![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
This article examines the democratic roles performed by Ghanaian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Drawing on a comparative case study approach, it explores how the organizational characteristics of five donor-sponsored NGOs relate to their ability to perform different democratic roles. Our analysis reveals that some of the democratic roles require contradicting organizational characteristics, which are therefore difficult to combine within one organization. Furthermore, it demonstrates that these NGOs do not contribute to democracy as predicted by theory. In particular, they are weak at providing channels of communication between state and society, and at directly representing, involving, and being accountable to ordinary citizens. We argue, nevertheless, that they perform these functions in a different way.
Notes on contributors
Jelmer Kamstra is a PhD candidate in the field of civil society and democratization at the department of Cultural Anthropology and Development Studies of the Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Luuk Knippenberg is senior lecturer in the field of international development studies at the department of Cultural Anthropology and Development Studies of the Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Notes
1. Ottaway and Carothers, Funding Virtue, 4.
2. Diamond, Developing Democracy; Edwards, Civil Society; Fowler, Civil Society, NGDOs and Social Development; White, “Civil Society, Democratization and Development.”
3. Fagan, “Taking Stock of Civil-Society Development in Post-Communist Europe”; Henderson, “Selling Civil Society”; Hearn, “African NGOs: The New Compradors?”
4. Mercer, “NGOs, Civil Society and Democratization,” 20.
5. Tvedt, “The International Aid System and the Non-Governmental Organisations.”
6. Kopecký and Mudde, “Rethinking Civil Society,” 1.
7. Crawford, “The European Union and Democracy Promotion in Africa,” 572.
8. Hughes, “Ghana: A Donor Success Story.”
9. The largest funding scheme for promoting NGO involvement in democracy in Ghana (called G-Rap) grew from about US$2 million in 2005 to over US$3.25 million in 2009 (http://www.G-rap.org, accessed November 2011).
10. This assertion stems from a neo-Tocquevillian interpretation of the democratic role of NGOs. Its commonality can be explained by the fact that this interpretation has received the most contemporary attention (Fung, “Associations and Democracy”). Examples include Hadenius and Uggla (“Making Civil Society Work,” 1623), who state that “to serve as an organ of socialization into the practice of democracy, the associations in question must themselves be democratically structured,” or Robinson and Friedman (“Civil Society, Democratization, and Foreign Aid,” 644), who hypothesize that internally democratic NGOs “can make a positive contribution to the process of democratization by fostering pluralism, promoting democratic values, and enhancing political participation.”
11. White, “Civil Society, Democratization and Development,” 8.
12. Tocqueville, Democracy in America.
13. Diamond, Developing Democracy.
14. Fowler, Civil Society, NGDOs and Social Development.
15. Putnam, Bowling Alone.
16. Sabatini, “Whom do International Donors Support in the Name of Democracy?”
17. Edwards, Civil Society; Diamond, Developing Democracy.
18. Ibid.
19. Hadenius and Uggla, “Making Civil Society Work,” 1622.
20. Warren, Democracy and Association.
21. Putnam, Bowling Alone; Skocpol, Diminished Democracy.
22. Edwards, Civil Society; Fung, “Associations and Democracy.”
23. Habermas cited in Warren, Democracy and Association, 79.
24. White, “Civil Society, Democratization and Development,” 13.
25. Hadenius and Uggla, “Making Civil Society Work.”
26. Warren, Democracy and Association.
27. Lewis and Kanji, Non-Governmental Organizations and Development.
28. Fung, “Associations and Democracy.”
29. Diamond, Developing Democracy.
30. Edwards, Civil Society; Lewis and Kanji, Non-Governmental Organizations and Development; White, “Civil Society, Democratization and Development.”
31. Hadenius and Uggla, “Making Civil Society Work.”
32. Jenkins, “Nonprofit Organisations and Political Advocacy.”
33. Ibid.
34. Clarke, “Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and Politics in the Developing World,” 49.
35. Warren, Democracy and Association.
36. G-Rap was established in 2004 and is financed by the UK, Denmark, Canada, and the Netherlands; Interview G-Rap, November 2007.
37. http://www.g-rap.org (accessed December 2007).
38. Interviews: ISSER, November 2007; IDEG, December 2007; IEA, November, 2007.
39. Interview CDD, December 2007.
40. Interview IDEG, December 2007.
41. Interview IEA, December 2007.
42. Interview ISODEC, November 2008.
43. Ohemeng, “Getting the State Right,” 456.
44. Arthur, “Democratic Consolidation in Ghana,” 216; Kpessa, “The Politics of Public Policy in Ghana,” 42; Stapenhurst and Pelizzo, “Improving Democracy and Accountability in Ghana,” 343.
45. Arthur, “Democratic Consolidation in Ghana,” 216; Interview IBIS, December 2007.
46. Interview APRM, November 2007.
47. Interview IEA, December 2007.
48. Ibid.
49. Interview CDD, November 2007.
50. Kpessa, “The Politics of Public Policy in Ghana,” 42; Ohemeng, “Getting the State Right”; Stapenhurst and Pelizzo, “Improving Democracy and Accountability in Ghana”; Interview MMYE, November 2007; Interview Department of Political Science (UG), November 2007.
51. Interview IDEG, December 2008.
52. Interviews: ILGS, December 2007; APRM, November 2007; Department of Political Science (UG), November 2007; G-Rap, November 2007.
