Governance and Interaction in Civil Society


     Experience during preparations for the Copenhagen Summit and the subsequent follow-up casts useful light on a number of important aspects of the way in which CSOs are structured, operate internally and engage with each other in international activity. The following comments address several internal issues before looking at aspects of interaction.

CSO membership and governance

     A common criticism made of CSOs during the Copenhagen process was that they are not sufficiently transparent and accountable, and that they do not represent many people. It was sometimes made as a general criticism of CSOs by governmental, business and union sources and it was often made of particular CSOs, sometimes by other CSOs. There is no compelling reason why all CSOs should have a broad-based membership to which they are fully accountable. Some may consist of little more than one person and rely on the power of their information and ideas rather than on broad membership or financial power. Others may be established very quickly for a short-term purpose under circumstances which make it impractical and unreasonable to expect formalities of membership and substantial accountability.

     It is very important, however, that CSOs in general as well as particular CSOs do not make extravagant claims of representativity. Unfortunately, experience in the Copenhagen process suggest that such claims are not uncommon, either by adoption of misleading organisational names or, for example, by claiming as members a number of organisations with which they have merely had some fleeting contact. These claims are not only unfair to other CSOs who may be directly affected but also damaging to the general credibility of those CSOs which do have a legitimate claim to representativity. A related problem is that some groupings which claim to be broad-based membership organisations have no clear governing structure and process for election of their leaders by the membership. Others have membership structures and elections but make no serious attempt to strike a fair balance between, for example, the voting power of those members which themselves represent a very large number of their own members and those which have no more than a handful of their own members.

     During the Copenhagen process, these problems were aggravated by some people in governmental and intergovernmental organisations who understandably and desirably wanted to encourage CSOs from developing countries but tended to overlook basic checks of representativity and bona fides which they would regard as essential measures of the credibility of CSOs from industrialised countries. This is not to argue that unreasonably rigorous criteria should be imposed, especially in relation to countries where civil society operates under severe difficulties. But the long-term strength and effectiveness of civil society is retarded if outside influences appear to discount the value of developing CSO leaders of high calibre and lasting credibility.

     A particular difficulty facing international CSOs is to develop a membership which fairly represents the organisation’s purported constituency, especially where it is global. This should go beyond merely ensuring, for example, that a substantial proportion of members comes from developing countries. It needs to include ensuring that people from those countries have realistic opportunities to be senior officers or staff members of the organisation, and that the organisation’s offices and activities are not disproportionately based in industrialised countries. The record in these respects of most of the longest-established global CSOs is not impressive. The balance is made harder to achieve, of course, when so many major intergovernmental meetings and other activities are held in the relatively small part of the globe occupied by North America and Western Europe.

Interaction between CSOs

     As internationalisation has become increasingly intense, detailed and rapid in its impact on national and local circumstances, so the need for close international interaction between CSOs has increased. Technological developments, especially email and the Internet, have undoubtedly facilitated that interaction, including with many CSOs in developing countries for which post, telephone and fax is often too slow, unreliable or expensive. The effectiveness of a number of recent CSO campaigns in areas such as trade and the environment has benefited greatly from these new ways of gathering and exchanging information, ideas and plans. This is especially so where speedy and intense campaigns have been essential.

     Another development which has stimulated and facilitated international interaction has been the series of major United Nations conferences such as the Copenhagen Summit during the 1990s. This has greatly increased the number of national and even local CSOs which have an active interest in international dimensions of the problems with which they are concerned. It has also provided opportunities for them to attend international preparatory meetings, the global conferences themselves and subsequent gatherings at the UN or elsewhere. Previously, CSO involvement with the UN had been principally through long-established global organisations that had been subjected to lengthy accreditation procedures and had substantial records of involvement across a number of countries.

     During the last decade or so, it appears that many organisations and individuals at the national and local level have become directly involved in international activities rather than doing so through becoming active members of global organisations which have fully fledged and broadly based membership structures. Often, of course, they have become involved with a loosely structured campaign, network or coalition with CSOs in some or many other countries. In general, however, the last decade does not appear to be characterised by substantial growth in the numbers or strength of global organisations which have formal, transparent and ongoing structures of membership and governance.

     This tendency has reflected to a considerable extent, perhaps, weaknesses amongst the long-established global CSOs. Many of those organisations have tended to be heavily, if sometimes unconsciously, dominated by members from the industrialised countries and to have focused on concerns and activities of special interest to those countries. They have been slow to adjust to the decline of colonialism and to improved communications options. Many have also been, or have become, rather conservative in their substance, style or both. These factors have tended to reinforce a tendency in some quarters to characterise global CSOs generically as “northern” CSOs even though some have a majority of members from the “south”.