The concept of “civil society” gained in popularity after the Velvet Revolutions in Eastern Europe in 1989, when a range of social rather than political groups undermined Communism from within. It was surely the courageous actions of these groups, combined with the economic and political contradictions of Soviet Marxist regimes, rather than the Reaganite arms race that led to the collapse of totalitarianism in Eastern Europe. In today’s world, many movements towards democratisation are supported by NGOs, who also hold states to account as part of “global civil society”. Needless to say, repressive states and Western states alike are no longer cheerleaders for civil society. The Yale Center for the Study of Globalisation has published online a couple of fascinating articles about the repressive measures being taken against NGOs in China and Russia.
It’s instructive, therefore, to assess the position of the Australian Government. As documented on a previous LP post by weathergirl, the Howard government is mounting a full scale attack on NGOs. And Australia’s concern about human rights in China, on which it has taken a far weaker line than George W. Bush’s administration, is surely exemplified by the need for Falun Gong to take court action to overturn prohibitions by Alexander Downer against protesting outside the Chinese Embassy. The first protest not to be prohibited by the Minister went ahead on Tuesday, because lawyers for the Federal Government were unable to provide reasons for Downer’s actions.
Does Australia stand alongside global civil society and forces working against repressive regimes, or are we much closer in our attitudes towards pesky NGOs to the anti-democratic regimes of Russia and China?
Straight from the horses mouth, here’s Ali Alatas, former Indonesian foreign minister, speaking at the launch of his new book on East Timor, on the power of NGOs:
‘He [Alatas] also said the case of Timor Leste showed
that Indonesia should never underestimate the power of
non-governmental organizations when they united behind a particular cause. They could influence their respective governments, he added, and had showed that Timor Leste was not “a mere pebble anymore but became something that burdened Indonesia”.’
(‘Alatas’ Book Teaches RI Not to Repeat Timor Leste Tragedy’ Jakarta Post, Thursday, August 10, 2006)
Wow! I guess mustn’t have read Howard’s letter to Habibie – he still thinks NGOs, civil society and Timor solidarity movements were somehow involved in East Timor’s liberation!
Revisionist! Somebody get Windy on him.
Anyway, point is: criticism, dissent, and non-state associations – keeping liberty aflame, around the globe.
The Chinese government has become incredibly skilled at appropriating and deploying the gloablized language of conservative corporate and bureaucratic managerialism. This has made it easier and easier for Australian state and federal governments and businesses to speak about China in precisely the same way as the Chinese government does. Squeezed out are the voices of NGOs.
Australia’s record is woeful, but we’re hardly unique. In another context I was discussing this dreadful piece by “Red” Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, and China-booster.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1748809,00.html
“Does Australia stand alongside global civil society and forces working against repressive regimes”
Most NGOs in Australia are striving to bring back the most repressive regime of all – socialism. So don’t pretend that they are all hugs and warm fuzzies, the reason the Howard government and a great deal of the public is against them is that their real agendas have been clear for quite some time now.
Asked and answered.
They don’t call him the ‘ Man-of-steel’ for nothing.
We now face the worst of communism and the worst of capitalism – A Singapore syndrome and it will take a sharp rejection of authoritarian socialism ( Marxist-Leninism) for true democratic and libertarian socialism to triumph.
So long as we have the web we have hope and that is why the worst of capitalism helped the worst of communism build the golden shield.
They hate and fear the free internet.
Specific action needs to be taken imo – radical Huntingtons style direct action – against Golden shield enablers some of whom have an office right here in Hong Kong (south.)
Kim
I’m not sure how much about history you know, but Reagan, even though he was of course evil, did in fact cause the Soviet Union to collapse. Tragically, for us all, something even more repellant has now risen to take its place!
And LP’s own weathergirl is also having a go at civil society by demanding they reveal their funding sources, so that they can be pressured by the state (it’s somewhere in this thread).
There are legitimate reasons for saying that charities should receive tax deductions but not advocacy or political groups. Unfortunately, the rules are not consistent – and the Howard government made them more inconsistent by making donations to political parties deductible – and dual purpose organisations make them more complicated still, perhaps to the point of being unworkable.
My own view is that all such deductions should be abolished and marginal tax rates reduced, but if it is not going to be my preference for nobody gets then the rules should at least be consistent and everybody gets them.
Nah, it was Japan which caused the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Karina, haven’t you heard of Mikhail Gorbachev?
“Most NGOs in Australia are striving to bring back the most repressive regime of all – socialism.”
Wow! There are still people floating around that believe shit like that. I wonder where such delusions spring from? I guess the same notion that makes people state that anyone not supporting the war in Iraq (TM) is a terrorist is the same sentiment as held by those that believe that anyone wanting to place (some) restrictions on free-market capitalism must also want to re-instate socialism.
Yes, J, there are still people who believe that shit, despite providing no evidence to support claims for such shit (and strong evidence to the contrary was on the other discussion).
Andrew Norton, you’re being most dishonest. The argument for disclosure isn’t for state imposition, but for democracy.
Theres a bunch of interelated questions here. How do we treat our own NGO’s? There seems no doubt that we are on another plane to China, Russia etc, but there also seems no doubt that we are heading in the wrong direction, however slowly. At the same the government can’t stop the near-inevitable rise of civil society, so they’ve chosen to, kind of, co-opt it, and temporarily buy its favour (see welfare to work.) The reason they have felt this neccesary is, I think, because the philosophy of many NGO’s run – to a large extent – counter to that of the market and of the state. I reckon, Yobbo, you could argue that its the Howard government which are the socialists in this story (a la professor rat.)
