< Back - Article List - Next >

1.1. Yacob MULUGETTA: TRANSNATIONAL CIVIL SOCIETY MOVEMENTS in GLOBALISATION: RESISTANCE and Co-option
<http://www.shef.ac.uk/~perc/dev/papers/mulugetta.pdf>

Abstract
In recent years, transnational civil society movements (TCSM) have proliferated as a direct response to the excesses of globalisation and corporate hegemony over world economic instruments and resources. Often such groups consist of disparate constituents such as environmentalists, poor people's agencies, labour movements, women's movements and NGOs, each coming with its specific demands and focus activities. Their convergence of thought and action derive from the realm of values, and a sense of civic responsibility and reliance on their own initiative to do the 'right thing'1 since their views and principles are not being addressed in the conventional political platform by the official leadership. Furthermore, there is a broad recognition that local interventions alone, as encapsulated in the slogan "think globally, act locally", may not be sufficient to effect change without engaging the range of global forums and processes. This paper argues that TCSM are now intervening in sophisticated ways in national and regional politics. By building and nurturing global alliances in a typically Gramscian perspective of autonomous identity and collective action, TCSMs are now becoming powerful tools of resistance to globalisation. At the same time, some corporations, governments and supranational institutions such as the World Bank are adopting methods of 'co-option and incorporation' of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) into consultative processes, which is giving rise to a proliferation of new and seemingly unholy alliances. Many in the TCSM regard this as yet another attempt to annex and neutralise collective action, but even they may find it difficult to ignore the dynamics of this force in shaping the direction of the globalisation process. The paper will use a wide-range of case examples to illustrate these processes of resistance to globalisation, mutation of national and supranational institutions to absorb the pressure from such networked 'defiance', and their possible effort towards 'neutralising' TCSMs and reclaiming control.

INTRODUCTION
The past two decades have seen what appears to be a 'voluntary disengagement' of people from the mainstream political process. There are a range of views that explain this phenomenon. Some argue that the impulse released by the end of the cold war has created the perception that neo-liberalism and free trade are inevitable paths and have given unqualified endorsement to the form of economic globalisation where transnational corporations (TNCs) dominate the world's economic system. However, a great number of global civil society2 movements consider economic globalisation as a force that adversely affects peoples' livelihoods, communities and their environment. Hence, they see themselves at the forefront of mounting a discursive and practical challenge to economic globalisation through a wide-range of informal and unconventional channels of resistance. Others argue that the rapid rise in electronic and computerised form of communication has transformed the global space making it possible to cross and penetrate any part of the world in a matter of seconds. Notwithstanding the unprecedented speed with which capital can travel from one corner of the world to another, advances in information technology have also made it possible for civil society actors in various parts of the world to connect with one another and build viable global networks. Therefore, the proliferation of social movements operating at a global level is itself one visible outcome of globalisation, which creates both the rationale for such engagements as well as the technical means through which dynamic alliances can be developed successfully. The recent international demonstrations in Seattle, Prague and Genoa are examples of these emerging alliances which have come to collectively represent 'globalisation from below' to resist the dominant trend towards an authoritarian 'globalisation from above' (Falk, 1995). The objective of this paper is to examine in broad terms the emergence of a global citizen movement and the complex political economy setting within which resistance against global economic governance is currently articulated. The paper has three components. The first part follows the evolution of these globally connected civil society movements and assess their capacity to carve out a space to genuinely engage in formulating an alternative development path to the status quo. The second part of the paper explores the degree to which these actors can realistically sustain a degree of autonomy without making significant 2 civil society is a broad concept, encompassing all the organisations and associations that exist outside of the state and the market. It includes the array of organisations that include interest groups, NGOs, labour unions, professional associations, chambers of commerce, ethnic associations, and social movements. In parts of this document, 'civil society' and 'social movements' are used interchangeably, when deemed necessary to underscore the latter's informal and spontaneous characteristics. compromises of principle. The third part of the paper provides some insights into the merits of analysis, alliance-building and concrete action.

WHAT IS CIVIL SOCIETY?
