Week 13 Post-Class Blog: NGOs, Celebrity and Authority

Week 13 Post-Class Blog: NGOs, Celebrity and Authority

Professor Jackson, in defining “global public sphere” refers to “an audience for legitimation” in which members of a global citizenry propose, deliberate and decide on rules related to concepts of justice, values, things that are acceptable and those that are not.  Those things are normalized over a broad swath of humanity.  To the question as to whether one exists, our discussion in Class 13 expanded last week’s debate related to NGOs by considering the increasing impact of celebrity leverage.  I would ask, given the extensive influence and proliferation of those two sets of actors alone, even without others tangentially cited in our discussions, can we argue there is not a public sphere that encompasses a significant number population groups? While we can make the case that value sets and notions of justice have been imposed on one set of actors by another, that does not negate the scope of access granted allowing them to do so. It does not preclude the existence of a global public, however skewed in favor of a particular group.  With that as a given, the questions then become: (1) Who has and who should be granted, authority in a global public sphere (2) How do those entities establish and limit authority to those who should not?   Again, this world is new to me. As such, I thought it might make sense first to explore the breadth and nature of the global NGO aggregate and then to discover what mechanisms exist today addressing the questions at hand regarding authority.

We tend to discuss NGOs, particularly INGOs from a Western perspective.  But, among the almost four million NGOs around the world, China has nearly a half million, Russia a little under half that, and India two million.  While India’s in particular have come under scrutiny, the point here is NGOs are not uniquely Western.  Nevertheless, across categories, all but the most dubious tend to be internationally and inter-regionally aligned in value-orientation. Overarching goals appear similar: human rights, environmental sustainability, economic or social development, health services, and so on. They can be advocacy driven or operationally driven.  For the latter, difficulty and difference tend to lie in operational structure and actor situation or structural orientation on the authority spectrum. For instance, an organization may take a paternalistic charitable approach or one focused on empowerment of the target population. It may perpetuate dependence on aid or build foundationally on needs and solutions identified by the community it serves.  Whatever the case, these disparities are reflected across the board. And, everything is driven by funding.  Celebrities, solicited or unsolicited, for better or worse, fairly or unfairly, grant some of them voice or visibility, some power, some embarrassment, some legitimacy - and still others demise.  And, as mentioned by Erica in class, they can get in the way. They can overshadow or trod over the expertise of NGO leadership and, even with the best of intentions, pull focus away from critical issues or the less sensational methodologies required to provide effective aid and services.  Or they can bring money and attention to a cause that might otherwise be lost.  Celebrity has fumbled its way into implicitly representing authority and further, bestowing it through their influence on public perception.

It seems to all have happened organically, but there are mechanisms in place governing NGOs. The United Nations, for instance requires certain criteria for an NGO to be recognized by, and associated with the UN Department of Public Information.  These include demonstration of legitimacy of causes and operational integrity. In-country restrictions and regulations exist and collaborative efforts do take place between organizations.  From the outside looking, however, it feels a little ad hoc and unnecessarily disjointed.  None address the subtle or not-so-subtle expropriation of authority by non-expert advocates.  There is waste at all fronts: the requirements by a state or institution, even when the intent is the same, may be contrary to those of another and parallel missions in the same area may cause competition for funds and redundant efforts. There are saturation concerns, for instance in Kenya.  So, we are back then to the questions, as to who should be granted authority and how to limit those who should not.  I will beg forgiveness in suggesting a relatively simplistic solution in the development of a more cohesive institutional structure for this vast community from which standard for, and selection of, authority might emanate. Development could occur in stages by first expanding on both the United Nations criteria and its inter-organizational communications network. From there, committees could be elected to design a common institutional platform, perhaps modeled after that of the WTO, aimed at collaboration and settling competitive disputes over funding and mission.  It might also include universal standards governing celebrity advocacy associated with member NGOs.  Just a thought.