Are NGOs in it for the money, or are they anarchists?

Pana Janviroj, The Nation, Asia News Network, Bangkok

"They are in it for the money, albeit foreign money," said Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra while describing several non- government organizations (NGOs).

With the 15th International Aids Conference in town, this is as good a time as any to look more closely at this accusation.

This week's Aids conference has brought together the largest number of NGOs that Bangkok has ever witnessed. It should also be noted that Thailand is home to East Asia's largest population of such organizations.

Historically, the Cambodian refugee situation during the Pol Pot era in the 1970s and 1980s brought a large number of foreign NGOs to Thailand. But that is not the only reason there are so many NGOs in Thailand: The growing spirit of democracy and openness has helped nurture Thai NGOs alongside the foreign groups.

Of crucial importance to the country's active indigenous NGO network, with its strong international links, is the process of globalization.

The boom in NGOs, at least in this part of the world, is very much a child of globalization and the manifold increases in international trade, use of technology and flows of foreign capital into the stock markets of emerging economies that have helped many local tycoons become enormously wealthy. Our prime minister is a prime example of this.

It is difficult to say exactly when Thai NGOs really started taking off. Some argue that interest groups took shape after the October 1976 revolution. Others cite the flood of environmental concerns from the West that hit Thailand in a big way in the 1980s. Two incidents come to mind that put Thailand on the world map in terms of organized NGO environmental movements.

The first was the opposition in the 1980s to the Nam Chon dam project in the western part of the Kingdom. If construction had been allowed to start it would have destroyed one of the world's wildlife sanctuaries. Another was the ban on logging imposed in the late 1980s after massive illegal logging operations in the southern part of the country caused a mudslide disaster.

After having started out as a purely environmental movement, Thai NGOs eventually came to share the broader agenda of the international NGO community.

Human and community rights were among the key issues taken up by Thai organizations. As their numbers grew, so did their activism. Opposition to dam-building no longer relied solely on environmental or wildlife technicalities, but also on a defense of the rights of minorities.

The Pak Mool dam saga is demonstrative of this wider agenda. The creation of the Assembly of the Poor, an umbrella NGO organization, directly challenges the state apparatus in a way that an opposition political party could never do.

Stubbornness, an unyielding resistance to conventional cost/benefit analyses and trade-offs and a distrust of the government are among the defining characteristics of Thai NGOs.

In the last decade, especially after the 1992 bloodbath and the drafting of the new Constitution, Thai NGOs have broadened and deepened their roles and knowledge. They have received invitations to go overseas to attend workshops on governance and legal issues and to meet their foreign counterparts.

Foreign NGOs have also been active in helping Thai bureaucrats with legal training and in supporting development projects that empower local communities. NGOs have filled many of the gaps that the Thai bureaucracy has not been able to cover in terms of serving the people.

The creation of a Thai civil society was shaping up nicely when the Thai Rak Thai Party swept into power more than three years ago. The decentralization process called for in the new Constitution, which would have involved these civil society groups, has faltered as those in power tightened their control, particularly the CEO governors.

It would be unfair to generalize or to conclude that Thai NGOs have merely followed the agendas set by their foreign counterparts -- as Thaksin seemed to do when he questioned their sources of funding. This statement is not without a certain irony though, as Shin Corp and many other Thai firms also have foreign shareholders. Asia and the West also share many values. Civility has no boundaries.

Sure, there are black sheep, but overall Thai NGOs have in recent times developed more and contributed far more to Thailand's development than the political quarters or the bureaucracy.

And the NGOs remain private, self-governing, non-profit, voluntary and public service-minded. They may be a nuisance at times and an eyesore in this tolerant society, but they are also close to the communities they serve and by and large have a better understanding of and are capable of articulating the needs and priorities of the poor and marginalised.

And there is no dilemma about who represents "the people", as some have tried to suggest. Is it the elected governments or un- elected, somewhat dubious, NGOs?

In a democracy, there is a need for healthy parliamentary discussion and for an active parliamentary opposition. But there is also a need for a healthy civil society of NGOs, using acceptable methods to convince other people of the virtue of their particular causes.