The term 'civil society' has its roots in the writings of European political philosophers of the eighteenth century in their effort to grapple with fundamental problems relating to the form and direction of society at large. Since then thinkers have held competing visions of about the conditions of citizenship and what constitutes the make-up of the good society. One of the most extensive treatments on civil society appeared in 1767 in Adam Ferguson's essay On the History of Civil Society in which he sketches a natural history of the human species in its transition from 'rude' forms of life to a 'polished' or civilised society (Keane, 1988a). Ferguson saw civil society and the State as being identical. As such, men need to take an active interest in government of their polity as a way of preserving their civil liberties from political despots who act in their own self-interest. Some 25 years later, Thomas Paine produced his seminal book, The Rights of Man, which painted a markedly different picture of the relationship between civil society and the State. He argued that within all individuals there is a natural propensity for Society, which predisposes them to come together willingly for common purposes of reciprocal self-interest and shared sense of mutual support. The state is seen as a means of delegating power in the service of society, and the more perfect civil society is the more it becomes a self regulating entity and the less need it has for government (Keane, 1988b). His work represents a powerful strand in North American political thought and a preamble for Alexis de Tocqueville's better-known contribution to the discussion on civil society. Coming from the 'associational school', Tocqueville considers civil society as an intermediate sphere of voluntary associations held together by an informal culture of self-organisation and cooperation. These associations in civil life provide a check on state power by scrutinising its operations and inculcating in the citizenry a sense of political participation and tolerance (Mohan, 2002). Tocqueville's thesis regarding the virtues of associational life remains relevant to the conditions of citizenship today and continues influence modern-day thinking about a pluralistic and self-organising civil society, particularly in the United States. Such optimistic perspectives of the liberal tradition regarding civil society came under attack by some others who pointed out that the conflict of interest inherent in civil society could not resolve itself by itself. GFW Hegel saw civil society as an outcome of a long and complex process of historical change defined by a mosaic of private individuals trading and interacting socially. The 'modern' civil society is characterised by arbitrary inequalities and class divisions that create internal contradictions for which only the state could provide the unity which society requires to govern itself through continuous state supervision and control. While Ferguson influenced Hegel's work on civil society, Hegel's own ideas also made a huge impression on a number of philosophers and thinkers that followed him. It is often claimed that the concept of civil society was revived for modern use by Antonio Gramsci in his Prison Notebooks (Gramsci, 1971). Drawing heavily from Hegel, he develops a less deterministic view separating the notion of civil society from economic interactions. He views civil society consisting of the church, schools, associations and other cultural institutions, which enjoy some degree of autonomy from the state, and through which groups and individuals organise, represent and express themselves. In his concept of 'hegemony', Gramsci defines power as being a mixture of consent and coercion whereby the state elicits consent through the various institutions of civil society to disperse cultural, moral and political values of the dominant group throughout society to take on the status of 'common sense'. The antithesis of hegemony - state coercion, comes into play only when spontaneous consent has failed and therefore the need arises to enforce discipline on those who do not 'consent'. The contemporary use of Gramsci's thesis on hegemony relates to civil society as being the terrain in which the struggle for hegemony is played out between the dominant class and those alliances formed to challenge and undermine the prevailing hegemony. The complexity of modern societies implies that hegemony is always contested as new alliances are continually being formed, compromises reached and subordinate groups incorporated to contend with the continual conflict that characterises the current state of affairs. As such Gramsci's thought had considerable impact on opposition forces in Eastern Europe and Latin America in their struggle against authoritarian regimes seeking to build broad alliances in their 'war of position' and operate within a civil society framework. However, the effectiveness of these struggles has been undermined by the dominance of the liberal democracy paradigm, which reduced 'civil society' into a mere slogan of a new generation of professionally staffed NGOs committed to public advocacy around narrow questions of policy (Foley and Hodgkinson, forthcoming). This issue will be discussed in greater detail in later sections. Whilst Gramsci provided the theoretical basis for understanding the cultural and symbolic dimension of civil society as an essential site of social contestation where collective identities, ethical values and alliances are forged, since his time a number of important components have been added to the understanding of civil society. One important area, which has gained much attention over the past two decades relates to the dynamic and creative side of civil society such as informal networks and social movements. Drawing their support from across class boundaries, these social movements articulate new concerns and generate new values and identities that question and challenge the deep-rooted codes of social interaction in everyday life. This inevitably brings them in conflict with established norms, which means that they can only develop and operate outside the dominant institutions of civil society and the state. The 'anti-political' nature of these social movements and their nonconformist method of engagement deepens the division between the state and civil society while new forms of solidarity are constructed, contributing to the pluralisation of power relations within civil society itself (Keane, 1988b). Thus, not only do these movements challenge the very essence of the established polity, but also seek to chart out a pathway through which civil society can be expanded and 'democratised' in accordance with unconventional rules of space and time.

THE ESSENCE OF CIVIL SOCIETY WITHIN A GLOBALISING SETTING
Following the collapse of the cold war arrangement in the late 1980s, there emerged the unipolar and confident dogma of 'liberalisation and deregulation' in which societies submit completely to the exclusive, unilateral logic of the market. This has given rise to a widening and deepening of international flows of trade, capital, technology within a single integrated global market, hence the term economic globalisation. The debate on economic globalisation has both staunch defenders and passionate adversaries. According to its proponents, economic globalisation will raise levels of income, expand consumer choice and widen opportunity. They argue that there is compelling evidence that economic globalisation plays an important catalytic role in accelerating growth and reducing poverty in developing countries. A recent report by the World Bank (2002) Globalisation, Growth and Poverty: Building an Inclusive World Economy indicates that globalisation has helped reduce poverty in those countries that have accelerated the pace of integration into the world economy. And given that globalisation is an unstoppable force, there is little reason to wait, hence the sooner countries remove their barriers and integrate the earlier they will embark on the path to economic prosperity. In a similar vein, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) also argue that growth of trade between countries increases the wealth of everyone, provided that everyone agrees to abide by the rules of trade liberalisation. The detractors of economic globalisation, on the other hand, view it as a sinister force which increases inequality, promote insecurity, degrade the environment, and create a culture rooted in money and wanton consumption. Environmentalists view it as a potential source of ozone layer depletion and global warming and point at global corporations and international financial banks as the principal culprits. Labour movements fear that capital movements towards areas that promise profit maximisation as deleterious to all workers in the face of competitive wage cutting and poor working conditions. Women's groups take the view that the very nature of neo-liberal policies tends to erode the quality of public services that women rely on. Local community movements in the Third World and their supporters in the North view neo-liberal policies and structural adjustment programmes, promoted by the Bretton Woods3 twins, as the main causes of global poverty and growing inequality. Consumer movements in the North have responded resolutely against unfair trade conditions that keep workers in the Third World in perpetual poverty and destitution as well as against child labour reminiscent of Victorian England. Until very recently, discussion about civil society was taking place with a view of the nationstate clearly in sight. Still, much of the reading on civil society provides the way in which the usage of the term has evolved reflecting the social reality of its time. Indeed, the idea of globally connected social movements is not unique to the present time. Self-organised associations and social movements have been linking across political borders since the 19th century. But, what seem different about the contemporary activities is the sheer volume of people involved and the enormous institutional resources that are mobilised through densely interwoven networks. It is worth emphasising here that 'global' cross-links between civil society organisations (CSOs) as an instrument of conscious engagement assumed strategic significance in the late 1970s and 1980s in Central Europe and Latin America as part of citizen's struggle against authoritarianism. Here, activists saw their struggle as a component of a global network of resistance against repression and the value of international solidarity with those who could speak up for them in international forums and apply pressure on their own governments to review their policy towards these regimes. Increasingly, policies are being formulated and decisions made by political units outside the nation-state, which invariably demand global responses. To illustrate this reality, the assets of transnational corporations (TNCs) has increased by six-fold since the early 1980s, largely assisted by the dramatic increase in the number of TNCs since the 1960 (Cohen and Rai, 2000). This increased consolidation of economic power by of supranational institutions and corporations means that they can now bypass the state and its laws as they please. An interesting example of such phenomenon is the tourism industry. Investment and competition policy in this industry has created an unstable situation whereby calls for further deregulation in foreign direct investment (FDI) may well contribute to further erosion of countries' abilities to control leakage of profits out of the host country. Already, up to 90 percent of profits from the tourist industry leave the host country without additional loss of 3 The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) are together known as the Bretton Woods twins. Created at Bretton Woods (New Hampshire, USA) in 1944, the mandate of these institutions was to ensure future conflicts are avoided by lending for reconstruction and development and by smoothing out temporary balance of payment problems. As Susan George (2001) argues, they were regarded as progressive institutions that were there solely to assist countries and had no control over individual governments' economic decisions and no sanction to intervene in national policy. Their complexion is rather different these days having acquired full control over Third World economies and the mandate to intervene on matters of national policy. local control (Pera and McLaren, 1999). Ultimately, the loss of economic control at the local and national level will have political implications. To this end, the experience obtained from the earlier global civil society movements in Eastern Europe and Latin America has real transferable value to present-day activism. For many of these activists, some of the most pressing problems consist of a global dimension, and would therefore regard their effort as futile unless they challenge the consequences of global capitalism in a global platform. It is worth mentioning here the paradox that the development of cheap 'real time' communications network, together with affordable travel opportunities has enabled civil society actors to mobilise their efforts on a global scale. Thus, it can be argued that the proliferation of global civil society both feeds on and reacts to globalisation, particularly to the consequences of global capitalism and interconnectedness (Anheier et al., 2001).

THE 'OLD' AND 'NEW' SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
One discernible consequence of globalisation is the 'retreat of the nation-state' to a much more peripheral position of authority, which means the state is no longer in a position to fulfil its historical role in guaranteeing workers' rights. Rather candidly, Tilly (1995:1) states: 'as states decline, so do workers' rights'. So where does this leave the 'old' labour movement, which has always functioned within established norms of political framework? Clearly, the terrain of struggle has dramatically shifted over the past two decades as 'nation-state-driven' capitalism gave way to the 'global' variant. Indeed, it has become increasingly difficult to build a mass movement around traditional class lines given the changes experienced and the declining appeal of such medium of engagement for millions of workers (Adkin, 1998). Labour movement struggle around the appropriation of surplus value no longer has the same resonance it had a few decades ago and needs to be broadened to occupy multiple terrain of resistance if union organisations are to remain relevant and not by-passed by other forms of collective action. To some degree, this may already have come to pass. The very fact that more and more people join activist organisations these days such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Amnesty International and less and less are interested in membership with trade unions or political parties is testament that the old institutions have already lost much ground and are now playing catch-up. Of course, broadening the arena of resistance does not imply doing away with 'class' as an organising principle, but rather a reconceptualisation of collective action through establishing common ground with other social movements and connecting with specific identities and values in order to frame a broad-based alternative movement. As Laclau and Mouffe (1985) argue, social actors must be understood in terms of multiple, interacting subject positions where 'workers' cannot be separated from 'environmentalists' from 'immigrants' from 'anti-war activists', etc. Rather, these identities and others are embodied, in various combinations within each individual. In fact, the appeal of 'new' social movements is precisely because they are able to empower people with the capacity to intervene directly in problems they are concerned with and to control the choices they make to shape the type of future they would like to see. This is particularly the case with young people who are not so steeped in the traditions of the labour movement or other conventional institutions as a means of addressing their demands.

RESILIENCE OF CAPITALISM: FROM CONFRONTATION TO COLLABORATION?
Capitalism is a system of continual self-transformation and adjustment to meet new demands presented by new social and political challenges. As such, the nature and shape of present day capitalism, expressed in terms of global capitalism is markedly different from previous variants, although the real motives of 'capital accumulation' remain unchanged. Not only does this refer to the relationship within the sphere of production and consumption but also the ways in which (present-day capitalism) capital expresses itself through an assortment of control instruments such as trade, aid, loans, debt management, international law etc. What is immutable is the fact that atomisation and fragmentation remain as fundamental aspects of capitalist production, regardless of its historical phase. In concrete terms, this implies that the principal purpose of production becomes money making rather than human needs, which becomes subordinate to the primacy of profit maximisation. The essential pillar of current neo-liberal strategies is the promotion, strengthening and consolidation of an awareness that regards market principles as omnipotent. Indeed, this in itself indicates that capitalism as we know it today has emerged triumphant and strong with a speed, inevitability and force unparalleled with anytime in history. New forces and agencies facilitate its consolidation and offset the growing view amongst the public that the unfettered global market is creating a winner-takes-all society with grave consequences to the wellbeing of society at large and the environment people live in. The data from the UNDP (1998) are a poignant reminder that contemporary capitalism has created a world severely polarised by income distribution and assets: the 358 richest people in the world possess a fortune equivalent in value to the combined income of the poorest 45 percent. Despite these overtly negative effects, the neo-liberal paradigm has demonstrated its ascendancy by coercing individuals, communities and even national governments to accept that there can only be the game of competition in this new global economy. Even after it came under severe attack for causing the Asian financial crisis and the associated socio-political upheavals in the late 1990s, the neo-liberal policy framework still remains the predominant method of economic activity. The writer and campaigner Susan George had the following to say about the resilience of neo-liberalism : "no matter how many visible disasters of all kind the neo-liberal system has created, no matter what financial crises it may engender, no matter how many losers and outcasts it may create, it is still made to seem inevitable, like an act of God, the only possible economic and social order available to us." (George, 2001: 9) One important question is how neo-liberalism came to be an orthodoxy as if it were the natural condition of humankind? Part of the answer lies in the activities of a small group of neo-liberal economists at the University of Chicago from the 1960s onwards, under the tutelage of Friedrich von Hayek (and later under Milton Friedman). Generously funded by corporations whose business interests corresponded with the ideas they were generating, this group created a huge international network of foundations, institutes, research centres, scholars and public relations firms to push their ideas and doctrine relentlessly (George, 2001). Then came the Thatcher-Reagan axis of 'conservative consensus' that granted the neo-liberal thinking its legitimacy and political endorsement at the highest level, which automatically extended towards the international financial institutions (IFIs) including the World Bank and IMF. What then followed was the wholesale practice of deregulation, privatisation and public sector downsizing across the North and South with the consequences of severely weakened labour movement and a concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny minority of large investors. Even with left-leaning governments in power in the 1990s such as New Labour, this market-driven doctrine continued to dominate economic and public policy. If anything, New Labour and others akin to it elsewhere have taken neoliberal policies with much gusto and enthusiasm, bringing in policies that even conservative governments would not have had the audacity to propose for fear of entertaining a collision with the public. Of course, what this alludes to is that the neo-liberal project has been an outstanding success and has been embraced voluntarily (or not) by all mainstream political parties and institutions. This tendency is partly due to the perception that anything short of embracing neo-liberal economic ideology implies inhabiting the 'political wilderness' and partly because virtually all the mainstream political figures of our time may well believe in the virtues of neo-liberal system as the only possible economic and social order available to society. Southern political institutions have also surrendered spiritually as well as in practice to the new market-driven realism in order to attain the necessary level of competitive efficiency to be able to survive in a global market. So what does this all leave civil society? The implications of the present economic order to civil society are considerable. These actors, particularly ones that have been active in challenging neo-liberal policies from various angles, now find themselves at a crossroads between continuing their engagement without making compromises of principle or to work in partnership with corporations and financial institutions that are prepared to enter into a dialogue. Both routes present dangers. On the one hand, working autonomously, free from the influence of dominant institutions at national and global levels presupposes that that there is such a thing as an independent public sphere. On the other hand, co-operation with governments and global institutions could compromise an NGO's image if it was felt that the money was more important than the message. Furthermore, there is a perception that corporations are in the 'dialogue' simply to outmanoeuvre their critics and improve their image with the sole intention of increasing their competitive edge. The journalist and environmental activist George Monbiot argues: "environmental groups should not take money off companies and should not allow themselves to be used as an extension of the corporate, public-relations effort…the dangers are that by co-operating with the corporations on their terms, environmentalists help to justify he company's more devious practices" (see Rowell, 2001) Clearly, the civil society field is by no means a homogeneous one. Some of them actively remote the neo-liberal project and receive support from institutions such as the World Bank and WTO. Others seek to reform such institutions through 'ameliorate' projects that would help correct the excesses of the free market. And finally, those within the rejectionist and radical camp consist of activists involved in anti-racist, anti-globalisation, anti-sexist and solidarity movements. What runs as a common thread through them all is the fact that they all inhabit and interact within the orbit of modern-day capitalism, which rewards its friends handsomely and employs various tactics to handle its critics and opponents, who mostly originate from civil society. In short, capitalism has become extremely proficient at adapting well to changing circumstances and enlarging its boundary of containment so much that new 'opponents' and their concerns are swiftly absorbed and neutralised. In short, modern-day capitalism has become a self-organising (sort of autopoietic) system with the capacity to replicate or reproduce itself. An interesting example of this is the 1989 European parliamentary elections when the UK Green Party took nearly 15 percent of the overall vote, following the commotion caused by the news coverage about the holes in the ozone layer. Alarmed by the possibility of a new political force in their neighbourhood, both main political parties in Britain set out on a concerted campaign to 'mainstream' the environment debate by alerting the public that they too are on a race to save the planet. Mrs Thatcher who was the then Prime Minister, not especially renown for her 'green' credentials, made a series of high-profile speeches in words that echoed those of the environmental movement acknowledging global environmental problems presented a new and serious challenge for humanity. That effort, which culminated by the signing of the Montreal Protocol agreement to curb ozone layer depleting substances, helped reverse the momentum gathered by the environmental movement from posing a serious challenge to the established political framework. Indeed, more than anything this example shows how at ease the 'forces' of capitalism have become over the years to enter any arena of engagement and overpower those they regard as outsiders. They often employ both coercive and passive (consentual) tactics to achieve their aims, some of which are discussed in the next section.

CONVERGENCE OF INTEREST: THE LOSS OF INNOCENCE OF CIVIL SOCIETY
While the state is in crisis in both South and North, its problems are far more severe in the South, and its capacity to re-establish control is becoming an ever more a distant possibility. The collapse of the developmental state has left many countries of the South bereft of a shared sense of national purpose, with the broken promises of freedom from poverty and despair (Sen, 1997). In concrete terms, this is reflected by the continual erosion of public services and institutions, growing internal conflict, expanding debt and destruction of ecosystems, all of which contribute to heightened social and economic malaise. The structural adjustment programmes prescribed by the Bretton Woods institutions (BWIs), aimed to mitigate some of these systemic difficulties have been anything but resounding failures. If anything, these prescriptions have exacerbated existing problems and given rise to new ones as highlighted by the former Senior Vice-President and Chief Economist of the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz: "I have seen firsthand the dark side of globalisation-how the liberalisation of capital markets, by allowing speculative money to pour in and out of a country at a moment's whim, devastated East Asia; how so-called structural-adjustment loans to some of the poorest countries in the world "restructured" those countries' economies so as to eliminate jobs but did not provide the means of creating new ones, leading to widespread unemployment and cuts in basic services. The media and the public have since become concerned about this dark side as well-globalisation without a human face, it is sometimes called." (Stiglitz, 2001) Thus, failure of the 'Washington Consensus' has put the BWIs on the defensive. Recognising that their policies have not delivered the desired results of increasing prosperity across the board, they have began to address the concerns raised by representative and advocacy groups regarding social, labour and environmental issues. Their language has also changed as terms such as 'participation', 'poverty reduction' and 'stakeholder society' are now firmly embedded in their vernacular. There is even some limited action of debt relief initiatives targeted to help the poorest and highly indebted countries, although many argue that it does not go far enough. The same sentiments are also expressed by a range of 'forward-looking' TNCs who argue that they now appreciate the value of consultation, dialogue and 'building partnership' at all levels to make their business practice compatible with healthy development of society. From the rhetoric, this 'new development paradigm' appears different from its predecessor. However, it still shares the underlying purpose of building globally integrated capitalism and much of its essential methodology of employing liberal economics to achieve its objectives. The principal difference is the strategy adopted by the current 'paradigm' of inclusiveness and participation which looks to nation-states to take an active part in strengthening institutions to support markets, expanding into international markets, and involvement of private sector as a way of installing the global system in local cultures and societies. The softening up of the international financial institutions and TNCs has been accompanied by their co-operation with civil society organisations (CSO), which appear to have multiple functions. They are regarded as a useful source of technical expertise, they provide capacity building to other CSOs, they deliver services and, most importantly, they provide representation and therefore amplify the voices of the poor in decisions that affect their lives (World Bank, 2000). It is assumed that CSOs often have closer contacts with local communities and can offer valuable insights and perspectives that differs from donors and government departments. These important functions have contributed to their rapid proliferation at the global level. Over 40,000 international NGOs are currently operating, with domestic ones rising even more rapidly, together controlling a growing share of development spending, emergency relief and aid (Keane, 2001). It is estimated that well in excess of $10 billion of official aid is channelled through NGOs, and it is widely believed that they now disburse more money than institutions such as the World Bank (Economist, 2000; Petras, 2001). A sceptic to the established judgement that places CSOs as the conceptual 'good guys' would argue that CSOs and NGOs are increasingly becoming professionalised and operating much like normal businesses or firms, subject to the same set of administrative and structural constraints. This tendency forces them to rely heavily on the outside world for donations, grants, and contract work to sustain their work, which they regard as important with much to contribute to the betterment of humankind. Those with a large public following such as Greenpeace still manage to raise substantial amounts of money from private individual donations, although this source of income is intermittent and may be contingent on the type of campaigns that are taking place at a given time. But even Greenpeace is increasingly turning its attention towards forging partnerships with those who have money to spend. The financial institutions and TNCs, at times beset with identity crisis and ever so eager to improve their public image make ideal partners - the NGOs with their 'progressive credentials' and the banks (and firms) with their money. Hence, the demand for more money to continue their operations forces NGOs to enter into partnerships that, at times, may contradict their original mission and exhibit the hallmarks of 'unholy alliances'. Once such 'partnerships' are crystallised, these seemingly independent and voluntary actors often end up having to re-evaluate their outlook and original mission to fall in line with the demands of co-operation. As Northern governments and institutions step up their direct and indirect engagements with NGOs and CSOs, then the NGO linkages with communities may well become compromised given that donors often come with a specific vision of development with civil society signing up to this vision, albeit through 'consultation' (Mohan, 2002). Naturally, most donors provide support to CSOs prepared to promote liberal democracy and economic liberalism, and argue for the 'removal' of the state from its traditional mandate of delivering social welfare. The implications of this are that the funds go to support a small and select group of civil society established precisely to 'cash in' on of the available donor money or those CSOs that have moved away from their traditional adversarial position and embraced the ideology of promoting 'self-help' and choice in society. According to Hearn (2001), this apolitical consensus tends to conceal a highly politicised and partial perspective of development and denies the space for alternative perspectives to the liberal doctrine to gain legitimacy. Petras (2001) is especially scathing about the role of South-based CBOs and NGOs in promoting the status quo of on-going neo-liberal reform: "The egregious effects of structural adjustment policies on waged and salaried workers, peasants and small national businesspeople generate potential national popular discontent. And that is where the NGOs come into the picture, to mystify and deflect that discontent away from the direct attacks on corporate/banking power structures and profits towards local micro-projects, apolitical 'grass roots' self-exploitation and popular education that avoids class analysis and capitalist profit-taking." (Petras, 2001: 128-129) The case of Shell oil company's plan to develop the Camisea gas project in the culturally and ecologically sensitive Peruvian rainforest but blessed with one of the largest natural gas deposits is instructive of the way corporations are entering into a new arena of engagement to overcome potential objections to their operations. Shell knew that Camisea was going to be controversial and having learnt from its operations from the Brent Spar and Nigeria debacles, the company opted for a dialogue with the 'stakeholders'. In an unprecedented move, Shell invited about 90 interested groups or 'stakeholders' to a series of workshops in Washington DC, Lima and London between 1997 and 1998 to agree a plan of action on how to proceed with the project. Many carefully selected NGOs attended with the more radical groups marginalised from the process, which meant that whether the project should go ahead in the first place was not on the agenda (Rowell, 1999). Later, when Shell began having misgivings about the cost of the project and disagreements over infrastructure with the Peruvian Government, many of these NGOs were recruited to lobby the government on behalf of Shell. Although, Shell eventually abandoned the project, the company has understood the value of 'getting engaged' with NGOs and CSOs as an important way of winning the simple PR battle, which goes a long way in 'sustainable' business practice these days. The relentless campaign to co-opt potentially dissident voices or create new CSOs as part of the drive for transparency is not confined to the Third World setting. In the North as well similar acts of co-option are taking shape. When a corporation wishes to oppose specific regulations, particularly environmental ones, or wishes to go ahead with environmentally 'controversial' development, it has two options at its disposal. Either to go ahead openly while justifying its activity or bring in an effective assembly of citizens or experts as 'front groups' to promote the agenda desired by the corporation while 'representing' the public interest. The latter option is now the preferred route for many corporations given that the use of such 'front groups' enables corporations to take part in public debates and government hearings as part of their drive for transparency. A famous example of this NGO-Industry 'partnership' is one between the Environmental Defence Fund (EDF), one of the largest environmental organisations in the US, and McDonald's. In the late 1980s, McDonald's faced a stern campaign co-ordinated by the Citizens Clearinghouse on Hazardous Wastes (CCHW) against its ozone-depleting polystyrene foam sandwich clamshells. Seeing a major business opportunity, the EDF approached McDonald's with a proposal to develop a joint waste reduction initiative that would replace the polystyrene foam sandwich clamshells with paper wraps and light-weight recycled boxes along with a series of other packaging improvements, an initiative which effectively undercut the campaign of the CCHW. For the fast food chain, working with a respectable environmental organisation has been beneficial in getting back to business and reversing the damaging publicity that was impacting on its corporate image. In fact, it is not an overstatement to maintain that the EDF/McDonald's alliance has given McDonald's a reputation as a "socially responsible" business. Since this period, additional initiatives such as their most recent work on energy saving programme at many of the restaurants, reducing consumption by 10 percent to 15 percent have consolidated further this partnership (Reckess, 1999). Whilst it can be argued that EDF/McDonald's alliance may have added a new dimension to the relationship between corporate and environmental organisations in providing 'environmental results', their activities have only addressed the impacts on the 'premises' of McDonald's. As yet, there is little sign that McDonald's has applied pressure on its suppliers to endorse an environmentally responsible position given that it remains a major player in US agricultural production and processing with enormous environmental implications. Some may argue that by getting too close to McDonald's, the people at EDF have effectively tied their hands from being even more influential at the service of the environment and society. Meanwhile, EDF will receive generous funding from McDonald's because it will take a non-confrontational style of engagements and work within the system of 'partnering corporations'. Another case example relating to McDonald's is worth deliberation, not least for providing another perspective on the fast-food chain's conduct. In the early-1990s, McDonald's was embroiled in the high-profile 'McLibel' case in which the company denied the allegations made by two environmental activists about a host of abuses and sued them for libel. The activists, Helen Steel and Dave Morris, did the unthinkable. They took their place in legal history by facing up to this giant corporation, and using the opportunity provided by the trial to subject McDonald's to its most humiliating public scrutiny relating to its contribution to low wages in the catering industry, rain forest damage, litter in the streets, etc. The case lasted for seven years and the trial for three years (314 days in the high court) and cost McDonald's an estimated £10m. Although the activists on trial were found guilty on several counts, they were widely viewed