaster relief, education or health improvement);
• mediation and reconciliation of conflicts, etc. (Dalal-Clayton et al. 2002, p. 101).

Besides performing the mentioned functions, NGOs are involved in some supplementary activities, as well. NGOs usually perform operational and campaigning activities, and those related to public relations and project management (ibid., p. 101). As one may admit, in contrast to national governments, NGOs are more narrowly focused organizations aimed at provision of specific small- and large-scale changes. Unlike state governments, NGOs mostly rely on mobilized financial resources and volunteers’ work. Moreover, the representatives of NGOs are highly qualified professionals in particular areas of knowledge, while those of national governments are politicians competent in the functioning of the state apparatus, and possess general knowledge.

Overall, it is extremely difficult to identify whether NGOs have more power than national governments do, since these institutions have different roles in society; moreover, the comparison of powers underlying national governments and NGOs may seem irrelevant, since each institution has its own value and peculiarities (Maiyegun 2007, p. 318). However, several features peculiar for NGOs can be identified; these features may demonstrate in which areas these organizations are more powerful than state governments are. For example, in contrast to governments, NGOs demonstrate great operational efficiency, and may respond to various calamities immediately. This ability allows NGOs to achieve feasible and positive changes for a short period of time.

It is reasonable to pay attention that the policies implemented by the governments focus mostly on a long-term perspective, while the projects realized by NGOs usually bring immediate results. Exactly the mobilization of financial and human resources helps NGOs to achieve great operational efficiency. Holding fundraising events, promoting all-round publicity for attracting people’s attention to particular issues, empowering average people, and organizing a favorable environment for the discussion of burning problems, NGOs mobilize supporters around the organizations’ particular activities. In addition, Flowers (2013) mentioned that “NGOs enjoy broad public support that allows them to mobilize public opinion in their favor” (p. 114). This way, public support and access to finances help NGOs to be highly operative; for this reason, the mobilization of necessary resources ultimately becomes the key factor in NGOs’ success.

Besides operational efficiency, NGOs demonstrate high-level performance in technology provision. Although governments usually rely on technology, it rarely becomes their priority; instead, for NGOs, technology becomes a fundamental component. As Mathews (1997) noted, at the end of the 20^th century, “the nonprofit Association for Progressive Communications provides 50,000 NGOS in 133 countries access to the tens of millions of Internet users for the price of a local call” (p. 54). This way, provision with Internet services for dramatically lower costs makes NGOs’ functioning evidently popular and highly-demanded, especially for the distant regions lacking access to technology. In addition, NGOs’ high-level performance in technology provision ensures their reputation of international communication facilitators and promoters.

Another feature differentiating NGOs from state governments is the ability to take advantage of cross-border networks that help to spread the influence of a country beyond its borders. For example, the activities of NGOs’ experts on human rights help to bridge the gap between developed and developing countries; it is not surprising that “women’s and human rights groups in many developing countries have linked up with more experienced, better funded, and more powerful groups in Europe and the United States” (Mathews 1997, p. 54). In addition, national NGOs’ healthy relationships with other states help to promote domestic public opinions regarding certain issues at the international level. By collaborating with global media sources and lobbying their own governments, NGOs create unprecedented channels of influence that accelerate changes in many parts of the world (ibid., p. 54).

Finally, NGOs’ campaigning activity that helps to promote global changes through the political influence makes these organizations more powerful than national governments mostly focused on the improvement within a country. Campaigning in different parts of the world, NGOs’ professional members succeed in keeping supporters motivated and informed. By planning and hosting demonstrations, maintaining a large network of supporters, defending and promoting a certain issue (for example, respect for human rights), NGOs’ campaigning activity helps to raise international community’s awareness (Dalal-Clayton et al. 2002, p. 101).

Overall, mentioning that NGOs usually cooperate with national governments to achieve the same mutually beneficial goals, rather than pointing to the fact that NGOs have more power than state governments in certain aspects seems significant. Cooperating with NGOs, national governments strengthen the influence beyond a country. In this context, the partnership with NGOs helps democratic industrialized states to increase the welfare of poor people in developing countries. Owing to NGOs activities aimed to raise public awareness of respect for human rights, the national governments’ reputation as advocates of democratic development is strengthened (Mathews 1997, p. 54).

In addition, the cooperative work between NGOs and state governments (especially in developing countries) leads to national enrichment. For example, by supporting NGO activities, African states are involved in economic cooperation with developed countries; as a result, the African state governments may maximize their profits from beneficial trade contract agreements, or succeed in increasing their revenues from tourism (Chopra 2005, p. 407). Overall, although NGOs’ influence cannot be underestimated today, the power of these organizations indeed increases when they cooperate with state governments.

Taking into account the evidence presented above, one can admit that NGOs at times enjoy a much higher level of authority, influence, and power than the national governments do, while in other instances, the power of NGOs may be virtually absent. The power of both state governments and NGOs depends on the context of the problem, its scale, and the need to involve the public into its solution. Though the states are responsible for conducting all basic legislative, executive, regulatory, economic, socio-cultural, and other activities within their states, and regulate the relationships of their countries with other countries in the world, their power often falls short in case a natural disaster or a man-made calamity puts an unbearable strain on their resources, and the international community’s help is needed. Moreover, states are often to busy with setting the issues of immediate importance such as an economic crisis or a military conflict that they neglect some burning but non-urgent (in their opinion) issues vitally important in the global context, e.g., the extermination of rare species or rainforests, industrial pollution, and contribution to the climate change.

These issues are more specifically targeted by NGOs that may be characterized as international organizations handling issues beyond the control of the state governments, or ignored by them. Hence, NGOs succeed in solving such problems by making them transparent, attracting the public attention to them, and finding solutions through common public action. However, in such issues as high levels of poverty, racial discrimination, poor access to education, etc., states may possess more power because they govern the official leverages and can allocate financing at the national level. Consequently, one can admit that the task of NGOs in this context may serve as the initial focus of the public attention on the issue, with conducting further pressure on the governments to take an active part in solving problems of this kind.

References

Abraham, A 2011, Formation and Management of NGOs: Non-governmental Organizations, Universal Law Publishing, New Delhi.

Chopra, K 2005, Ecosystems and human well-being: policy responses: findings of the responses working group (vol. 3), Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Dalal-Clayton, B. D., Bass, S., & United Nations Development Program. (2002). Sustainable development strategies: a resource book. OECD Publishing, Sterling.

Flowers, PR 2013, The Ottawa process: domestic interests, transnational civil society, and state identity, in Y Tiberkhien (ed), Leadership in global institution building: Minerva’s rule (pp. 111-130), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Maiyegun, OI 2007, Participation in the deliberative process of the United Nations: the influence of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) on decision outcomes, PhD thesis, Minnesota, Walden University.

Mathews, JT 1997, ‘Power shift’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 50-66.

Teegen, H 2003, Business-government-NGO bargaining in international, multilateral clean development mechanism projects in the wake of Kyoto, in JP Doh and H Teegen (eds), Globalization and NGOs: transforming business, governments, and society (pp. 107-128), Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport.