NGO networks in Central Asia and global civil society: potentials and limitations

Abstract

Based on research carried out by INTRAC (International NGO Training & Research Centre) in 2006–2007 in four countries of Central Asia for Oxfam–Novib, the article investigates NGO networks and their international links in the context of current theory on civil society and global civil society. Three case studies of NGOs working in service delivery, community development and free media are examined to show the diversity of aims and the potential and challenges of networking in the region. Civil society advocacy at national and international levels is analysed with a fourth case study on the campaign conducted in Kyrgyzstan against joining the World Bank's Highly Indebted Poor Countries programme. This example shows a more radical, alternative mode of civil society activism. The article emphasizes the importance of national- and regional-level networking and poses the question of whether NGOs in Central Asia can shift from their current positions on the periphery of global movements and debates.

Keywords:

• NGOs
• civil society
• network
• Central Asia
• global
• advocacy

Notes

The Oxfam–Novib study not only provided practical guidance for programmes; it raised lots more questions. To take the analysis further, the author spent two months at the London School of Economics’ (LSE's) Centre for Civil Society in summer 2008, revisiting the primary data and filling in some of the theoretical gaps. Many thanks to colleagues at INTRAC, Oxfam and LSE, and especially to INTRAC's partner NGOs in Central Asia – without whose input this article could not have been written.

See in particular the special issue of Central Asia Survey, 24 (3) 2005, devoted to civil society in Central Asia and the Caucasus.

The analysis of mainstream and alternative civil society introduced by Howell and Pearce (2001) was applied to Central Asia by Giffen et al. (2005, pp. 8–11).

This aspect of international development is described critically by Howell and Pearce (2001) in the chapter ‘Manufacturing civil society from outside’ (pp. 89–122).

For an analysis of the capacity-building environment and issues, see Anne Garbutt (2003).

Neoliberal development policies have included two main functions for NGOs: first, as service providers replacing the state; second, as watchdogs to help police the ‘good governance’ agenda by checking the work of national government.

Giffen et al. (2005) give a general account of these NGO mapping reports in Chapter 2, and the issue of how much civil society depends on or helps to engender wider political democratization is briefly posed. In Chapter 5 there is a good empirical account of the range of NGO–government relations in the post-2000 period. Throughout the region, collaboration has been easier and more productive at local level and in outlying provinces than at national level or in the capital.

In the introduction to Hann and Dunn (1996), Chris Hann gives an account of the use of the term ‘civil society’ by East European dissidents of the 1980s as a slogan ‘combating the demonic state’, through to its use by Western aid programmes as a programme tool alongside privatization. See also the introductory chapter in Jenny Pearce's Development, NGOs and civil society (2000), where the author complains, rightly, that many NGOs had not sufficiently examined the underlying philosophy of market-led globalization (pp. 15–43). The trend towards ‘putting civil society in its place’ continues – see Chandhoke (2008).

The model offered was Orangi Pilot Project, Karachi, Pakistan (also a member of ACHR). See Hasan (1997).

A comparison between Baspana and NGO Gamkhori, Tajikistan, which is examined in some detail by Sabine Freizer (2005), shows a number of important similarities and differences. Both organizations are grounded in their community and have enthusiastically adopted the self-help ethos. Both have combined a commitment to supporting traditional institutions (mahalla in Tajikistan, daniker in Almaty) with Western-style empowerment for women. The differences lie in Baspana's urban environment versus Gamkhori's work in rural areas, and the more technical nature of Baspana's leaders’ skills (Gamkhori is led by doctors and teachers) and their strong business orientation.

The focus of this kind of analysis is explained by the authors as a measure of social reality ‘not by reference to people's individual attributes (gender, class, age, values etc) but by looking at their social relations, the patterns they form and their implications for choices and behaviour’ (Anheier and Katz 2005, p. 207).

The CBOs referred to in this case study approximate to the Village Organizations set up by the Aga Khan Development Network in Tajikistan, described in Freizer (2005, pp. 143–146). This network has been very influential as well.

Examples are Bank Watch and the Asian Development Bank's ‘NGO Forum’, respectively.

HIPC is an initiative of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Participation is conditional on a country's agreement to undertake a comprehensive reform programme. In 2006, the external debt of the Kyrgyz Republic stood at around US$2 billion or about 80% of the country's GDP.

The demand for full or partial cancellation of the multilateral debt of the poorest states was made in the global campaign organized by Jubilee 2000 and War on Want (UK). See Hepburn (2005).

An important critique of IFI policies was produced by Kyrgyzstan's Bureau of Human Rights and Rule of Law in June 2006: ‘Virtual cancellation of poverty and real decrease in living standards: a critical analysis of the national strategy for poverty reduction (PRS-1)’.

Kyrgyzstan hosts a US military base at Manas airport outside Bishkek, used to supply the intervention forces in Afghanistan.

Tarrow's ‘externalization’ means roughly the same – an appeal to external audiences, framing an issue in their (policy) language.

As Tarrow puts it, the ‘counter-intuitive’ or paradoxical idea that ‘transnational contentious politics still revolves around sovereign states’.

A term used by Saso Klekovski, Macedonian Centre for International Cooperation, quoted in Bolme (2008).

In the analyses of the World Social Forum from the late 1990s carried out by researchers for Global Civil Society, the absence of the countries of the former Soviet Union is very striking. Only one major event was held in the former Soviet Union during the whole period – the Moscow social forum on climate change in 2003. See Glasius and Timms (2006, pp. 190–240).

These are Laos, Bhutan and Sri Lanka. See Jubilee Debt Campaign (2008, pp. 15–18).