DEVELOPMENT: NGOs Want “Positive Redefinition”

By Humberto Márquez Reprint | | Print |

Humberto Marquez

CARACAS, May 12 1996 (IPS) - Its time non-governmental organisations (NGOs) took a hard look at the terminology defining their activities to end confusion which bunches a wide diversity of civil society under one umbrella, says a Venezuelan NGO.

“We don’t want service centres, women’s committees, trade organisations, private foundations, business associations and trades unions to be put in the same bag,” said Ruben Briceno, leader of the Service Centre of Popular Action in Venezuela (CESAP).

Jose Luis Lopez, another leader, said that “even in United Nations circles, the definition of the NGOs with whom UN agencies have broad contact has not been brought up to date.”

In the case of Venezuela, Lopez said there had been neither legal nor conceptual updating.

“That’s why we are left with the unhappy definition of what we are not – ‘non governmental’,” added Briceno.

He stressed that his concern goes beyond the formal or rhetorical, as it “affects relations in the civil society – which is not very active in Venezuela, with the State – which in our case is strong and with a large capacity for intervention.”

Bricena said that as a result, the public organisms of the national, regional and municipal administrations “tend to bunch the NGOs they work with together, adversely affecting resource distribution and work priorities.”

Armando Janssens, CESAP president, brought up the definition of the company as a private entity dealing with private business, the State, a public body dealing with its responsibilities and the NGO as a private organism taking up public issues.

“In Venezuela there are more than 1,000 NGOs and the number is increasing along with the value of their input and action,” such that “no one can maintain the State has a monopoly on public concerns,” said Janssens.

But unlike other sectors, like the business federations, the unions, political parties and churches, the NGOs are the most amorphous sector, the rest, the remnants, the ‘others’ of the official programmes,” said Lopez.

Briceno said they were engaged in what are defined as “organisations of social promotion and development, not merely concerned with filling in the gaps in the State’s role of social inspector or guarantor of well-being.”

The social promotion and development organisations “direct their action in supporting the emergence, reinforcement and articulation of initiatives and processes of social organisation,” he added.

In the case of CESAP in particular, “our mission is to direct society from a popular viewpoint,” said Briceno, and Lopez added that they did not specialise in any one form of action though they were now active in more fields than they could possibly have foreseen when the organisation began 21 years ago.

CESAP is a conglomeration of 27 associations involved in diverse educational, economic and community projects nationwide – their most recent success being the organisation of a food megamarket in populous western Caracas.

Along with the development of community initiatives, CESAP has managed to fund several study centres and teaching projects which are used by its affiliates and friendly organisations. Some of its programmes have received funding from multilateral agencies.

The emphasis on the redefinition of the sector as social promotion and development organisations “must not be seen as seeking to set ourselves at odds with other organisations, because this must be not a redefinition which excludes but which definitely includes,” concluded Lopez.