CSSR Gresea - March. 26th, 2009 - Warsaw 1 Self-inflicted NGO Codes of conduct “Watchdogs – Working Out Credibility” Seminar Warsaw March 26th, 2009 Erik

CSSRGresea - March. 26th, 2009 -

Warsaw 1

Self-inflicted NGO Codes of conduct

“Watchdogs – Working Out Credibility” SeminarWarsaw March 26th, 2009

Erik Rydberg

Research Group for an Alternative Economic StrategyBrussels

www.gresea.be


Warsaw 2

Gresea, what’s that ?

An acronym, of course. Stands for Groupe de recherche pour une stratégie

économique alternative In English: Research Group for an Alternative Economic

Strategy Founded 1978 by academics, trade-unionists & third-

world activists Main line of work: counter-economics


Warsaw 3

NGO code of conductsBasics, anybody?

For starters, a methodological point:

Before asking oneself whether one's organisation acts responsibly, the first thing to ask oneself is why this inquiry is called for.

Or: who calls for it?And: why?First things first.


Warsaw 4

Basics, continued:Backtracking CSSR

Question: why ask oneself whether one acts responsibly?

In Belgium, for instance, it isn't called for, really.As NGOs, we're considered as instruments of the Development Ministry (in French: “acteurs indirects de la Coopération”), &As SCOs in the business of civic education, our programs are paid for, & approved by the appropriate authorities:i.e. their responsibility, not ours.


Warsaw 5

Here’s the hidden agenda:The fifth unspoken criteria

Responsibility & accountability generally boils down to four criteria. Then there's the fifth, usually unspoken, hush-hush.

Number 1 is Who should be responsible?Number 2 is To whom?Number 3 is What for?Number 4 is How?But… as Jem Bendell makes it clear in his Debating NGO Accountability (2006), all these questions will be determined by Number 5:

Who sets the rules of the game?There are those who are strong enough to make their choices freely. (For themselves but also for others.)Then there all the others. (Caught up in the Maelstrom.)Sub-question: Which group do you belong to?


Warsaw 6

Basics, again

Question: are we concerned about the responsibility & accountability issue because we have no other choice? & because we are under pressure to do so?

If so, we can all go home.Only a question of technicalities. Of doing one's homework..


Warsaw 7

Let’s climb above the sky-skraperWhat will our philosophical bias be?

In dealing with issues related to responsibility & accountability, the big question is to ask oneself whether we handle idealistic concepts or

materialistic ones ?

Idealistic: subject to their inner theoretical & timeless logicMaterialistic: historically contingent


Warsaw 8

Let’s put the question to the Librarian:Is there a reader?

Second methodological point: when tackling any subject, it is always recommended to get a good grasp of its background, the discussion thereof, its fine points & theoretical biases.

Before even discussing any matter, it's useful to start by making up a reading list (& preferably dating back to the previous century, i.e. concentrate on fundamentals, not the technical partisan guidelines of late.)Can we see your list?

(Tell me what you read and I'll tell you who you are.)


Warsaw 9

A teasing parenthesis:Let’s check the dividing lines

The usefulness of determining which social agents are not supposed to be responsible & couldn't care less...

Media: take Martin Wolf's immensely influential weekly column on world business in the FT, he's so to say accountable to no one.

Publishing: take Richard Dawkins & his books equating God & religion with crass superstition; he gets a lot of flak but that's about it, a battle of ideas, period.

Urbanism: take also the advertising people of Decaux who are plastering our cities with preposterous messages that cannot be challenged: they've paid for it & that's that: no responsibility.

So, why CSOs, why us & not them?


Warsaw 10

And here’s the ultimate taboo:Political Parties & Hidden Agendas

(Mind the Gap)

Clarification point: isn't CSO advocacy just but another word for the good old Political Party Program?

Growing CSO advocacy has been singled out as a major rationale for public demand of CSO legitimacy.

This does – conveniently? – void the picture of its defining frame:if CSOs act as political parties, why don't they identify themselves as such in the first place?Resolving legitimacy can only come next, & as an off-shot to the former.


Warsaw 11

Tracking a concept1 – Bertrand Russell speaking...

In Bertrand Russel's compact 836-pages History of Western Philosophy (1945), there's no mention of "Responsibility" in the Index, nor does the book give the floor to concepts such as "civil society", "accountability" or "legitimacy".There is a reference, however, to "Checks & balances", i.e.

• to Machiavelli's rather cynical Renaissance views on State Governance,• to Hobbes more subdued presentation of the same• & finally to Locke's classic theory of how the different branches of Power might interlock harmoniously.

The same might be said of CSOs: whom do they check & who will check them in turn?It depends on who you read, Machiavelli of Locke. It's your choice.


Warsaw 12

Tracking a concept2 – Franz Fanon speaking

Franz Fanon famously said that the spectator is a traitor.

Implied: you can never be neutral, whatever you do or say, abstain from doing or saying, you will be held accountable. (You are with us or against us – this opinion is no longer very popular, the general drift being to be OK will everybody, and consequently accountable to just about anybody.)


Warsaw 13

Tracking a concept3 – The theological (Christian) background

If you ask a priest what worldly belongings are for (this Earth, its Green Pastures & riches & so on), he'll say they are God's gift & your own private property for you to keep care of with a view to guarantee the Common Good.

Or words to that effect.Implied here is that you're accountable to God, the Giver. But it's all on loan & you'd better listen to his Word before thrift gets the better of your sense of proportions.Useful to keep in mind. Ideas don't grow on trees.


Warsaw 14

Tracking a concept4 – Hans Jonas speaking

Jonas is pivotal.

His 1979 book on the ethics of responsibility is the (theological) background to our (theoretical) embarrassment.

Jonas is a child of his time (& schooling: Marburg's Theological Faculty).

Same as with Marcuse, he’s impressed by the Technological Great Leap.

He sought appropriate counter-ethics enabling Modern Man to remain the headmaster of the Control Room.

The question is what use is there in 1979 today?


Warsaw 15

Tracking a concept4 ½ – Jonas again

Some aspects of Hans Jonas' production ought to be taken into account.

He was concerned about his own time's existentialism & nihilism (milestones: Auschwitz & Hiroshima; later, the Berling Wall only compounded the loss of directions).He was, by the way, influenced by Heidegger & Nietzsche, & had some fondness for Intelligence Design.The success of his 1979 book can largely be explained by the public awakening to environmental issues: sustainable development avant la lettre was at the core of his Responsibility Principle. (It involves – tough nut – giving Rights to Nature, to which Man then would be accountable.Noteworthy: Jonas envisages this responsibility as collective, that is: political. Society as a whole has a responsibility to act for Future Generations. (A far cry from the present backlash asking Society's constituents to conform – or take the blame.)


Warsaw 16

Chain smoking

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is working on CSSR.

They've convened sixteen NGOs to help them make the outcome legitimate.

This makes for an interesting inquiry.

Have these 16 NGOs fully & publicly discussed their involvement with the project beforehand?

Do they have a clear mandate on the matter?

And, last but not least, are they fully accountable to the fact that, when the final outcome document, it cannot but represent their own particular ideas on the subject, devoid of any general, let alone universal validity?


Warsaw 17

Alt, control, delete

What we are dealing with, at bottom, is a major shift.

Moot moral pledges replace clear cut political positions.

One Irish NGO managed in 2007 to get near unanimous approval by the European NGO platform Concord for its statement condemning the use of debasing picture material in the depiction of victims of the Southern Troubles (war, poverty, etc.).

Why not?

Curiously, the piece didn't take the form of a condemnation, but that of the pledge. We won't use that kind of pictures, ever, it's a solemn promise.Hey! We're clean.

Of what? Of not getting the message through.Of debasing its political cutting edge.Of claiming attention for the NGO's own neurotic self-indulgence.


Warsaw 18

Back to Basics...

The question ultimately raised by the Responsibility debate is democracy in small organised communities.

In this sense, it can been seen as an opportunity.Conditional to the methods adopted.If we're only adapting to a push to conform, it's a waste of time.Opportunity: investigate the ways our elders have tackled the problem.For instance in building up a political party.For instance in managing a trade union.For instance in setting up a national liberation guerrilla.For instance in looking how parliaments are organised.For instance by checking how the family works.Forget NGOs & CSO's...

Is this a happy ending?

No.

Let’s talk about it…

Documents

CSSR Gresea - March. 26th, 2009 - Warsaw 1 Self-inflicted NGO Codes of conduct “Watchdogs – Working Out Credibility” Seminar Warsaw March 26th, 2009 Erik