While former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon highlighted that ‘civil society is an indispensable partner of the United Nations’, the current Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, has reiterated this commitment, noting civil society’s critical role in the success of the Sustainable Development Goals. Credit: ISHR

By Ingrid Srinath
SUVA, Fiji, Dec 5 2017 (IPS)

A cursory glance at international funding of the social sector in India reveals that it has grown at over 25% annually over the past three years.

This might seem at odds with the headlines describing the wholesale withdrawal of licences to receive foreign funds from thousands of NGOs, the heightened scrutiny that major international donor organisations are being subjected to as part of the infamous FCRA watchlist, and the legal travails of Greenpeace and Ford Foundation among others.

While aggregate totals of funds for the social sector, international and domestic, are clearly growing robustly, it is equally clear that their composition and intent have changed significantly.

Resources from technocratically minded donors seeking tangible, measurable impact within a relatively short time horizon are no substitute for the support of those willing to partner unpopular and underserved causes, issues of human rights and social justice, and to invest in building the long-term sustainability of institutions or in strengthening the civil society ecosystem.

For activists on the frontlines of protecting these freedoms, the response from organised civil society, domestic philanthropy and the media has been way too little, way too late.

The ruthlessness and persistence of authorities who have been willing to subvert laws and institutions to exact retribution on anyone who dissents from the laudatory official line, the lack of solidarity especially from the middle class and the media, the silence and complicity of business leaders, and the timidity of most Indian philanthropists has facilitated the intimidation, harassment, even murder, of human rights defenders, activists across domains, journalists, rationalists and minorities. A judge too, if recent allegations are proven.

As in too many other countries, the confluence of majoritarian, nationalist populism with the unrelenting erosion of institutional protections, demonisation of minorities, activists and critical journalists, and systematic amplification of fears of terrorism, violent crime and cultural ‘erosion’ provide cover for a creeping destruction of democratic institutions and constitutional freedoms.

From universities to media houses, businesses to Bollywood, the word is out. Deviating from, or criticising the powers that be is increasingly hazardous to life, liberty, health and wealth in India.

As citizens scramble just to breathe, access basic public services or simply get to school or work and back home safely, the outrage factory churns out an unending flow of ‘controversies’ to occupy minds and ‘inform’ debate. In a version of the boiling frog syndrome, each step towards outright authoritarianism raises the temperature just enough to cause discomfort without inciting drastic action.

The fact that the big, new source of funding in India is the corporate philanthropy prescribed by the Companies Act exacerbates the chilling effect by dis-incentivising any criticism of business, whether general or particular. NGOs seeking CSR funding must constrain themselves to activities and issues that are at least uncontroversial, if not primarily geared toward corporate reputation management.

Giving by Indian foundations and high net worth individuals is also burgeoning. Most, though not all, this ‘new’ philanthropy is technocratically minded, reflecting the culture of the information technology, finance and other sectors in which the wealth that fuels it was garnered. It too, mainly seeks safe, apolitical, measurable impact areas, and prizes close collaboration with government to either supplement, substitute or innovate the delivery of public services.

Little support has been forthcoming from mainstream Indian media which has, with rare exceptions, chosen to toe the lines of corporate owners, advertisers or the government. Civil society voices in the national media are few and coverage of the crackdown has largely been limited to disseminating, unchallenged, the government line.

Legal redress has proven more effective, for those who have had the stomach to take that route. It is, however, limited to the few organisations that can find the bandwidth, resources and courage to pursue the long, arduous route through the legal system. And prevailing in court is not sufficient to restore either incomes or reputation.

Civil society resistance to the onslaught has been limited, sporadic and lacking solidarity. Responses have ranged from denial to defeatism, leaving both outspoken activists and the voices of the marginalised, isolated and vulnerable.

A steady drip of disinformation, painting civil society as unaccountable, ineffective, corrupt and possibly anti-national has gone largely uncontested, alienating the middle-class constituency that might provide both material and political succor.

Where then, might a way forward be found? A small but growing number of civil society groups has begun to coalesce around core beliefs and values of constitutionalism, democracy, pluralism and justice offering solidarity with activists under threat and seeking to collaborate in new ways.

