SUMMARY REPORT OF THE WORKSHOP ONGOVERNANCE AND CIVIL SOCIETY

Dr. Akira Nakamura
Professor, Meiji UniversityJAPANThe Asia-Pacific Panel was held in conjunction with the Twenty-fifth International
Congress of Administrative Sciences. One of the workshops of the Congress dealt withthe concept of governance in the context of civil society. The result of that workshop isregarded as very valuable for comprehensive grasp of governance in the other regions
so that the summary report is attached for your reference.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. My summary statement would take less thanten minuets. I do not mean to bother you with my Japanese English with a California
overtone. I would like to report to you the outcome of discussion in Session 4, which
has dealt with Governance and Civil Society.

Before I go into any details, I would like to make my personal observations about
the papers that have been delivered in our session. I would like to forward mysubjective remarks at the outset, because they will form an important backdrop for thesummary statement that I am about to provide.

I am a Japanese. I was born and raised in the culture where Mandarin Tradition
has remained highly strong even to this date. We have been taught that governmentis extremely important and that government is the object of public owe and respect.
In Japan, we have a popular saying, which goes, “Government is revered and businessis despised.” More often than not, in Japan, the government is a solution. We havebeen trained to look up to the government and other public agencies, wherever there isa social issue of significance.

Now, in Session 4, a total of sixteen papers were presented. Except a few, amajority of the papers discussed various issues in either European or North American
contexts. Most of these papers have one characteristic in common. One of the mostamazing aspects of these products was that these papers showed and reflected a strong
mistrust and distrust of government. As a matter of fact, those who were exposed tothese papers, they would get the impression that the people particularly in Europe
would not trust government. Unlike the Japanese, they would not trust bureaucrats,
nor would they trust big business. Indeed, they do not trust anybody except NGOs.

Contrary to the Japanese experience, in Europe and in North America, thegovernment is not a solution. It is a problem. The people therefore tend to lookdown on the government and any other agencies.
It is for this reason that many papers in Session 4 discussed the importance ofparticipation. Participation was one of the key concepts in the session for Governanceand Civil Society.

The significance of political and social participations seems

inextricable from the decline of public confidence in government in this part of theworld. These manuscripts indicated that participation would be critical because it
should be a safeguard against the government. As these products mirrored, thepeople in Europe and North America believed that the government often goes wrong
and makes bad decisions.
Similarly, many papers in Session 4 described institutionalization of NGOs. Onceagain, institutionalization of NGOs is another common denominator in this session.
However, institutionalization of NGOs is intrinsic to the loss of confidence ingovernment in both Europe and North America. The papers in the session alluded
that NGOs often would function as a sounding board of vox populi. They would also
serve as an instrument of improving the quality of civil society. In this regard, there isone paper that is worth noting. Pierre Vincent Ngambo Fondjo of Cameroon writes it.
He showed that, in Cameroon, both the government and the wealthy segment of thesociety had tried to develop NGOs for the poor. Nonetheless, because these NGOs
were crated from above, they failed to become the guardian and the vanguard of theunderprivileged. Instead, NGOs would often become captured and begin to serve as
an important agent of government.
This paper seems to lead us to another important dimension of NGOs.

I

mentioned at the beginning that Europeans and North Americans would not seem totrust anybody but NGOs. In these parts of the globe, NGOs have been highly valued

and regarded indispensable for governance and civil society. However, NGOs in andof themselves would not and could not contribute to the development of civil society.
Quite to the contrary, NGOs, if left unchecked, would often do great harm togovernance and the quality of civil society.
We therefore must study NGOs from the view of internal responsibilities andexternal accountabilities.

We also must analyze NGOs from the perspective ofpolitical responsibilities and social accountabilities. However, there was no paperthat directly addressed to this important problem. This, I thought, was one of themost interesting outcomes of Session 4. In fact, there was one paper that dealt withaccountability of NGOs. However, the author could not partake in the conference. It
was written by an Asian in the Asian context.
Although NGOs will become critical in the coming decades and beyond, they would
easily grow to be an impediment to the health of civil society and the quality ofgovernance. Therefore, while distrusting and mistrusting government, we all must
pay attention to the potential problems and shortcomings of NGOs. In this regard, wemust once again remind ourselves of the fact that, unlike NGOs, government has along history of trials and errors, as far as accountability and responsibility areconcerned. This fact conveys an important message.
NGOs may become a stumbling block for the health of civil society and governance.
They may easily develop to be a victim of their own success, if and when they are notheld accountable for their political and social actions. If my anxiety is accurate, in the
not-too-distant future, the days may soon come when we may say in unison, instead ofgovernance, TO BRING THE GOVERNMENT BACK IN. Thank you very much.