[bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency

Tue Jun 2 01:48:31 EDT 2015

On Wednesday 27 May 2015 02:40 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 24/05/2015 11:57 pm, Ian Peter wrote:
>> Secondly, I wonder how it would work in CS which has so many people
>> who are basically acting as individuals rather than representatives
>> of organisations. Many if not most of us also have non CS
>> affiliations (eg membership of ISOC, business or governmental
>> employees if we are cs volunteers, academic postings etc) so the
>> “pure” CS rep is probably a bit hard to find. I am not sure what we
>> would gain by having a register of all our multiple affiliations
>> which would need regular updating to be of any use.  I think we need
>> to ensure our major coalitions (BB, JNC, IGC, APC, NCSG) act
>> transparently, and by and large I think they do. But I am not sure of
>> the value of extending this to what is probably tens of thousands of
>> members or organisations affiliated with these larger groups.
>
> Agreed.  I also feel that it's a misplaced priority.  If any of us
> actually had enough influence to being making significant impacts on
> policy, then the expenditure of time and resources on self-policing
> ourselves in this fashion might make some sense.  

Why do then many civil society transparency initiatives exist at all?
And then isnt the whole idea of multistakeholderism about a greater
impact of civil society on actual policy making, which simply raises the
stake so much higher, and could only mean that civil society
transparency is even more needed in the IG space even more than other
spaces... You would argue for equal footing with governments on the
policy making table but not equal footing in terms of transparency and
accountability of civil society actors!? A strange proposition, and if I
remember right it is you who recently spoke of open gov initiative and
how it should be somehow extended to the IG space. Open gov initiative
is nothing if not about various kinds of transparency and accountability
in policy development circles of all the involved actors. If anything,
civil society standards are supposed to be much higher bec it is the CS
which traditionally asks the most questions from others in these regard.

I think you are making rather convoluted and weak arguments, many of
which cancel each other. It is extremely disappointing that this
discussion is taking place in this manner in what are supposed to be two
civil society elists/ groups of global repute.

> But since we have enough difficulty as it is just with being heard,
> let alone having an impact, it just seems a real misallocation of
> scarce resources for us to be placing ourselves under the microscope
> like this, especially since nobody but ourselves is raising the question.

If you think no one else is raising these questions, then you are simply
not listening. Political discourse at least in the South , but in fact
also in the North, is rife with discussions about transparency and
accountability of all pulbic actors, including, and often pointedly,
civil society, and what kind of monumental distortions get caused in
default. Everyone from whom transparency/ accountability is sought would
like to say that it is not an impotant issue and the such, but that does
not cut much ice.  

>   Instead of a register, there are already voluntary transparency
> pledges that one can adopt (eg the INGO Accountability Charter,
> http://www.ingoaccountabilitycharter.org/).  Anything heavier than
> that is, I feel, difficult to justify.

Here again you are arguing something in direct opposition to some of
your earlier arguments, about paucity of resources with civil society
orgs.. I am sure you would have seen the details of the initiative that
you link to, and therefore know that it is much much more complex and
demanding than a simple transparency register (which also is of course
voluntary, how else it could be?),  somewhat on the lines of the EU
Transparency Register
<http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do>, that I am
proposing... So why and how is a less complex proposal being confronted
by a much more complex and demanding option, while at the same time
making the argument that we dont have the kind of resources that are
required, is simply beyond me .

>
> Also, take note of this article (from the left, by the way),
> criticising efforts to enforce formal accountability standards on
> civil society organisations:
>
> http://hapinternational.org/pool/files/ngos,-civil-soc.pdf

Jeremy, again I wish you have read the details before you quickly
assembled this repertoire of evidences in support of what clearly is a
pre judged position, that global IG civil society does not need any kind
of a  transparency initiative. Apart from the fact that the central
motivation of the article that you cite is to fend against neoliberal
attacks on civil society, which is hardly your case, while the article
explores issues with developing more complex accountability systems for
civil society, /*it is strongly and clearly for basic transparency of
civil society groups*/... Quoting from its second last page, where it
begins to build its conclusions

    "The key to this must be, as SustainAbility (2003) so eloquently
    demonstrate, transparency. Who the organisation is; what it does;
    how it is funded; and what the organisation does with the money it
    receives are all essential as either pre-requisites for the
    development of accountability relationships, or as a critical
    element in the discharge of that relationship. This, it seems, could
    be a first pre-requisite for accountability: and especially for NGOs
    as this would help to expose the “astroturf” NGOs as well as
    developing a more benign accountability amongst those NGOs with a
    genuine concern for the wider public good."

And then very significantly, in the concluding part, in fact in its very
last sentence, the article says:
/*
*//**/ /**/

    /*"... combination of minimum transparency plus a level of
    accountability commensurate with stakeholders, size and economic
    power should discomfort the astroturf and the explicitly
    business-oriented NGOs rather more than it will discomfort those
    NGOs that the neo-liberal backlash has been seeking to discredit. As
    such, accountability seems like a good thing."*/

Did you forget to read this :)...

You have to make up your mind whether you agree with the article you
quote or you do not.... IMHO, you are just assembling a desperate case
here.... One is so sorry, disappointed, and almost appalled that we are
having such arguments against basic transparency of civil society..

parminder

>
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
>
> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150602/ae7535f0/attachment.htm>