A few philanthropists too are willing to support these efforts including support for initiatives in the areas of governance, independent media, strengthening the ecosystem and amplifying marginalised voices.

More, much more, is necessary. “NGOs need to scale up; build second line leaderships; specialise; focus on systemic change rather than immediate vulnerabilities; engage and confront sagely; collaborate more closely; increase the footprint and relevance for ideas that support civil liberties democracy and rule of law through mass outreach; and rely on objective facts rather than ideology to make the public argument”, says Maja Daruwala, an erstwhile Board member of CIVICUS and, till recently, the Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.

Framing and disseminating a counter-narrative is critical. Communicating the size, impact, value, diversity and innovation of civil society could help recover lost ground and build new constituencies among young Indians and new entrants to the middle class.

Particular focus is necessary on adopting and communicating norms for accountability, transparency and governance. Facilitating these will require new channels of dialogue across barriers of ideology and thematic focus.

Investing in outreach, convening, capacity building and technology to strengthen domestic giving, especially from the Indian public, requires greater support from domestic philanthropy. More vitally, transcending the mind-sets and attitudes of mutual suspicion, hostility, competitiveness and disdain will require shared diagnosis of threats, opportunities and responsibilities.

International solidarity, while necessary, can be detrimental when it reinforces the notion that dissent emanates mainly from those whose interests are antithetical to India’s national interests and largely funded from abroad.

Solidarity, supporting convening across silos and facilitating the exchange of ideas and strategies from diverse contexts may be some areas where international donors could be helpful. So too would ensuring support, financial and non-financial, to the groups who are most marginalised in today’s Indian context.

Forging connections with like-minded Indian philanthropists, business leaders, journalists and civil society groups is another key contribution international donors could make. Persuading their own governments to uphold international norms and laws and to pursue values-based global standards in finance, banking, trade, climate and human rights are as necessary as is ensuring that the right of Indian civil society organisations to access international resources Is protected.

India’s democracy and its civil society are resourceful and resilient. They have coped with threats of similar magnitude in the past, most notably during the infamous Emergency of the mid 1970s.

Both, the champions of these values and their opponents, are now armed with greater reach, more sophisticated tools and broader networks that ever before. One side has greater access to money, political clout and fewer inhibitions to violence.

The eventual outcomes of this struggle between the forces of control and those of freedom are far from decided. We must each play our part in determining them.

* The views expressed in the article are personal and do not reflect those of the university or any other institution she is affiliated with.

This article is part of a series about the activists and communities of the Pacific who are responding to the effects of climate change. Leaders from climate and social justice movements from around the world are currently meeting in Suva, Fiji, through 8 December for International Civil Society Week.

Excerpt:

By Ingrid Srinath
JOHANNESBURG, May 25 2011 (IPS)

European powers appear set on perpetuating their arbitrary “entitlement” to the position of Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund in the wake of the controversy that precipitated the resignation of Managing Director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Despite claims from the IMF that the selection this time around would “take place in an open, merit-based, and transparent manner” as well as a longstanding commitment to open the position to nationals of all member states, most developed country representatives had expressed clear preferences for European candidates even before nominations opened on May 23. Their stances will do nothing to allay fears among developing countries and civil society that pledges to address unrepresentative governance at the Bretton Woods institutions are mere window dressing. They are in direct contravention of the explicit recommendation that resulted from extensive civil society consultations last year that the election would be conducted “without pre-selection by any sub-group of powerful countries”. Particularly since the arguments being proffered in favour of European candidates fly in the face of reason and logic.

In an act of collective amnesia, some Europeans have argued that their current economic woes demand a European at the helm of the Fund, having asserted that objectivity was necessary in the IMFÂ’s approach following the Asian economic crisis of the late Â’90s. This repeats the U-turn in logic that accompanied their shift to becoming net contributors from net recipients, when these institutions were founded following World War II. It is somewhat ironic that the current front-runner for the Managing DirectorÂ’s position is French since France was the first recipient of an IMF loan.

