SIT Graduate Institute/SIT Study Abroad SIT Digital Collections Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection SIT Study Abroad Spring 2006 Development, Civil Society and the Conflict in Nepal Shan Rehman SIT Study Abroad Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection Part of the Politics and Social Change Commons, and the Social Welfare Commons Recommended Citation Rehman, Shan, "Development, Civil Society and the Conflict in Nepal" (2006). Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection. 343. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/343 This Unpublished Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the SIT Study Abroad at SIT Digital Collections. It has been accepted for inclusion in Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection by an authorized administrator of SIT Digital Collections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shan Rehman Independent Study: May 06 Development, Civil Society and the Conflict in Nepal For more than two decades now, scholars such as Etienne Balibar and Antonio Negri have argued the ‘total subsumption of capital’; there remains no ‘outside’- all aspects of social life are governed by commodities and wage labor. This process, given impetus by the processes commonly referred to as economic globalization or market liberalization, also came to be synonymous with ‘development’. Imperfect markets, the widely implemented ‘Washington Consensus’ package of economic policies further implied, were far better social mechanisms than imperfect states. The study and practice of ‘development’ worldwide, however, is in flux. Critiques of the mainstream ‘development’ project, widely implemented in countries categorized as ‘underdeveloped’ after World War 2, have argued that ‘development’, in aggregate terms, has done nothing virtually nothing to reduce poverty levels around the globe, and in fact, has only accentuated poverty by increasing inequality. This critique has now also been incorporated into the mainstream, which can be gauged by the fact that the UNDP’s 2006 edition of the World Development Report is entitled ‘Equity and Development’ Today, with the resulting erosion of many state powers and functions in ‘developing’ countries, such as Nepal, virtually all ‘social’ concerns are mediated through a rapidly expanding ‘civil society’ consisting of NGO’s, INGO’s and humanitarian organizations. The study of ‘development’, however, is still coming to terms with the proliferation of these types of organizations and associated concepts such as ‘self-empowerment’ and ‘participation’ that are now being advocated, as a result of the ‘shift’ in the dominant discourse of development. The object of this paper will be to trace the history of NGO’s in Nepal, and to analyze their methodologies with respect to issues of social change, justice and equity- as well as to interrogate concepts such as ‘empowerment’ and ‘participation’. For NGO’s to be actually considered a part of ‘civil society’, I will argue, depends on a somewhat radical upheaval of their institutionalized mechanisms, in particular, their funding concerns and the resultant apolitical nature of their work. This will be contrasted with the recent political upheaval in the country, which is starting to be described as a ‘civil society led movement’. The Rise of the ‘development NGO’: Broadly defined, an ‘NGO’ is an organization that is not a part of the government, and is not founded by the ‘state’. The World Bank defines NGO’s as a ‘wide variety of groups and institutions that are entirely or largely independent of governments, and characterized primarily by humanitarian or cooperative, rather than commercial objectives.’1 The definition of the specifically ‘development’ NGO, however, is understandably more complex. A UNCTAD meeting, interestingly held in Kathmandu in 1989, came up with this for a definition of the ‘development’ NGO: “..there cannot and should not be too rigid a definition of development NGO’s…they are community organizations, concerned for global development and pay particular attention to the plight of the poor..”2 With the decline of the rigid ‘import-substitution-industrialization’ economic development models in the late 1970’s, and a worldwide impetus towards liberalizing economies and ‘rolling back the state’, NGO’s have risen to the forefront in providing public goods. The economic policies associated with the ‘Washington Consensus’ stressed fiscal discipline, and hence, many state services were diminished in the countries adhering to these policies. The presence of NGO’s in a society, therefore, has mushroomed wherever such ‘liberalization’ has taken place- as they provide public goods, safety nets and are concerned with environmental conservation, whereas such provisions and ‘concerns’ are usually not articulated by the state in question. Today, the NGO is seen as a key actor in the development discourse. A functionalist explanation would see this as also a result of the market process. For example, the ‘comparative advantage’ of NGO’s as compared to the state is often mentioned in development literature. NGO’s have lower costs, are more transparent and flexible, and hence, more efficient when it comes to carrying out development projects. This is one of the reasons that funding to NGO’s from donors has so rapidly expanded, and that now, in many instances, governments are bypassed and NGO’s are expected to carry out developmental activities. There also exists, almost across the board in ‘donor’ countries’, disenchantment with public sector performance in the ‘developing’ world. Post-colonial bureaucracies, in particular, are considered too inefficient and absorbed in ‘red tape’ to make correct use of development aid. Corruption and elitism are also concerns. Direct development aid to states was called into question as early as the 1960’s, with economists like Milton Friedman arguing that aid to governments only further entrenches their power, supports incorrect policies and increases the likelihood of corruption. By the early 80’s, in fact, development aid in donor countries was talked about as the ‘taxing of the poor of rich countries to give to the rich of poor countries’. In Non-governments: NGO’s and the Political Development of the Third World, Julie Fisher further argues that it is indeed this ‘governmental failure’ in the Third World that has necessitated the need for NGO’s, and so they have become an integral part of what is seen as ‘political development’ in these countries. The trends towards NGO-led development became further entrenched by the beginning of the 1990’s, as Norway and the United States, two major international donors, announced that they would be channeling at least 40% of their development assistance through NGO’s3. Since then, these percentages have also been on the rise. Further, by the mid 1990’s, increasing attention was also being paid to the ‘cultural sensitivity’ of small NGO’s as compared to large international agencies and even centralized local governments. This came out of a theoretical shift in the practice of ‘development’, with institutions such as the World Bank and the UNDP admitting that the ‘top-down’, hegemonic nature of the way ‘development’ was being practiced did not always incorporate the needs of all stakeholders. This resulted in an extremely influential UNESCO publication, The Cultural Dimensions of Development, which had this to say about NGO’s: “The work of NGO’s, very different as it is from the large bilateral and multilateral co-operation agencies, is of considerable value primarily in terms of cultural sensitivity and the quality of results achieved”.4 ‘Development’ NGO’s today, therefore, are seen to be performing vitally important functions worldwide. On the ‘local’ side, they provide badly needed goods and services on a not-for-profit basis, and more importantly, on the donor side, they promise greater efficiency, transparency and also address ‘cultural’ concerns that donors themselves are unable to. NGO’s in Nepal: Many Nepalese historians have referred to the country’s rich history of civic associations and social support mechanisms. Dikawar Chand points to ideas of ‘social service’ that can be found in practices such as Dhikur and Guthis as well in the practices of building temples and monasteries. Roughly translated, the concept of Dhikur involves non-formal credit cooperatives, while Guthi is seen as a ‘trust’. Chand sees the great earthquake of 1934 as a pivotal moment in the institutionalization of modern social service organizations in Nepal. He argues: “This was probably, for the first time in the history of Nepal, an event which significantly revealed the inherent strength of the community and the relevance and impact of social services. It was said that volunteers from almost each and every household rendered their assistance voluntarily, to those directly affected by the earthquake”5 The expansion of volunteer activity and the cash inflow received from charitable donations, he further argues, was responsible for the setting up of many organizations and paved the way for institutionalization. The ‘Registration of Societies’ Act of 1959 began this process, which was formalized by the formation of a ‘National Coordination Body’ for NGO’s in 1977. The early 1950’s was a time of immense political and economic change in the country, as the country ‘opened it’s borders’, so to speak, for the entry of transnational flows of people, media and capital. 1951 was the year USAID arrived here, and by