53. Reid, “Understanding the Word ‘Advocacy’: Context and Use.”
54. Interview IEA, December 2007.
55. Interview IEA, November 2008.
56. Interview CDD, November 2007.
57. Interviews: IEA, December 2007; IDEG, December 2007; Abantu, November 2008.
58. Interview Netherlands Embassy, November 2007.
59. Interview IDEG, December 2008.
60. Interview ISSER, November 2007.
61. Interview IEA, December 2008.
62. Interview MMYE, November 2007.
63. In October 2010, after our fieldwork period, CDD opened an additional office in the northern regional capital Tamale, thereby reducing their Accra bias.
64. Interviews: ILGS, December 2007; APRM, November 2007; Department of Political Science (UG), November 2007; ISSER, November 2007; G-Rap, November 2007.
65. Interview APRM, November 2007.
66. Gyimah-Boadi and Yakah, “Ghana: The Limits of External Democracy Assistance,” 17.
67. Arthur, “Democratic Consolidation in Ghana”; Haynes, “Democratic Consolidation in Ghana”; Porter, “NGOs and Poverty Reduction in a Globalizing World”; Mohan, “The Disappointments of Civil Society.”
68. Kpessa, “The Politics of Public Policy in Ghana,” 42.
69. Interview IEA, December 2007.
70. Ohemeng, “Getting the State Right,” 457.
71. Interview ISSER, November 2007.
72. Interview IDEG, December 2007.
73. Interview CDD, November 2007.
74. Interview Department of Political Science (UG), November 2007.
75. Abdulai and Crawford, “Consolidating Democracy in Ghana”; Darkwa, Amponsah, and Gyampoh, “Civil Society in a Changing Ghana”; Porter and Lyon, “Groups as a Means or an End?”; Porter, “NGOs and Poverty in a Globalizing World.”
76. Ohemeng, “Getting the State Right.”
77. Stapenhurst and Pelizzo, “Improving Democracy and Accountability in Ghana,” 342–3.
78. Interview IEA, November 2008.
79. Stapenhurst and Pelizzo, “Improving Democracy and Accountability in Ghana,” 343.
80. Interview CDD, November 2007.
81. Oduro, “The Quest for Inclusion and Citizenship in Ghana,” 637.
82. ISODEC, “The ISODEC Rights-based Advocacy Programme 2007–2009,” internal policy document, Accra, Ghana, 2006: 18.
83. Interview ISODEC, December 2007.
84. Ibid.; see also Abbey, Azeem, and Kuupiel, “Tracking the Ghana District Assemblies Common Fund.”
85. CIA, The World Fact Book 2011. Accessed May 12, 2011. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook.
86. Interview ISODEC, December 2007.
87. Interview ISODEC, November 2008.
88. Interview ISSER, November 2007.
89. Interview G-Rap, November 2007.
90. Interview ISODEC, December 2007.
91. Interview ISODEC, November 2008.
92. Interview ISSER, November 2007.
93. Interview ISODEC, November 2008.
94. Ibid.
95. Agyeman, “Privatization of Water in Ghana,” 532; Yeboah, “Subaltern Strategies and Development Practice,” 60.
96. Interview ISODEC, December 2007.
97. Interview ISSER, November 2007.
98. Interview ISODEC, November 2008.
99. Interview G-Rap, November 2007.
100. Ibid.
101. Interview ISODEC, December 2007.
102. Ibid.
103. Ibid.
104. Ibid.
105. Ibid.
106. Ibid.
107. Interview ISSER, November 2007.
108. Interview Abantu, December 2007.
109. Abantu, “Strategic Plan 2005–2007”, internal policy document, Accra, Ghana, 2005.
110. Abdulai and Crawford, “Consolidating Democracy in Ghana”; Ofei-Aboagye, “Promoting Gender Sensitivity in Local Governance in Ghana.”
111. Interview Abantu, November 2008.
112. Ibid.
113. Abantu, “Strengthening NGOs' Capacities for Engaging with Policies from a Gender Perspective”, interim report to Ford Foundation, Lagos, Nigeria, April 2005–March 2006.
114. Interview Abantu, December 2007.
115. Ibid.
116. Ibid.
117. Interview G-Rap, November 2007.
118. Ibid.
119. Interview ISSER, November 2007.
120. Interview Abantu, December 2007.
121. Tsikata, “Women's Organizing in Ghana,” 190.
122. Interview Abantu, November 2008.
123. Gyimah-Boadi and Yakah, “Ghana: The Limits of External Democracy Assistance”; Adomako Ampofo, “Collective Activism”; Tsikata, “Women's Organizing in Ghana.”
124. Interview Abantu, November 2008.
125. Ibid.
126. Ibid.
127. Interview ISSER, November 2007.
128. Interview Abantu, December 2007.
129. Ibid.
130. Interview Abantu, November 2008.
131. Ibid.
132. Darkwa, Amponsah, and Gyampoh, “Civil Society in a Changing Ghana.”
133. Gyimah-Boadi, Democratic Reform in Africa.
134. Interview IBIS Ghana, December 2007.
135. Interview with one of the NGOs, anonymous because of sensitivity.
136. Ibid.
137. This does not however mean that legitimacy derived from these alternative sources automatically translates to legitimacy in the eyes of state officials. In day-to-day politics, not having a membership and not being democratic yourself still renders NGOs vulnerable to criticism, because, on any occasion, it provides state officials with ammunition to question their credibility as “genuine” democracy promoters.