The apparent change of heart in evidence at the Spring meetings earlier this year were lauded by Joseph Stiglitz and others as “marking the Fund’s effort to distance itself from its own long-standing tenets on capital controls and labour-market flexibility”. Together with reform of quota shares, the pronouncements revived long-frustrated hopes in the possibility of a new IMF. At the Spring 2011 meetings Strauss-Kahn called for more cooperation of the sort that had staved off the worst effects of the financial crisis. “We are now in an interconnected world which does not leave any room for local solutions to global challenges that are decided by countries without taking into account the consequences on others” he said.

Such cooperation is unlikely when the Managing Director is perceived to serve the interests of a few countries. As Jesse Griffiths of the Bretton Woods Project puts it, "The head of the IMF must be -and be seen to be- independent of powerful governments, and well versed in the problems of low and middle-income countries, where most IMF operations take place. They should display a commitment to reducing levels of global inequality and poverty."

Developing countries and emerging economies that account for most of the worldÂ’s population, over half the worldÂ’s output and who are being pressed to increase their capital contributions, will have negligible say in the decision unless they are willing to take a firm, collective stance behind a consensus candidate. Statements from South Africa and Australia on behalf of the G-20 committee on IMF reform have been encouraging in this regard.

Farsighted developed countries too would do well to look beyond narrow, parochial, short-term interests in their choices or risk further erosion of the legitimacy of the Fund at a time when lack of trust from its stakeholders could fatally undermine its potential role in restoring and reforming the international monetary system at a critical time. In the words of Oxfam spokesperson Sarah Wynn-Williams : "The only way to give the new IMF head legitimacy and authority is through open voting, with the winner backed by a majority of countries, not just a majority of shares. The time has come for the IMF to accept an open and merit-based approach to choosing its leaders." (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) By Ingrid Srinath, Secretary General, CIVICUS:World Alliance for Citizen Participation.

Excerpt:

By Ingrid Srinath
JOHANNESBURG, May 4 2011 (IPS)

You would have to be living in a cave in Tora Bora or North Waziristan to avoid the news of the killing of Osama bin Laden that dominated virtually all media this week. Reactions ranged from juvenile triumphalism through conspiracy theories to the scoring of cheap political points.

Attempting to digest the barrage of commentary, I was reminded of Philip BobbittÂ’s book, Terror and Consent: The Wars for the 21st century. The bookÂ’s tilt towards American exceptionalism did not, for me, invalidate its core thesis that “Like new antibiotic-resistant strains of tuberculosis, market state terrorism is a function of what we have done to eradicate old threats. That is, its principal causes are the liberalisation of the global economy, the internationalisation of the electronic media, and the military-technological revolution, all ardently sought innovations that won the Long War of the 20th century.” “Within this setting,” Bobbitt writes, “the battle ahead is not between Islam and the West, or the might of a hyperpower and the cunning of bearded men in mountain hideaways, but between terror and consent.”

If the long manhunt and massive casualties leading up to bin Laden’s killing are to achieve more than either, repairing the damage the attacks of September 11, 2001 did to the ego of a superpower, or, the elimination of a figure who had become, in equal measure, messiah and bogeyman, it must be in the direction of rolling back the assault on civil liberties and democratic freedoms that have been justified by the “war on terror”.

Writing in Salon, Joan Walsh hopes that, “this achievement could mean we get our country back, the one before the Patriot Act, before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), before rendition and torture and Guantánamo; before we began giving up the freedom and belief in due process that makes us Americans, out of our fear of totalitarians like bin Laden.” Hawkish pundits, amplified by shrill media, on the other hand, are seeking to exploit the events of 02 May, 2011 to legitimise torture, illegal detention, pre-emptive aggression and the primitive logic of vengeance over that of justice.

Among Osama bin LadenÂ’s unfortunate legacies are excuses to disregard the basic fundamentals of international law. While critics and pundits may debate the finer details and the motivations that necessitated the US operation in another sovereign state to rid the world of its most wanted fugitive, bin Laden has certainly made humanity take a step backward through another transgression of the laws governing the relationship between states justified yet again as necessary pragmatism.