Add this to a realpolitik need to cultivate allies (and possibly, a new big brother) for the future, a general disdain and distrust of multilateralism (its anti US, you see) and a well oiled ability to toady and it’s no wonder that we get situations like the Falun Gong. I wonder what the small l liberals think of all this. Maybe thats a bit harsh, but i cant recall any examples of outrage at atrocities or support for NGO’s which wasn’t politically ‘neat.’
It’s a really interesting question Kim, and one which needs some investigation I reckon. It’s not just a question of the current government, or the possible alternative government, but of institutional change and of a culture that gets institutionally ingrained.
I would not say that most NGO’s are socialist in the dry sense but they certainly do love the idea of forcing their ideals on the greater populace while avoiding the electoral process.
But sure it’s not just NGO’s that do this but anybody or organisation that lobbies or particiaptes indirectly in the political process does. I’m not really against them at all but I am against their tax deductible status.
I really don’t know why you would call removing tax deductibility “undemocratic”. Why not just say you’re pissed off that your team will lose out. You are suffering from a surplus of democracy not a lack of it.
But the electoral process isn’t the be all and end all of accountability James. In fact, some would say that elections are more of a smokescreen that is ritually abused (“I have a mandate” etc) than anything else.
I would have thought that your first two paras would have you advocating for greater democracy and accountability in public life, and I’d be right alongside you. Which makes your last really rooly confusing. Surplus of democracy? Can you explain? And while your at it, i’m interested in these ‘ideals’ being ‘forced’ upon the public. Who and what are you thinking of exactly?
There may be a genuine problem, but I reckon removing tax deductability is a very blunt instrument and the use of it shows the real intentions of the government.
Arghh damn and here was I just getting my head around the notion that the Saddams of this world really are the best options and we need to work with them. You know, until their people can evolve in their own good time and come around to our way of thinking. Obviously I’m getting all confused or weird or something.
Alice – I am looking at the practical effects of these rules, as was Kim in her original post. In a candid moment, weathergirl even admitted that she wanted disclosure because she thought this would reduce funding to people she did not agree with. I can’t see how democracy as normally defined is enhanced by intimidating people from expressing a view. In that at least I agree with Kim.
NGO’s shouldn’t expect the benefits of public largess, including tax deductibility of donations, and then feel they can then actively operate as an unelected opposition.
NGO’s who wish to undertake charitable works should stick to that. If they want to start particpating in politics via advocacy then they are no longer doing charitable work and shouldn’t expect the same treatment as a charity.
Razor, I’d argue that many NGO’s represent a significant silent minority and maybe even a majority. Cutting them out because they dont fit into the formal political system is perverse. And I don’t get this pure distinction between charity and politics. It misunderstands the nature of many of the worlds problems I think. Again, who are you talking about specifically?
Obs, its all about how you work with them. And recognising that while intervening and deposing tyrants, can be very admirable and desirable, it also brings about incredibly massive problems; that nation building contains innumerable booby traps. But in your private moments you know that all too well don’t you – when you’re not self-consciously parading the failures in Iraq as the fault of Islam.
Perhaps, Karina, you can give us a history lesson and explain exactly how Reagan “caused” the Soviet Union to collapse?
Kim. I wasn’t aware until today that Russian ‘civil society’ had actually organised a (2nd) Russian Social Forum in St Petersburg in response to the G8. There are reports from Indymedia and Boris Kagarlitsky. It seems that the authorities wanted it to go ahead but only just. What happened is too funny to be tragic, but too pathetic to be funny.
I wonder how many groups in Australia are really ‘antisystemic’ (to borrow a term from Wallerstein.) Certainly he recognises human rights groups and social movements such as green movements and feminists as antisystemic, but they are hardly going to shake the system to the core.
My basic sociology text (Haralambos) of a couple decades ago termed them ‘special interest groups’ from memory and pointed out that they were often seen by history as being on the side of the angels, were special sources of expertise and that governments would do well to listen to them. Oddly my boss didn’t see it that way and thought the bureaucracy held within it all necessary expertise.
Don’t forget the Rann Labor government in my home State!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20088543-2702,00.html
Will a Labor “attack” on an NGO be condemned just as forcefully here at LP, I wonder?
Yes – I would condemn it.
If only it was so black and white! If I am a charity working to assist highly disadvantaged homeless people and I say to the government – there’s 100,000 homeless people but your funding only lets us help 25,000 of them on any given night – am I being an advocate? Or should we just keep our mouths closed, take the tax benefits, feed and shelter who we can and leave the others to take their chances?
Or if I am a charity and I meet with government to show them research evidence of new approaches to crime prevention. In those meetins I argue for them to fund a new program to be delivered by NGOs – am I advocating? yes. If I also gave the Opposition the same advice in the lead up to an election in the hope that they will make it an election promise – am I being political? yes.
Both these scenarios are the reality for many NGOS who work directly with people and can often see how different approaches can be beneficial.
It’s easy to blithely say that charity and advocacy should be separated – but where do you draw the line?
I wouod condemn it too.
You said it far better than me Angharad. Bravo.
Angharad, all the advocacy you described is fine and legitimate. The line is drawn if, around election time, you are openly asking your supporters to vote for (or against) particular parties. A charity shouldn’t do that if it receives public money.
That, I think, is the government’s complaint against some environmental NGOs. (I confess that I can’t remember what ads the NGOs were running, but the govt views them as hostile.)
You can’t reasonably expect any government to fund a hostile ad campaign. (A charity running ads against the opposition would be similarly wrong.)