to have won the publicity war as the judge upheld the allegations that McDonald's was cruel to animals and guilty of poor employment practice. Stressing that McDonald's had a long history of intimidating its critics, Franny Armstrong had the following to say in The Guardian: "Over the past 15 years, McDonald's has threatened legal action against more than 90 organisations in the UK, including the BBC, Channel 4, the Guardian, the Sun, the Scottish TUC, the New Leaf Tea Shop, student newspapers and a children's theatre group. Even Prince Phillip received a stiff letter. All of them backed down and many formally apologised in court." (F. Armstrong, The Guardian, 1998) Although, McDonald's may argue that this rather inauspicious episode took place in its branch in the UK, the McLibel trial did entertain international attention. It would therefore be difficult for the company to successfully argue that the Main Head Office in Chicago had no part to play on the matter, particularly since the trial cost considerable sums of money and the threat to the corporate image. In many ways, what transpired in this trial is illustrative of the company's irritability at its critics and its coercive style of response intended to silence and neutralise groups that question its health and environmental record, which simply did not materialise. Indeed, there are many similar long-drawn cases between individuals (or communities) against brand-name giants that are taking place from time to time with varying outcomes. The outcomes may well remain different, but the stance of the giant corporations is almost always predictably bellicose, employing every means of public relations campaign available to them. The few critics who manage to 'last the distance' of confrontation at the expense of great personal sacrifice, relying on their reservoir of courage and conviction offer much hope and break new ground in the formulation of common targets around which struggles evolve into a genuine network of alliances of resistance.

BEYOND CIVIL SOCIETY CO-OPTION: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
One essential principle that needs to be understood is that any reforms that took place in various historical periods did not just occur out of thin air, but rather through struggle. For example, workers did not win rights because the owners happen to be men of great altruistic character. But rather the logic of resistance is such that no change comes without actively working towards its realisation as in the case of workers demanding fairer wages, women fighting for the vote and minorities struggling for recognition as equal citizens in the eyes of the law. As the freed slave and anti-slavery campaigner Frederick Douglass remarked in 1857, 'Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.' In the same vein, there are a great number of causes in contemporary society that demand and continue to demand active engagement to push through concrete outcomes. What has changed today, as argued in previous sections, is not the nature of the problems per se, but rather the actual terrain of engagement. The landscape of political space has been reshaped by the globalisation of trade and production, supported by specific material factors such as advances in IT communication and mobility of capital. From this perspective, globalisation is not only a synonym of disempowerment: it creates certain conditions for democratisation, decentralisation and empowerment as well as for centralisation and standardisation. Globalisation opens as many doors as it shuts (Agnew and Corbridge, 1995). Two recent cases, the Ilisu dam campaign and the Chiapas-based Zapatista movement, may help to illustrate the contention that globalisation has created the space for alliance building and the legitimacy of co-ordinated global engagement. The Ilisu dam final design was approved in the early 1980s, but remained on the drawing board until the mid 1990s when the Turkish government sought to raise the necessary finance by offering Ilisu as a Build-Operate-Transfer project. A year later, when no bidder came forward given doubts over the project's commercial viability, the Turkish government selected the Swiss turbine manufacturer Sulzer Hydro as the main contractor. Governments of eight OECD countries agreed to extend official export credits or guarantees of about $850 million to private firms. From this period onwards, the project was dogged by protests from a concerted national and international coalition of 'civil society' raising concerns about the project's 'appropriateness' from a variety of political, social, environmental and archaeological positions. The alliance between these environmental organisations, human rights bodies, Kurdish community groups, archaeologists, anti-capitalist protestors and the trade unions held firm against a massive PR campaign by the proponents of the project, ushered by the various governments, to reverse the rhetoric coming from the activist camp. As the Ilisu campaign continued to gather momentum, the subcontracted engineering firms began to withdraw their association from the consortium one-by-one, fearing shareholder backlash. At present, the Ilisu dam project appears to be 'consigned' to some uncertain future when the Turkish government can successfully raise the necessary funds to go ahead with the project. For the time-being, the Ilisu dam campaign has won a major victory in stopping the project from proceeding, and demonstrating that a well-organised and committed civic engagement can go a long way in challenging the outcome of controversial projects far away from home. The second case example, the Zapatista movement, is even more remarkable in the manner it successfully challenged the Mexican government and the neo-liberal thinking that underpinned its economic policy. The early 1990s saw the wholesale privatisation of public sector enterprises, a strong wage-containment policy, and rapid expansion of export-oriented industries (maquiladora) by the Salinas government in its preparation to join the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA). Mexico's remarkable reversal from its historic position of inward-oriented development to the wholehearted embrace of market-driven interventions were taking place with no real consultation and never subjected to domestic debate (Barkin, 1999). This may be partly because the government felt it had the mandate from the people to chart out what it perceived as a 'prosperous' future, and partly because there was no alternative to neo-liberal policies at the end of the