The Similarities and/or Differences between NGOs and Social Movements - Coursework Example

DISCUSS THE SIMILARITIES AND/OR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS? DO THESE DIFFERENT TYPES OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS PLAY DIFFERENT ROLES IN THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS INTRODUCTION The arena for domestic and foreign policy making and the interaction between states in the international system have been altered with the increasing participation of non-state actors. States have been constrained by forces outside governmental institutions, functionaries and partisan political institutions. This has been the fruit of democracy. The policy making as well as the political arenas is further democratized creating space for non-state actors to input in the process of decision/policy making and provide alternatives to existing policy directions. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and social movements are two entrants in the policy and political arena. They are increasingly recognized as forces that strengthen democracy, peace, justice and development among individuals and nation states. Globalization has reduced the concentration of power in the hands of nation states and international organizations. To borrow words from Mathews (1997) globalization has brought about “power shift”. Power is shifting to non-state actors operating locally and internationally. But these two forms of social organizations are not entirely the same, in their structure, function, and orientations. This paper intends to identify similarities and differences between NGOs and social movements. The task will accomplished by considering how both differentially or correspondingly shape international relations. But first, working definitions are provided as a way of illuminating the subject of inquiry. NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: SOME WORKING DEFINITIONS According to the Global Policy Forum (2006: http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/index.htm), NGO’s “are often the most effective voices for the concerns of ordinary people in the international arena”. Such organizations are outspoken and they advocate human rights, the environment, social programs, womens rights, and many more. As the name implies, NGOs are not “established by governments or agreements among governments” (Carolyn Stephenson, 2005: http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/role_ngo/). Also NGOs have a formal organizational structure with individuals and private associations as members and not states. As Koy Thomson (http://www.bond.org.uk/futures/spms.html, December 7, 2007) observes, they “resemble the civil service in structure” the way they function. As Harold Jacobson (1) writes, NGOs “have regularly scheduled meetings of their members representatives, specified decision-making procedures, and a permanent staff”. Ideally, they are to operate independent of the government contributing in the decision or policy making and, in fact, checking and balancing excesses of governments. NGOs may take the name and form of Community Based Organizations (CBOs), Civil Society Organizations, faith-based organizations, charity or humanitarian organizations. The operations of NGOs may be localized to a particular city, or it may take the form of a global network with office in different countries, coalitions between different organizations that work along similar lines, and/or global caucus—ad hoc arrangement that brings NGOs together “as lobbyists at an international diplomatic event, such as a UN agenda-setting conference or a UN forum for negotiating on the formulation or implementation of a treaty” Willetts (www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/CS-NTWKS/NGO-ART.HTM, December 7, 2007). A distinction is usually made between local NGOs that operate within boundaries of nation states and international NGOs that transcend national boundaries. A social movement is, according to Willetts (www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/CS-NTWKS/NGO-ART.HTM, December 7, 2007), “a large number of people who challenge established social norms and express themselves through a variety of forms of mass social and/or political action”. To Bostic (http://www.learningtogive.org/papers/index.asp?bpid=59, December 7, 2006), a social movement “consists of a number of people organized and coordinated to achieve some task or a collection of goals, often the participants are interested in bringing about social change”. In some literature (like Bendford and Snow, 2000) the term Social Movement Organizations (SMOs) is used in explaining social movements. In its use here SMOs form the organization platform for social movements. Social movements are therefore processual and the use of SMOs connotes a network of organizations striving for a common course. A social movement may therefore comprise of several SMOs. In this paper we interchangeably used social movements to mean the same thing. Also a distinction needs to be made here between what is termed ‘new’ social movements and historic social movements. Social movements are labeled new partly because they denounce the use of violence. Rather, the exhaust all peaceful avenues within the democratic setting to make the voices of the oppressed or victims of bad policies heard and their interest protected. They are struggles for the correction of injustices under the rule of law. Another characteristic of new social movements is that they are not “based on class divisions and partly because new methods of mass mobilization became possible” (Willets, www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/CS-NTWKS/NGO-ART.HTM, December 7, 2007). They are, unlike the historic labour movements under the auspices of international socialism, centred on cross-class issues (such as environment, gender equality, peace, etc) or obscured class issues (such as poverty). They are therefore ideologically disconnected from the Marxist class struggle. Regarding new ways of mobilization, social movements take advantage of, for instance, technological advancement (particularly information and communication technologies) which eases extra-territorial networking to pass a message to those concerned. A good example is the use of internet blogs to mobilize support for a course around the globe. DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES BETWEEN NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS Conceptually, the terms NGO and social movement are related to the concept of civil society. Civil society can simply be used to refer “to all people, their activities and their relationships that are not part of the process of government” (Willetts, www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/CS-NTWKS/NGO-ART.HTM, December 7, 2007). Therefore both NGOs and social movements can be situated within the conceptual compass of civil society. They constitute the ‘non-state’ sphere in the new governance structure. Also in a democratic setting, both operate within the arena of un-coerced collective action centred on shared interests, goals and values. Individuals and groups that share common beliefs, values and even ideology coalesce to promote and protect a collective interest. Such individuals or groups are not coerced to join the collective action. But this conceptualization may suffer a blow as those that are ideologically bent on counter-liberalism sees civil society as “integrated with the state in maintaining bourgeois hegemony in capitalist societies” (Willetts, www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/CS-NTWKS/NGO-ART.HTM, December 7, 2007). Therefore, social movements are undervalued and are generally seen as incapable of changing the existing order. Also both NGOs and social movements are transnational actors. Their activities go beyond boundaries of nation states. Their role in international relations has made academics in the sub-field of internal relations to redefine what international relations is. In fact the word transnational in the study of international relations was, according to Willets (), “adopted in order to deny the assumption that international relations was the same as inter-state relations, or more precisely intergovernmental relations.” By this, transnational “refer to any relationship across country boundaries, in which at least one of the actors was not a government.” Willetts’ account also applies to social movements, formed from networks of NGOs operating in different parts of the world. In essence, both NGOs and social movements have come be accepted as key actors in international relations. Despite these similarities, NGOS can be contrasted from social movements in a number of ways. Differences between the two are magnified to the form of a dichotomy. However, Willets (www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/CS-NTWKS/NGO-ART.HTM, December 7, 2007) dismisses such dichotomy. He argues that instead of a “false dichotomy”, which he ascribes to some proponents of social movement, “NGOs are essential components of social movements”. This means that NGOs are not the only participants in a social movement. Members of the public, who do not belong to any NGO, may throw their weights behind a movement for the have conviction that it is course worth struggling for. So if, for instance, “a protest lasts more than a few days to become a movement, existing organizations or new organizations will provide the skeleton that transforms an amorphous mass into a strong body”. Members of the public will form the flesh in the transformative manner. Thus social movements can be described as collectivization of collective actions of individuals and groups such as NGOs. Thus NGO coalitions such as those that rally around anti-globalization or anti-war can be said to constitute the body for social movements for poverty and peace. From the above it can also be deduced that social movements do not only have “higher degree of organization” but can also be temporally contrasted from the actions of NGOs. Social movements generally take longer durations (Bostic, http://www.learningtogive.org/papers/index.asp?bpid=59, December 7, 2007). The actions of NGOs may be preceded by long period of advocacy or campaigns but such actions may only manifest on the ‘street’ for few days. For the course to be sustained over longer period of time, NGOs will have to mobilize outside their organizational memberships for a purposive action. such mobilization strategies as formation of coalitions among NGOs with similar concern or solidarity from other NGOs with different concerns could be used to establish the framework of social movements. Also, social movements differ from NGOs in their nature and extent as well as the tactics employed. Social movements may in addition to the tactics used by NGOs use “negative inducements”. Negative inducements according to McAdam (1983: 735) involve disrupting of the normal functioning of the society as an offending tactics for disrupting the realization of opponent’s interests. Also, Benford and Snow (2000: 615 & 616) pointed out that in framing the course of collective action social movements may take the form of “rebellions” by resorting to “call to arms”. What this implies is the use of violence employed by insurgents or rebels to fight perceived injustice. Some violent conflicts (like the Niger-Delta crisis in Nigeria) may be spurred by peaceful social movements. Nonetheless, negative inducement may take the form of boycotts, strikes or boycotts, whose impact is felt when a sizeable portion of the public are mobilized to participate. Mobilizing such a number may not be feasible by NGOs membership, individually or collectively. But with social movements, the general public can be mobilized in order to make such actions to achieve the intended disruptive goal. Furthermore, as Benford and Snow (2000 : 613) argue, “social movements are not “merely as carriers of extant ideas and meanings that grow automatically out of structural arrangements, unanticipated events, or existing ideologies”. Rather “movement actors are viewed as signifying agents actively engaged in the production and maintenance of meaning for constituents, antagonists, and bystanders or observers”. Social movements may rely on personalities and mot just organizational strength. Leaders of social movements may capitalize on their popularity of the popularity of distinguished individuals (such as celebrities, activists, freedom fighters, veterans, etc) in mobilizing support and effectively passing the message of their movements across to those concerned. The presence of Reverend Jessy Jackson in the ‘Jena Six’ case gives the whole September 2007 protest the colouration of movements. It makes it to be interpreted as a revival of the racial equality movement inherent in the American political terrain. Besides, as Willetts (www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/CS-NTWKS/NGO-ART.HTM, December 7, 2007) noted, NGOs are seen as part of an “established order” and their hierarchical organizational structure makes them to be considered “conservative and oppressive”. In the international context, they fall under the “insider” category of non-state actors that “gravitate around international institutions”. This is in sharp contrast with social movements Tarrow (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/inequality/Seminar/Papers/Tarrow.pdf, December 7, 2007). Social movements are non-hierarchical and thus dynamic and innovative. They operate largely outside the established order thus the impact of their actions is more far reaching. Koy Thomson (http://www.bond.org.uk/futures/spms.html, December 7, 2007) also captured the opportunistic tendencies of NGOs that “live within existing structures”. As he observed, while the aim of NGO lobbyists is “to change policies” that of social movements is to change “the much wider arena of politics”. A “dichotomy of content vis-à-vis context” is therefore established. This means that NGOs skillfully concentrate on “addressing content issues” without necessarily inducing changes in the wider context. As such, NGOs “only grab opportunities for policy reform as they arise”. Conversely, social movements strive to create space for alternative by influencing the political context. Their ability to shake and shape the wider political context makes them often resented. They are, in some circles, as “‘mere interruptions’ in society that builds its momentum through offering ‘selective incentives’ to its supporters while gaining the attention of its opponents”. More dangerously, they “convey a strong message threatening to override elitist authority and seek ways to relay that same message to a larger audience in hopes of support” Vincent Cobb (…). Thus is can be argued that social movements are disruptive while NGOs are persuasive. CONCLUSION: THE ROLES OF NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Now that democracy has become an acceptable norm globally, NGOs have been mainstreamed into the governance structure as a way of ensuring public engagement in decision-making at intra-national, national and international levels. They can use their lobbying power and advocacy to close the gap between public opinion and public policy— a democratic deficit common to both developed and developing countries. They legitimacy they enjoy within the new governance structure can be used to influence both domestic and foreign policies of countries. But this legitimacy is also a burden. It prevents them from shaking the very structure that host and sustains them. They rather comply or submit than rock the boat. Nevertheless, NGOs constitute the institutional backbone of major movements locally and globally. Social movements are however reflexive in their actions usually responding to inadequacies of and/or limitations in the governance structure. Their operation outside of the governance structure limits the extent of influence or greasing by state actors and their private cohorts. Depending on the nature of the network form, social movements can influence both domestic and foreign policies and the interaction among nation states in the international system. The anti-war movements that greet President George Bush’s visits to foreign lands or the anti-globalization movements that preceded every meeting of G-8 in recent times shows how social movements can be used for purposive ends. This makes social movements to be more potent in the struggle for global justice and sustainable development, which to a large extent shapes international relations. However, the fact that foreign policies are made by national governments vis-à-vis national legislature, NGOs power of lobbying and advocacy are veritable tools that could induce changes in policy directions of countries. Given the importance of international organizations in contemporary international relations and the recognition given to NGOs by such organizations, NGOs caucuses have contributed in the formulation of multilateral agreements and treaties, and even in their implementation. Bibliography Benford, Robert D. and Snow, David A. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 26. (2000), pp. 611-639. Bostic, Phillip J. “Historical Roots- Social Movement”http://www.learningtogive.org/papers/index.asp?bpid=59 Carolyn Stephenson, January 2005, what are nongovernmental organizations, Non Governmental Organization, http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/role_ngo/ Global Policy Forum, NGO’s, March, 2006, Paper on NGO’s Participation at the United Nation’s, http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/index.htm Koy Thompson, How do NGOs perceive social movements and the way they relate to Vincent E Cobb them, NGO’s and Social Protest Movement, http://www.bond.org.uk/futures/spms.html Mathew, Jessica. “Power Shift” Foreign Affairs Jan./Feb. 1997. McAdam, Doug. “Tactical Innovation and the Pace of Insurgency” American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, No. 6. (Dec., 1983), pp. 735-754. Tarrow, Sydney “Global Movements, Complex Internationalism and North – South Inequality” http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/inequality/Seminar/Papers/Tarrow.pdf Read More