Different situations. Taking it all in all, the commotion caused by the President of the General Affairs Council, Louis Michel, about non-governmental organisations (see this heading in our bulletin dated 26 July) was not a bad thing, as it forced us to think about an essential problem hitherto evaded - that of the nature of movements that claim to come under the "civil society". It is true that the stance taken by the Belgian Minister seemed more like the reaction of a vexed and wounded politician rather than an academic dissertation, but Louis Michel spoke according to his true nature, which is all well and good.
The Council President had cast doubt as to the representative nature and the legitimacy of movements which only represent themselves when they claim to impose their views on democratically elected authorities. The result, he believes, is that the will of the majority of the population is sometimes submerged by minorities that go out onto the street, and the best organised groups and the most powerful interests prevail. So where was the exaggeration on Louis Michel's part? He lumped together realities and situations that are not comparable. I shall first of all use as a basis the analysis and direct experience of someone who, at European level, has acted successively on both sides: Mr Dieter Frisch, who was first of all Director General at the European Commission for Development Cooperation (and managed EU aid to the Third World in this capacity), and who then held an eminent post within the NGO on "International Transparency". His analysis first of all calls for a distinction to be made between the organisations which represent specific interests (industrialists, farmers, economic sectors) and those which defend principles of general interest such as the environment, biodiversity and the transparency of public administrations. The first group is entitled to express its views and to make its positions known to political leaders, but in all clarity, with the nature of pressure groups being declared and acknowledged. The second has the ambition of defending the interests of society as a whole and must not, except in the case of aberrations, be considered as just lobbies. The NGOs that act "in the field" are precious if they are well controlled, as they achieve small projects in the Third World for which the large public development aid organisations are not adapted.
A fundamental distinction must also be made between the role of the NGOs in democratic countries and in countries where democracy does not yet exist. In a democracy, the non-governmental organisations may play a useful but "complementary" role to that of the public authority, without claiming to impose their views on freely elected institutions. On the other hand, if there is no democracy, the NGOs often have the task and the responsibility of making up for the lack of representative institutions.
The need for transparency. These common sense considerations should help to clarify not only the polemic ignited by the outburst from Louis Michel, but also guide the way we see assessment of anti-globalisation movements, movements of protest, and violence in the streets. A correct approach should, I believe, comprise the following elements:
- movements, pressure groups, NGOs, etc. cannot under any circumstances claim to be a substitute for elected representatives or have any decision-making right. They represent a trend, a position, an opinion, which has the right to express itself and to be heard, but the synthesis of this that constitutes general interest can only be ensured by the Parliaments which represent all people legitimately. According to Alain Minc (Le Monde of 17 August), the NGOs will "earn their legitimacy when they apply to themselves the principles of transparency and governance for which they are the haughty guardians when it comes to other powers". He accuses them of they themselves "practising opacity and of coopting".
- violent protesters, systematic rioters, those who think they are heros because they hide their face in masks or hoods, do not deserve to be tolerated because they endanger the very foundations of liberty and democracy. Whatever label they present themselves under, their behaviour is pure fascism;
- just by looking carefully at the miles of film and the video reports on demonstrations in Genoa one can see the extent to which the mass of demonstrators had legitimate and praiseworthy objectives. They hoped to put pressure on the "powerful of this world" in favour of the poorer nations, against the excessive power of money and perverse financial mechanisms, in order to reintroduce ideals and a certain ethic into politics. For thousands and thousands of young men and women, going out to demonstrate was a way of taking part in the management of public interest, of expressing their hopes and aspirations … in other words, of learning to play a part in politics. They have been betrayed by the perpetrators of violence but political forces must understand the capital of hope represented by the young people who call for greater balance and justice in the world. (F.R.)