cold war when all progressive forces everywhere were on the retreat. However, on January 1 1994, the day NAFTA was coming into effect, the Zapatista National Liberation Army (ZNLN) composed of poor indigenous Mayan peasants came out of the jungle to occupy several towns in the state of Chiapas. They came with a variety of demands: electoral reforms, creation of new municipal areas, ethnic representation in congress, schooling in native languages, health and education infrastructure development, land reform. These demands reflected the injustice people in Chiapas had endured for too long - the majority suffer from malnutrition, lack of potable water and sewage, and among the poorest people in Mexico. Given that the region has a huge petroleum reservoir, provides 10 percent of the country's electricity, exports large quantities of coffee, the level of abject poverty amongst the indigenous Indian is mystifying. Initially, the news of this conflict was greeted world-wide as another Latin American guerrilla adventure. But as time passed and the Zapatista movement began to gain publicity access through various media outlets, the world came to know that they had no grand aims other than to live in dignity and to participate in the simple task of building a new world. The overt military clashes between the Zapatistas and the Mexican army lasted only a few days and were followed by several years of sporadic political negotiations, which in itself amounts to a political victory for the Zapatistas. Massive protests in Mexico and abroad forced a halt to overt offensive on a number of occasions when all hope for a negotiated settlement was fading. This conflict still continues despite the government's acceptance of some of the Zapatistas' demands. However, the Zapatista experience is of particular interest to the practice of networked resistance to globalisation. Not only has this movement generated widespread support, it has also set in motion the beginnings of a world-wide mobilisation to finding new and effective ways of bringing together a wide variety of different struggles based on a common 'ideology' that respects difference, processes, and above all, the humanity of the struggle for liberation (Bond, 2001). At present, the widespread mobilisations for various causes across the world remain disconnected and atomised, and in the absence of innovative ways of interlinking, their ability to fulfil their objectives will remain limited in scope. Both the Ilisu dam campaign and the Zapatista movement provide interesting narratives that globalisation can paradoxically open new political space for contestation as it weakens existing patterns of relations between the state and civil society (Stahler-Sholk, 2001). In both cases, political alliances have been far stronger between local activists and international supporters, revealing the growing importance of global networks and universal rights, as well as local identities. This points to an important alternative strategy of 'globalisation from below', based on the recomposition of civil society across the globe on priorities that are compatible with the aspirations of people who are left out from the dominant development discourse. Building and nurturing globally connected solidarity movements face a number of pitfalls, much of which rests on the ability of particular civil society bodies to remain unbound from various consultative processes initiated by governmental and supranational institutions such as the World Bank. Already such processes are underway with some of the 'reformist' civil society organisations entering into dialogue with these institutions. This may well limit their repertoire of civic action in exchange for, as they see it, bringing together diverse talents and perspectives to formulate a common vision firmly based on realism and achievable outcomes. Moreover, the number of new CSOs is growing at a considerable rate ever since the international financial institutions and corporations began to link up with nongovernmental actors to push their vision of development and democracy forward. This trend cannot be mere coincidence given the involvement of supranational institutions in providing the funds to support these competing CSOs, nor can this trend be regarded as a positive development since the survival of many newly established CSOs is dependent on keeping their sponsors happy. Naturally, their primary objective remains to keep in line with the backers' expectations knowing that their continued operation is conditional on their willingness to promote a particular vision, which they took no part in creating. This process of 'incorporation' leads to problems of legitimacy for CSOs in the eyes of people who regard corporations and international institutions as the source of their problem, and in the long-run it may contribute to an erosion of trust towards these seemingly non-governmental entities. Yet, with a long history of co-option and neutralisation as a guide, grassroots and CSO groups will need to carefully re-examine their position as regards the type of dialogue and cooperation they commit themselves to. Their historic role as proponents of social justice and radical-democratic values is what forced the international financial institutions and corporations to embrace a 'dialogue' and 'collaborative' stance in the first place. Despite the creation of new CSOs and the co-option of existing ones, the social, economic and environmental problems associated with neo-liberal programmes are still with us, and there is little sign that better days are on the horizon. Against this backdrop, progressive social movements and CSOs are faced with a neo-liberal adversary engaged in a two-pronged macro and microstrategy of exploitation and containment. This will therefore require a twopronged counter-hegemonic response of working with multiple social actors and facing up to NGOs and CSOs loyal to the neo-liberal agenda at the home front, and widening the scope of alliances with like-minded organisations at the international front. These actions need to be well synchronised and integrated in a mutually supporting system, feeding off from the gains and strengths at the different levels to allow for a coherent interpretation of the mosaic of experiences. A predominantly local focus would only yield results that are disjointed and insular, and similarly ignoring local dimensions in favour of the international sphere is incompatible with the premise of transforming global structures that are firmly rooted in local reality.

< Back - Article List - Next >