Keynote Speech

MYTH AND REALITY:
PUBLIC SECTOR AND NGOs

Akira IRIYAMAPresident
The Sasakawa Peace FoundationJAPANThe last quarter of the twentieth century has witnessed a growing
recognition of the role NGOs can play in various aspects of the society,both domestic and international. This recognition is embedded in thebelief that NGOs can better reach grassroots level, thus better represent
people's voices and are instrumental for good governance. Then, for thegovernment to be effective and functional, it has to have a good
relationship with NGOs, and, there ought to be a role NGOs can, orshould, play in the field of public goods.
My presentation today intends to examine this prevailing recognition of,and belief in, NGOs. That is, (1) the recognition that NGOs can play animportant role both domestically and internationally, and, (2) it isbecause NGOs represent people's voices more accurately that government,or public sector, has to recognize their importance and find ways tocooperate with them.
Let me start with the first one. True though, it may be that NGOs' role isall too apparent both in national and international level. But can we
hastily conclude that we can treat NGOs' role in the two different levels
in more or less the same manner simply because it is important in bothoccasions, or, organizational characteristics of NGOs are the same in bothsituation? The answer is NO. No because an NGO in an international
context and an NGO in a domestic framework are, if I may use a crude
expression, two different animals.
NGOs in a nation state is within its legal framework and fall under its
sanction. In that sense, NGOs are tamed animal.

They are tamed not

only with legal enforcement, but also by cultural and historicalinfrastructure they share. The picture for international NGOs, however,is totally different. Since international society is not equipped with legal
enforcement system in the sense nation states are, and there is hardly
any common cultural or historical ground to be shared with. Although it
is possible to regard a number of international organizations andnumerous international treaties as a commonality to be shared ininternational society, but by far, the infrastructures of the both, namely

nation states and international society, are remote from even similarity.
Which means, in turn, NGOs in an international arena can act more
freely and sometimes more wildly. For one thing, they are not required tobe accountable to any authorities. Also, from historical perspective,
international society only started to accommodate NGOs within theframework of its governance. We cannot, therefore, discuss relationshipand cooperation with NGOS domestically and internationally at the sametime. If this is a distinction between domestic and international NGOs,
there also exists a common denominator between the two.
NGOs, whether domestic or international, can be classified into three
categories according to economist David Korten. The first is thoseengaged in some kinds of service provision. The second, capacity building
and the third, advocacy. These three categories are said to represent threestages of evolution for NGOs. That is, in their initial stage, NGOs tend tobe engaged in direct service provision in the fields. Then, the necessity toeducate, train, and empower the recipients of those services starts to befelt. And those who concentrate in that function emerge. Finally, comesthe vital importance to raise public awareness for the problem itself,advocacy. It is not all too difficult to recognize that the wild nature of thisanimal increases according to the stage of evolution.
To summarize the first point, one cannot discuss relationship between
government and NGOs in general. Instead, one has to make it clear if theplatform is domestic or international. Also, it has to be recognized whichof the three stages is in question. Apparently, relationship andcooperation in the field of service provision and capacity building is verymuch different from the one in the field of advocacy.
Let me now move to the second point. The second point refers to thereason why NGOs appeared as a possible partner for cooperation withpublic sector. That is, they claim to be able to represent people’s voice, inparticular, those who are in need, or the poorest of the poor. Thus if thegovernment really wants to function for the people, it has to work withNGOs.

It goes without much scrutiny that this is a false statement. Falsestatement if we use the word "represent" in the sense we use the word in"representative democracy', since NGOs are not elected bodies and they
can at best represent their memberships and/or supporters. Then, why
this statement sounds so familiar, as well as is cited so frequently? It has
much to do with their closeness to the people, namely, NGOs live withvillagers, work with peasants, do settlement works with squatters andcertainly do know more about their lives compared with bureaucrats inthe air-conditioned buildings. Let me go back again here to the three
categorical functions NGOs play; namely service provision, capacity
building and advocacy. In the first two, NGOs may have rights to claim
they can represent beneficiaries, even though they are not elected bythem. Since NGOs and their beneficiaries share common interests,common goals, and common values. But when it comes to advocacy, thisargument does not hold.
Advocacy is defined as "active support, especially of a cause". That is,advocacy NGO stands for those who support for, or favor, a certain cause.
Chances are that this particular cause is shared by many, if not all. But it
is more likely that there exist those who are not in support of, if notagainst, that particular cause. Moreover, as George Soros says, "It isalways easier to mobilize the public against something than forsomething". So advocacy NGOs tend to be more often formed againstsomething. Then, NGOs, at best, can represent only partial interests, or"essentiallyunrepresentative"

asMarina

OttawayofCarnegie

Endowment put it.
Having said that, I stop examining the two of the prevailing recognition,or myth, rather, upon which the arguments of desirable cooperation
between public sector and NGOs tend to be based upon. Now is the time
to come back to reality to conclude my remarks.
Reality is, NGOs have always existed in any parts of the world, in any
societies, regardless of cultures, religions, and traditions. And they played

an important role to cope with the problems that society faced. The morethey are integrated within societal system, the smoother and the betterthe society functioned. In the 21" century, in the era of globalization,
NGOs are getting an unprecedented influence as an agent of advocacy
over all sorts of issues both domestically and internationally. As our pasthistory shows, a society, which better accommodated NGOs mote,prospered. Our society today is no exception. Or all the more so since
globalization tends to reformulate the world with single norm or single
standard. So for those who treasure multiple values and pluralistic
societies, NGOs are but essential. In order for our society to place andsecure NGOs' position within it, however, this undertaking should not bebased upon myth, or to treat them as a panacea for the problems we face.
Just like parliament, bureaucrat, and government itself, NGOs are a tool
for social engineering. Therefore, it has to have a well-defined and clearlystated function and has to come under the rule of law.
Just like globalization, government-NGO cooperation is full of myths andinterpretations. Our first step to be prepared for a new social engineering
will be to dissipate myths and identify the facts as they are. In so doing,
we can expect a very promising reality ahead.