Summit calls for Govt-NGO cooperation<\/p>\n
Now that the UN social summit is over, governments are left
\nwith enormous tasks in their war against poverty. Noted
\nsociologist Kastorius Sinaga suggests that the Indonesian
\ngovernment change its attitude toward NGOs.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): With one billion people living in poverty and
\n120 million unemployed around the world, social development in
\ngeneral and poverty alleviation in particular are among the
\nworld's concerns today. The declaration of the recent UN social
\nsummit in Copenhagen reflects a new hope in the fight against
\nworld poverty because it includes the one-world perspective.<\/p>\n
Indeed, such a perspective reflects the emergence of a new
\nawareness among nations on a scale never achieved before. The
\nfirst is the awareness on the fact that although the brunt of
\nsuch social crises as mass poverty is on the \"South\", the \"North\"
\nis also increasingly experiencing their effects. This can be seen
\nin the increasing number of worker migrants or economic refugees
\nflooding the rich countries. This phenomenon has also caused
\nsocial problems in the North such as the neo-Nazi movement in
\nGermany.<\/p>\n
The second is that social crises breaking out in poor
\ncountries have been exacerbated by state policies and actions of
\nthe elite not only in the South, but an interlocking set of elite
\ninterests in the North. Most of the Copenhagen summit
\nparticipants also agreed that efforts to cope with social
\nproblems, be they poverty, unemployment or basic needs problems,
\nrequire more than increased official development aid.<\/p>\n
The solution also requires an enormous amount of political
\neffort to ensure that these grants are effectively used and
\napplied as intended, especially by strengthening collaboration
\nbetween NGOs and government in recipient countries. The relevant
\nquestions involve the conceptual base of this collaboration and
\nthe reasons why collaboration between NGOs and government
\nagencies has been gradually deteriorating in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
The NGO sector is a combined product of what economists term
\nthe failure of the market and the state to provide social
\ndevelopment services. The state, which is dominated by a few
\nstrategic groups, is faced with the overwhelming task of
\nproviding resources on equitable terms for society. A
\ndiscriminatory decision is usually manifested in the state
\npolicies, which tend to benefit only a small group: either the
\npower base of the state or small groups having access to the core
\nof power.<\/p>\n
Unlike state failure, the failures of market organizations in
\ndistributing resources or assets equally to the poor are inherent
\nin the market mechanism. The market as an instrument for economic
\nmobility is only significant for groups which own or control the
\nmeans of production. For the majority of the population, such as
\nthe poor, opportunities to benefit from market liberalization
\nhardly exist and the poor are often even further impoverished by
\na fully competitive market.<\/p>\n
Thus, NGOs spread throughout Indonesia should be judged
\npurely as complementary to both the government and the private
\nsector, rather than adversarial. NGO actions are not primarily
\nmotivated by power-seeking or profit-gaining considerations, but
\nphilanthropic and voluntary values. As such they reach down to
\nthe poor and qualitatively serve them better than other types of
\norganizations.<\/p>\n
Apart from this, transaction costs to mobilize governmental
\nefforts tend to be much higher than the NGOs. Bureaucratic in
\nnature, for the government to act a substantial segment of the
\npublic must be aroused and public officials must be trained or
\nguided. Laws and manuals must be formulated and then socialized.
\nTo generate a NGO action, by contrast, a handful of individuals
\ninvolving professional members acting on their own or with
\noutside support, often suffices.<\/p>\n
Compared to other developing countries like India, the
\nPhilippines, Thailand or Bangladesh, collaboration between NGOs
\nand government agencies has not been effectively
\ninstitutionalized in Indonesia. There is even an obvious tendency
\nof the deteriorating relationship among them which is reflected
\nin the issuance of various counterproductive regulations. The
\nbackground of this relationship is manifold.<\/p>\n
Firstly, conflicts between NGOs and government bureaucracy
\nhave been much exacerbated by a few NGOs, particularly those
\nwhich advocate political reform. Because such NGOs play an
\nimportant role in providing critical information, they are
\npolitically overestimated both by the government and the press.
\nFrankly speaking, these NGOs are a small minority attempting to
\ngo to the root of the crises by launching political reform
\nadvocacies.<\/p>\n
Secondly, according to ministerial decree No. 4\/1981, the
\nauthority and right to conduct state-financed development
\nprojects in rural areas are, by law, monopolized by government
\nagencies. Such a monopoly is primarily based on a security
\napproach. All development projects in rural areas will have a
\npolitical impact on the depoliticized rural community, the
\nmajority of whom still live in poverty.<\/p>\n
This climate does not allow the \"privatization\" of the social
\ndevelopment sector through which better and effective social
\ndevelopment services can be created. Based on the above
\nexplanation and particularly in light of the increasing scarcity
\nof financial resources, it is time to reconsider the prospect of
\ncollaboration between NGOs and the government by means of
\nprivatizing our social development sector.<\/p>\n
The writer is a social sciences lecturer completing a
\npostgraduate program at the University of Indonesia, Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/summit-calls-for-govt-ngo-cooperation-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}