Yet across the world, in the Middle East and North Africa, in particular, bin LadenÂ’s dystopian ideology has already been successfully challenged by a more compelling, alternative narrative that focuses on human rights, accountability, civil liberties and democratic governance. A narrative that has compelled powerful players to retreat, at least temporarily, from the arguments of security and stability that rationalised authoritarian regimes.

For the first time in a decade dominated by the paranoid politics of fear, we have a window of opportunity for rational debate on the issues Bobbitt’s book raises –the market state, paradigms of consent versus control, and the framing of national and international law to deal with the new, globalised threats presented by climate change, pandemics, natural disasters and terrorism by both state or non-state actors. Our choices now could determine whether we continue our piece-meal struggle that pits ever escalating violence against ever escalating threats or begin the slow, tedious work of building economic, political and social orders that provide sustainable antidotes to future bin Laden (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Ingrid Srinath, Secretary General of CIVICUS: World Alliance of Citizen Participation

Excerpt:

By Ingrid Srinath
JOHANNESBURG, May 4 2011 (IPS)

You would have to be living in a cave in Tora Bora or North Waziristan to avoid the news of the killing of Osama bin Laden that dominated virtually all media this week. Reactions ranged from juvenile triumphalism through conspiracy theories to the scoring of cheap political points.

Attempting to digest the barrage of commentary, I was reminded of Philip Bobbitt’s book, Terror and Consent: The Wars for the 21st century. The book’s tilt towards American exceptionalism did not, for me, invalidate its core thesis that “Like new antibiotic-resistant strains of tuberculosis, market state terrorism is a function of what we have done to eradicate old threats. That is, its principal causes are the liberalisation of the global economy, the internationalisation of the electronic media, and the military-technological revolution, all ardently sought innovations that won the Long War of the 20th century.” “Within this setting,” Bobbitt writes, “the battle ahead is not between Islam and the West, or the might of a hyperpower and the cunning of bearded men in mountain hideaways, but between terror and consent.”

If the long manhunt and massive casualties leading up to bin Laden’s killing are to achieve more than either, repairing the damage the attacks of September 11, 2001 did to the ego of a superpower, or, the elimination of a figure who had become, in equal measure, messiah and bogeyman, it must be in the direction of rolling back the assault on civil liberties and democratic freedoms that have been justified by the “war on terror”.

Writing in Salon, Joan Walsh hopes that, “this achievement could mean we get our country back, the one before the Patriot Act, before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), before rendition and torture and Guantánamo; before we began giving up the freedom and belief in due process that makes us Americans, out of our fear of totalitarians like bin Laden.” Hawkish pundits, amplified by shrill media, on the other hand, are seeking to exploit the events of 02 May, 2011 to legitimise torture, illegal detention, pre-emptive aggression and the primitive logic of vengeance over that of justice.

Among Osama bin LadenÂ’s unfortunate legacies are excuses to disregard the basic fundamentals of international law. While critics and pundits may debate the finer details and the motivations that necessitated the US operation in another sovereign state to rid the world of its most wanted fugitive, bin Laden has certainly made humanity take a step backward through another transgression of the laws governing the relationship between states justified yet again as necessary pragmatism.

Yet across the world, in the Middle East and North Africa, in particular, bin LadenÂ’s dystopian ideology has already been successfully challenged by a more compelling, alternative narrative that focuses on human rights, accountability, civil liberties and democratic governance. A narrative that has compelled powerful players to retreat, at least temporarily, from the arguments of security and stability that rationalised authoritarian regimes.

For the first time in a decade dominated by the paranoid politics of fear, we have a window of opportunity for rational debate on the issues Bobbitt’s book raises -­ the market state, paradigms of consent versus control, and the framing of national and international law to deal with the new, globalised threats presented by climate change, pandemics, natural disasters and terrorism by both state or non-state actors. Our choices now could determine whether we continue our piece-meal struggle that pits ever escalating violence against ever escalating threats or begin the slow, tedious work of building economic, political and social orders that provide sustainable antidotes to future bin Ladens. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Ingrid Srinath, Secretary General of CIVICUS: World Alliance of Citizen Participation

Excerpt:

By Ingrid Srinath
JOHANNESBURG, Jul 12 2010 (IPS)

The past 30 days of World Cup euphoria and patriotism have been a chance to distract ourselves from the unemployment rate, the HIV rate, worsening income disparities, and corruption in the ranks that rule South Africa. But it’s time now to put away our yellow and green Bafana Bafana (South Africa’s soccer team) jerseys and contemplate just what sort of legacy the World Cup has brought us.

