Resetting International Non-Governmental Organisations Agenda - Article Example

Year of Study/Semester: Submitted: Resetting INGOs Agenda International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) have a variety of subject areas ranging from peace building, conflict resolution through transformation as well as political definition. Advances have been made over the last two decades with various levels of success at different stages as INGO’s have explored more corporative methodologies as opposed to violent alternatives while pursuing their agenda on the world stage. Despite this fact there still remains a long way on the road towards realising the optimal potential that INGOs have ranging all the way from grass roots to high level politics. Previous research has discussed and assessed the role that INGOs play in building peace, exemplifying the major constraints that they face as well as other stakeholders and interested parties in world affairs. Research has often endeared its efforts towards generating and formulating sufficient models towards alleviating the destructiveness of national as well as international disagreements. Ideally, the said research has often sought out to formulate expert opinion exemplifying, particularising and describing in-depth processes for essential shifts that can be employed towards meeting INGO agendas. These shifts call for advanced study that is connected to patent articulation of the proposed substitutes whereupon skilful engagement of all affected stakeholders including the public doubled with unrelenting lobbying in political frameworks as well as entrepreneurial circles is necessary. Moreover, the proposed models of operation require the entire effort of people drawn across a variety of nationalities reflecting the inherent diversity that characterise the global arena. As Fisher and Zimina (2008) postulate the said personalities who are depended upon to provide their expert opinion will be obliged to embody, provide guidance, advocate and source the new policy direction implementation. This is because the current INGO methodology of operation that is wrought with powerful ideas and proposals fail to materialise real functionalism in the current world because it lacks the practical backup and thus is prone to the risk of unfair discredit. In one way or another, a tipping point must be realised where an environment, sufficient enough for prior described processes, ought to be cultivated to enable practical implementation and successful ensuing. There is significant and immeasurable hope, in the event of INGO’s mobilising self imagination on the platform of their own power which ideally calls for extending olive branches to given natural allies in their line of operation. The two areas that are ideally suggested constitute what the INGO’s can do in addition to what the INGO’s can say. As Fisher and Zimina (2008), the concept of what the INGO can do as stated above constitutes their agenda. At the helm of this concept, is the issue of accountability. As a response to internalised divisions that is the breeding ground for conflict politically and socially as well as religiously, there arises a need for community reinstatement whereupon their well being should be placed at the core of INGO priorities. The question that arises is how can such an undertaking enable and inspire the re-emergence of a practical vision. To answer the above question, it calls for close analysis at who International Non-Governmental Organisations are accountable to in the real sense. In the practical sense, it is often funding stakeholders and national governments as opposed to the citizenry they work with in the host communities. Proposals for projects are as a result of comprehensible sensible limitations often made with diminished correspondence between neighbouring CSOs and INGOs. Contrastingly a significant proportion of discussions, if not the entire discussion that ensues between an INGO and the body that funds it constituting the private sector and the government, often results into a log-frame. In most instances, addition of world peace to this equation is received with relative unease, primarily, by the people in the hosting communities as they perceive such an alliance as the onset of injustice. For successful implementation of the INGO agenda, one asks how the equation might be impacted if the low level personnel in the grassroots scattered across villages and shanties in modern cities were to be made the central priority. As proposed by Fisher and Zimina (2008), this calls for INGO’s to change their model of operation reformulating it completely that they are empowered and philosophically driven to set and closely drive their own manifestos. This is opposed to the present situation where the donor clubs form the dictators (which are often the rich, unpopular but powerful) of policy implementation that often comes along with attached strings and in most instances are to the benefit of the rich. Moreover INGO”s vertical accountability should be doubled with inculcation of the concept of horizontal connection in time. As such, the INGOs should act as a link to the past whereupon they should connect the present with the pioneer founding fathers that struggled and toiled for peace as well as justice paying for the latter with their lives in death. In addition, within their agenda should also be described the pioneer intellects that set forth the practical and intellectual basis for the respective political diversity and ideology embraced desirably in the host nation. The INGOs should also act as a link to the future. This will be highly critical for succeeding generations of INGOs that will be dependent on the prior set mandate and consequently result into increased success. The second most critical aspect that INGOs ought to address regards global issues. In response to the inherent constricted vision characterising their agenda is the necessity to bring together efforts endeared towards peace building and those that address primary threats to phenomena’s survival as well as security. Gladwell (2002) points out that, INGOs ought to ask themselves the implication of this aspect to their vision towards achieving sustainable political agendas. Primarily, politics in the mainstream circles of the world places human values on the fringe of the circle in discussion and policy implementation. The political process in a significant majority of cases is often divorced from integrity and they lack the desired sense of urgency. This scenario implies that transformation of conflict characterising warring factions is often an uphill task irrespective of the astuteness or flimsiness of the process of building peace and nurturing desired political frameworks. Alleviating the effects is no longer ‘the goal’. In the same line, peace as it has been assessed is inextricably bound to economic justice as well as issues of the environment in addition to human rights which primarily concern participation in public affairs. As Diana (2007:6) observes, so as to derive a transformational as opposed to simple technical implications on stated policies, there arises a need for a fresh kind of political practice from all quarters which ideally propagate respect of values, corporation as well as care. This new framework challenges the status quo that is wrought with disparities in power which undesirably partitions society alongside the lines of race, gender and wealth. In the current world, as postulated by Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (2007), the future of the planet is wrought with risks from population and resource conflict as well as interest and identity, innovation and knowledge in addition to order as well as governance. Most recommendations by INGOs, primarily embrace the concept of getting there which is endeared towards staying at the game’s forefront to remain safe. The consequent of such an endeavour will be restricted rights for citizens so as to derive the nation’s security. Ultimately, the rights that the agenda’s are modelled to address will be further exacerbated. INGOs especially peace building Organisations, as Crisis Group (2007), International Alert Organisation (2007) and Voluntary Principles Organisation (2007) observe have embarked on a process of linking up with world affairs. For instance in responding to climate, ICG has come up with a database that sums up information and resources for conflict and climate change. International Alert has assessed the connection that exists between climate change, war and peace. Despite these baby steps much remains to be done so as to harmonise their agenda to attain optimal and desired levels. Another issue that regards successful implementation of INGOs agenda as a response to different attitudes to power is empowerment of citizenry with regard to host governments and corporate businesses. As such, INGOs ought to ask themselves the question of what more can they do so as to emasculate dissidents that form an obstacle towards their desired goals through fanning violence as well as what they can do to empower their respective partners in development. It is simply not feasible to exercise change while keeping bereft of politics; an aspect that is pretty much prevalent at the local level. INGOs need to shed of the trend that characterises them, where upon they are reluctant to embrace the fact that peace entails transformation of violence, in the entirety of its manifestation, into politics that is practical. As such INGOs are called upon to take politics as well as power with the seriousness that the two deserve in host nations. Unless this trend is assumed, the efforts of the INGOs will reel against technicalities as opposed to transformational politics, which is ultimately irrelevant when analysed under the lens of realistic change. As Merriman and DuVall (2007), Diana (2002) postulate, there exists a chance for developing a formidable discourse of non-violence which can be enhanced through broad information programs in addition to educational process. The United Nations offers chances for employing, specifically through the Peace Building Commission where previously, civil societies at the local level were exposed to diminished chances for influencing policy. Another present process is the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development (2006) which has been embraced by more than seventy nationalities. This declaration omits its signatories to support initiatives endeared towards measuring economic as well as social cost in addition to human costs of armed violence which will ultimately analyse risks and vulnerabilities and consequently spell out the merits of eradicating armed violence. INGO successful implementation of their agenda is also dependent on Action Learning. In response to the requirement for an important group of highly knowledgeable cadres, Fisher and Zimina (2008) postulate that, there is a necessity to inspire acquisition of knowledge of the real practice of an array of professionals in varied fields as opposed to assumptions of what they do that will enhance application of derived insights in practice. References DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007-2036, Available at http://www.dcdc-strategictrends.org.uk/ Diana, F 2007, A Project to Transform Policy, Starting in The UK, CCTS Review 35, Accessed on Jan, 7th. Available at http://www.c-r.org/ccts/ccts35/review35.pdf Diana, F 2002, People, peace and power: Conflict transformation in action, London Pluto Press. Diana, F 2002, Rethinking war and peace, London, Pluto Press Eisler, R 1990, The chalice and the blade: Our history, our future, London, Unwin Paperbacks, Fisher, S and Zimina, L 2008, Just wasting our time? An open letter to peace builders, Accessed, on Jan 7th 2010 available at http://lettertopeacebuilders.ning.com Friedman, M 1982, Capitalism and freedom, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, p.2. Available at http://www.genevadeclaration.org/pdfs/Geneva_Declaration_English.pdf Gladwell, M 2002, The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference, Toronto, Abacus Publishers. Klein, N 2007, The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism, New York, Penguin/Allen Lane. Klijn, EH and Koppenjan, JF 2000, Public Management and Policy Networks, Foundations of a Network Approach to Governance, Journal of Public Management 2 (2), 135-138 Knoke, D 2001, Networks Organisations, In Blau, J R (ed) The Blackwell Companion of Sociology, Massachusetts, Blackwell Publishers, pp. 327-341. Merriman, H and DuVall, J 2007, Dissolving Terrorism at its Roots, in Ram, S and Summy, R (eds) Nonviolence, An alternative for countering global terrorism, Hauppauge, New York, Nova Science Publishers. Murdoch, J 2000, Networks- A New Paradigm of Rural Development? Journal of Rural Studies. Vol. 16. (4), pp. 407-419. Obser, A 1999, Communicative Structuration and Governance of the Global Environment through Policy Networks of International Aid Organisations, Nomos, Baden-Baden. Raab, J 2002, Where do Policy Networks Come from. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 12(4), pp. 581-622. Rankin, K N 2002, Social Capital. Microfinance and the Politics of Development. Feminist Economists, 8 (1), pp. 1-24. Rhodes, R A W 2002, Putting People Back into Networks, Australian Journal of political Science. 37(3), pp. 399-416. Walker. J 1989, Introduction: Policy Communities as a Global phenomena, Governance. 2(1), pp. 1-4. www.crisisgroup.org www.international-alert.org, www.voluntaryprinciples.org Read More