Conclusion of the Asia-Pacific Panel
Dr. Itoko Suzuki,Professor, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
November 2002
For the past three years, the Asia Pacific Panel has been organized as anannual series of reviewing the experiences of national governance in Asia
and Pacific countries. This time, with the focus on the roles of the NGOs,
three cases were presented from Thailand, the Philippines and India. Since
the national governance particularly of developing countries has involved
IGOs (Inter-governmental organizations) as important actors of nationaldevelopment, the panel was fortunate to have representatives of two IGOs,
one from OFPA, representing the African region (Mr. Jacques Nzouankeu),
and another from the United Nations (Mr. Guido Bertucci) as discussants. It
has been understood that only together with the appropriate role sharing
and networking with NGOs and IGOs, the state can better perform theirbusiness of national development. The issue in discussion was to identify “inwhat” and “how” the roles to be shared and “what” factors would determine
for the optimal collaboration.
The keynote speaker, Mr. Akira Iriyama set the tone for this discussion byclarifying these “what’s” and “how”. He advocated the legitimacy(representative-ness), and accountability as determinant factors with which
the NGOs can possibly contribute in three roles, public service delivery,
capacity building and advocacy at national and even global levels. He
reminded the panel of important cautions that there were many myths andfallacies about the relationships of NGOs with the government such as“NGOs can fill the gap of what the government does not do” or “NGOrepresents good while the government cannot be trusted.“Three cases presented at the panel showed very different modalities andmagnitudes of the three roles of NGOs, namely public service delivery,
capacity building and advocacy, played in each country. Thai experience aspresented by Prof. Dr. Chindalak Vadhanasindhu indicated the very limited
scope in the role of the NGOs, with the role largely in community
development and moral building, and yet those NGOs were acting incompliance with or supportive to the government for improving the public
service delivery. In contrast, the Philippine experience as reported by Dr.
Isagani Serrano characterized the strong NGO roles as symbolized in thepeoples empowering (even enabling the reshuffle of the government when it
exposed corruption.). Philippine experiences also demonstrated theextensive NGO roles played in public service delivery, and capacity building
including engaging in projects financed directly from the ODAs and IGOs.
The government cannot ignore the NGOs/CSOs (Civil society organizations),
and the appropriate modalities of partnership appeared to be under scrutiny.
The case from India as presented by Dr. Jayaprakash Narayandemonstrated unique roles played by the NGOs in pursuing democracy ingovernance and further to improve its capacity. The Indian cases touched
upon the interesting argument on the respective independent roles (ratherthan partnership with government) played in political process.
It was obvious from these cases that all the three roles of NGOs played fornational development have been rapidly growing, but that we can presume
that in “what” and “how” the roles to be played can be found in the different
national contexts. Mr. Jacques Nzouankeu from OFPA added the case ofAfrican experience, in which the relationship of the NGOs with the state canbe characterized as more in defiance than in cooperation. NGOs werecredited to have played the advocacy role by mobilizing the people to makegovernment observe civil rights and do better national management.
Despite these varying roles and relationships in these cases, it was clearthat the legitimacy (represenativeness), and accountability of NGOs werecommonly left to be yet questioned in all these cases for the purpose of
screening NGO contribution and benefits for national development.
The panel was much benefited by extremely active audience in discussingthese legitimacy and accountability questions of NGOs. For the question oflegitimacy, particularly in relation to the role in advocacy, the appropriate
check of the representation of each NGO was found necessary, as each NGO
was representing only the interest of its constituents, while the government

must represent the interest of all. International NGOs were playing
increasing roles in advocacy in global scenes, but the public must judge thelegitimacy of these NGOs (to check to whom the NGOs were responsible
with what contribution), as Mr. Iriyama cautioned. Mr. Guido Bertucci
proposed to create a proper mechanism to examine not only the legitimacy
but also the accountability. There should be a rule of cooperation between
the government and NGOs, while over-regulatory framework (Mr. Bertucci)
must be avoided, as much as the excessive financial control of thegovernment on the NGO resources (Mr. Nzouankeu).
It was argued that the NGOs existing in Asia Pacific were not the substituteof the government and that government can be strengthened in order toenable institutionalize more useful partnership with the NGOs for nationaldevelopment. It was expressed that the need for assessing the contribution
and benefits of NGOs more systematically. For the purpose, more researchon the experiences of NGOs would be needed in the future. Further analysis
in such research would not only assist in creating “what” and “how“ to share
the roles for national development (whether in compliance or defiance,),between the two actors, but also in constructing appropriate indicators toevaluate the contribution of NGOs.