Keynote Speech

THE ROLE OF NGOS IN THE CONTEXT OF“FROM GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNANCE”

Akira IRIYAMAPresident
The Sasakawa Peace Foundation
JAPANI start my keynote speech on "Government to Governance" withtwo very basic questions in order to clarify what are the points of argument
here.
The first question is, "In a given society, do we consider tax as asole resource for social service provision?"
The second question is, "Again in a given society, do we consider
the minimum level of social services given, or is already agreed upon?"If the answers to the two questions are yes, then "Government toGovernance" is such a simple issue. Government makes use of NGOs as its
agents and contracts out delivery of services. Government may do so because
it is cost effective, or end users can enjoy better services for various reasons.
But if the answers are "Yes, but ･ ･ ･ " or somewhat otherwise,
then we may be looking at a total different picture in front of us. Suppose, forinstance, although we consider tax as a sole resource for service provision, it
is not necessarily collected in the form of tax by the government once andthen redistributed to the people by the government hands. Instead,government gives preferential tax treatment, or tax break, to various NGOs
active in the field of public service provision, and in so doing it encourages
more NGOs to evolve and become vibrant. And, as a result, the level of publicservice provision, both in quality and in quantity, is expected to become
higher.
Having said that, let me proceed to today' subject matter of"Government to Governance", which refers to a transformation fromtraditional nation state government to network of various actors withconflicting interests in that sense, then, it is almost synonymous with
contemporary buzz word "Civil Society", which refers to "the complete range
of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and to the interlocking network ofprocedures and institutions that allows the organizations to function andinterrelate."
Here I am not simply enjoying rephrasing of words, but trying tozero in on the results of numerous preceding arguments in order not toreinvent wheels. As a matter of fact, nowadays you cannot attend a single
international conference without hearing this word "Civil Society" just likeyou cannot walk one block without seeing somebody talking via mobile phone.
Conference may be on development, environment, transitional economy,

international affairs, you name it and they may be held by the World Bank,
bilateral agencies, international institutions, just anybody.
One problem we have here is almost everybody who argues about"Civil Society" takes it for granted that the creation of Civil Society, or thedirection towards it, is something desirable. And, seldom cautious voices areheard on deficiency, or flaw, that is inherent in this model.
Civil Society model is based upon pluralism, which, according toPhilippe Schmitter, is "a system of interest representation where theconstituent units are organized into an unspecified number of multiple,voluntary, competitive, no hierarchically ordered and self-determinedcategories". In short, this model presupposes the existence of numerous
self-appointed organizations. So long as these organizations deal only withprivate goods, that is all right. We all know that is what market economy is
all about. But when these organizations try to, or start to, deal with publicgoods, or public interests, two serious problems come to surface.
The first is the problem of legitimacy, or you may call it ademocratic defect as Jessica Mathews put it. She urges us to be aware of theprocess where "decisions that elected representatives once made shift toun-elected bodies". That is, if we find legitimacy of our democratic
government in the process it is institutionalized, namely election, how we
can find legitimacy in those formed without going through this process? Or,they can function and survive under strict regulation only? That is, hanging
on the sleeve of government?
The second is the problem of economic efficiency. I am not talking
about political efficiency here. Everybody knows democracy is not forefficiency. Instead I am referring to economic inefficiency in the sense that
Civil Society organizations, or NGOs if you will, are not for the maximizationof profit by definition. So they are less motivated to minimize costs. Then it islikely that they waste resources for their possible inefficient management.
This problem does not stop here. According to an elementary textbook ofeconomics, they do not stop production even after marginal cost equals tomarginal income. Thus their best choice as producer of public goods is notnecessarily the best choice for consumers.
These two problems with Civil Society model, or government togovernance, already pose serious questions to be answered. There appears to
be one more substantial problem as we enter the era of internationalization.
Let me elaborate a little further. In the arguments so far, they are within theframework of nation state. Nation state where people are protected by law
from any damages incurred. But when it comes to an international society,there is no such protection. Suppose an influential international NGO
successfully campaigned against, say, tuna fishing and, as a result, poor
fishermen's life in a small South Pacific island, which has been totallydependent on it, was completely destroyed. They have no practical ways to
ask compensation, nor even a mean to protest against someone'sresponsibility. We may call this as the third problem of accountability in aninternational society.
Legitimacy, economic efficiency, and international accountability.
How can Civil Society model give answers to them? All of them are, as I said
moments ago of very fundamental nature and I do not think I have timeenough to elaborate in details. Instead, I am introducing my most favorite
answer to each of them out of numerous arguments on these issues.
First, democratic legitimacy, or legitimacy of non-elected body. On
this subject, there is a very stimulating argument by Masakazu Yamasaki.
He argues, "there are three generic features in democracy which areinseparable with their inherent shortcomings. The first, representativesystem. The second, rule of majority. And the third, a tendency to emphasize
short-term interests." "Representative system always has a danger to betransformed into monocracy. Consensus based on majority tends to consume
long time. And long-term interests are always important. NPOs are invented
by democracy itself to minimize these shortcomings."
Second, economic inefficiency. Yoshikazu Sakamoto argues,"Market economy is not necessarily combined with democracy based on equal
human rights". And thus in many cases "marketization does not mean socialand political democratization". So "civil society has to constrain, or control,market economy", or, "it does not have to live within the framework ofmarket economy. In short, NGOs are to be recognized as a safeguard towards
the brutality of laissez faire economy."
Third, international accountability. Although it may seem
adequate and appropriate to apply various devices developed in the past toincrease NGOs' accountability within the framework of nation state, greatcare should be taken not to identify national NGOs with international NGOs
too easily. Since false analogy of the two is not only inaccurate but also
dangerous. Inaccurate since surrounding situation is totally different fromnational scene to international scene. Dangerous since there is no legal
enforcement in an international society even when mishaps took place. One
preferred way to increase accountability for international NGO is to make its
own Code of Conduct public. This Code of Conduct is a list of self-imposed
dos and don'ts. And in the absence of legal enforcement system, it is hopedthat this Code of Conduct has a built-in process to guarantee a voice ofobjection to be heard and discussed.
I started my keynote with two fundamental questions, and thenproceeded to Civil Society model, which, with all its flaws and deficiencies, isbelieved to pave the way from Government to Governance. By no means I
imply this is the only model. There are, and can be, several other models
about which comparative studies are yet to be made. Finally I stress theimportance of further studies like the one we are having today, and end mypresentation.