There is some good news. After the cry of disbelief from some South African social commentators that its government could lavish billions on a World Cup when over 42 per cent of the populace gets by on less than USD 2 a day, South Africa’s finance minister, Pravin Gordham, delivered the news that his government would come out ahead after World Cup expenses were paid.

That announcement should have included a “just”. Thanks to the estimated 5 billion USD and that foreign visitors have poured into the South African economy over the past few weeks, it appears the 5.27-odd billion USD spent on staging the world cup should “just” be recovered.

Trade unions have had some success in leveraging the event to strengthen their bargaining power, if only for the short term.

So what then has a country where one in seven citizens is infected with HIV gained from hosting this world event? Have thousands of civil society organisations been able to build awareness or been inundated with urgently-needed funds to ensure that every South African has access to the basics of education, electricity, sanitation, and medication?

Has the world understood that South Africa is not doing so well on the Millennium Development Goals, such as reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, and combating HIV and AIDS, malaria, and other diseases? Did it become clear that South Africa, though on track to halve the proportion of people who live on less than one dollar a day, still has half of its population living in poverty?

The economic community seems doubtful: in a survey conducted before the competition began, Citigroup found that the biggest beneficiary of any football World Cup was invariably FIFA, while the host nation almost always carried a disproportionate share of the cost burden. Though it estimated that the tourism inflow could boost real gross domestic product by 0.5 percent this year, the only real benefit Citigroup envisioned for the nation was a boost to its global image. The International Monetary Fund concurred.

So while Europeans and Americans might now be rushing to book an African safari, what about the nation’s civil society? Have the thousands of civil society organisations been able to build awareness or been inundated with urgently-needed funds to ensure every South African has access to the basics of education, electricity, sanitation and medication?

One director of an HIV awareness NGO we spoke to, who wishes to remain anonymous, summed up the sentiment: “The sponsors are playing the media and painting a picture that they are giving back, but the reality is we haven’t seen a thing.”

There is even the fear swelling in the development sector that in the short term its local funding will shrink, as South Africans look to tighten their financial belts after the excesses of the World Cup period. Although I don’t believe it’s accurate to say civil society has been totally forgotten in the World Cup fever; the limited activity has been centred around photo-opportunity friendly, urban, established, globally-known projects like the 1GOAL programme, FIFA’s 20 centres for 2010 (eight finished across Africa), Sony, and Nike.

Since it was announced that South Africa would host the 2010 FIFA World Cup, there’s been a lot of talk about the positive carry-over effect, how the cup, much like the Rugby World Cup in 1995, would unify its people and bring an injection of foreign money into the community and economy.

“Change will come.” the positive voices urge. But were we right to push the positive “glitz” of our country and not the plight of the millions of children who wake each day hungry? Too many of us, perhaps, were caught in the choice between either defending against the bias in the Western media that emphasises the negatives or simply telling the truth regardless of consequences at the risk of exacerbating those biases.

For some, ignoring those hungry children has meant that the world now has a mistaken image of South Africa as well-furnished and opulent and not in need of money to support our civil society programmes. The more important consequence, perhaps, is the reinforcement of the underlying model of trickle-down economics that has seen South Africa desert the founding principles of its Freedom Charter for neo-liberal paradigms.

It is still too soon to tell, but I fear that just as the traders were squeezed out by FIFA’s aggressive protection of its official sponsors, civil society has missed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to capture World Cup attention and push its civil cause. If I were to force myself towards optimism, I could express the hope that, now the circus is over, we can return our focus to bread. (COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Ingrid Srinath is secretary-general of CIVICUS, World Alliance for Citizen Participation.

Excerpt: