Civil Society, the United Nations, and Global Governance

March 26, 1999

Dr. Edward C. Luck, Executive Director, CSIO

Edward Luck spoke of the changing relationships among civil society, the United Nations, and global governance. He noted at the outset that the growing activism of civil society represents a threat to, as well as an opportunity for, the UN. This dilemma was illustrated by two seemingly contradictory developments in the UN reform effort during the first half of 1997. On the one hand, the General Assembly working group charged with exploring ways of enhancing the relationships between civil society and the Assembly made no progress at all after prolonged and very difficult consultations among the member states. On the other hand, as the Secretary-General’s report on UN reform took shape, its tone became positively bullish about the prospects for expanded ties between the secretariat at all levels and its partners in civil society.

Why were these two approaches to civil society so divergent, asked Mr. Luck, and what does this tell us about the future of these relationships? In part, the answers lie in distinguishing which UN and which civil society one is thinking about. Mr. Luck said that his talk would be focused primarily on the UN proper, rather than on the UN system or family as a whole. The answers might also differ for member state governments, the secretariat, and the larger political culture of the UN as a community of nations, peoples, and values. For the purposes of his analysis, Mr. Luck suggested thinking of civil society groups as falling in three general and somewhat overlapping clusters: those NGOs focused primarily on advocacy, policy, and UN headquarters; those PVOs concerned chiefly with working in the field and with implementation questions; and other groups, such as the media, the private sector, and the intellectual community, of interest to the Secretary-General and others seeking partners for the UN but not organized along typical NGO lines.

In characteristic UN fashion, Mr. Luck noted that the concept of civil society is acquiring ever-expanding definitions at the world body. The 38th floor has now defined civil society to encompass profit-making entities, such as the private sector and the media, local governments, and national parliaments. Given such a broad conception, it is understandable that the Secretary-General has called civil society the new super-power. Since this expanding notion appears to include most everything other than the executive branches of member state governments, it almost looks as if the UN secretariat is seeking to build transnational and trans-sectoral alliances that could then bring pressure to bear on member state officials and representatives to the world body. This could help explain why the efforts to build closer ties between the secretariat and civil society are proceeding much more easily than those between the inter-governmental organs and civil groups. Likewise, the partnerships on the implementation side, particularly in the field, appear to be developing more fully and naturally than those on the norm-setting and policy side, such as through inter-governmental organs at headquarters, global conferences, and multilateral negotiations.

Mr. Luck drew attention to four warning signs of possible trouble ahead.

        1) The development of asymmetrical alliances, that could prove divisive and corrosive to the UN's fundamental objective of promoting inter-state harmony. One example would be secretariat-civil society alliances against governments, as noted above, and another would be coalitions among like-minded elements of civil society, the secretariat, and certain governments banding together to pressure major governments on particular issues and norms. Such tactics are certainly legitimate and many promote widely-held values, such as the ICC, land mines ban, and death penalty limits, but they also may fuel the proliferation of unimplementable norms and raise questions about the authority of international law. They also feed the notion that governments, national identities, and sovereignty are the problem rather than part of the solution. If nothing is wrong with the UN but the member states, as so often has been said, then what is the nature and purpose of the world body?

        2) The oft-repeated idea that civil society better represents people than do member state governments may often be valid, commented Mr. Luck, but it also fundamentally contradicts the Charter basis for UN decision-making. Are most NGOs more transparent, democratic, and accountable than most governments, he queried? Do those civil society groups based at the UN represent and reflect the whole spectrum of political views within the member states? If these groups are so representative, why are they not more successful in influencing the positions of member state governments? At times it appears, in his view that some NGOs seek to achieve at the international level that which they have failed to attain at the member state level. If it is true, as it often appears, that internationalists tend to gather at the UN and skeptics in capitals (especially in Congress), then this would likely add to the dissonance between decision-making on the national and international levels on some key issues. While many governments have co-opted NGOs by bringing them into policy-shaping consultations and onto national delegations, Mr. Luck urged that more attention be paid to ways of building active partnerships on the national level.

        3) Mr. Luck cautioned that the involvement of civil society in policymaking at the UN could exacerbate the tendency to divorce decision-making from the responsibility and capacity for policy implementation in the world body. There has long been a compliance gap between words and deeds at the UN, where the essence of governance often gets lost in the drive to produce resolutions, decisions, and consensus on matters beyond the means of the organization and the will of the member states. At times, the desire to please NGOs and to impress the media may encourage the production of platitudes and laundry lists rather than making hard choices and living with the consequences.

        4) Mr. Luck questioned the notion that civil society can necessarily reach consensus more easily than governments. He suggested that this would be true only if civil society is not fully representative of the diversity of viewpoints within and across national societies or if its decisions are divorced from responsibility for the consequences. When single-issue advocacy groups congregate there may be no need for messy trade-offs with other sectors and priorities, but making such choices is the essence of governance.

Based on this analysis, Mr. Luck outlined a series of five challenges that the rise of civil society activism will pose to the nature and character of the United Nations in the twenty-first century.

        1) How should democratic principles apply to UN decision-making structures? What is the democratic content of the legal principle of sovereign equality and of consensus and one nation/one vote rules in an era in which transnational and non-state actors are playing a growing role in addressing global and regional problems? Who will governments represent and what should be expected of them?

        2) How do transnational movements fit into institutions designed along inter-governmental lines? Is there a fundamental mismatch between the nature of issues and the shape of the table, rules, and procedures?

        3) Can a UN agenda and a transnational political culture be sustained apart from national and intergovernmental politics? Who will corrupt whose values over time? Which tail will wag which dog?

        4) Ultimately, will the success, even viability, of the UN enterprise depend on the erosion or the reassertion of the power and stature of national governments? Mr. Luck guessed that it would be the latter, and suggested that the same question be asked regarding the sustainability of civil society. He noted Sheri Berman's work, in another context, concerning the decline of the Weimar Republic and the need for strong political institutions alongside a flourishing civil society.

        5) Must the UN choose between dependence on civil society or on member states? Mr. Luck suggested that it will need both, in part so that each pillar or constituency will keep the other honest.

In conclusion, Mr. Luck stressed the need for the UN to maintain a healthy balance between civil society and the member states. He warned against the growing hyperbole about civil society, which is neither all powerful nor all virtuous. It is important to permit and encourage the continued development of informal working relationships, especially concerning the planning and implementation of field operations. He would go slow in attempts to upgrade the stature of NGOs or to alter the formal relationships at headquarters, other than to complete the stalled reforms to permit NGO access to General Assembly bodies on the same basis as in ECOSOC. Also, he would urge a greater focus on encouraging and facilitating, including through legal protections, the place of civil society groups within nations. As their role at the national level grows, so too will it within the United Nations and other international institutions.

In closing, Mr. Luck suggested that it would be helpful to all sides if the UN could arrange to have a lessons-learned exercise undertaken that would analyze how ties between civil society and the UN have developed through the years across several different subject areas. This might include a descriptive mapping exercise that lays out the respective roles and responsibilities that have been carried out by international agencies, national governments, and non-state actors in one or more program areas. Not only would this place the ongoing debate in a fuller perspective, it would also help define the starting point for planning the development of these relationships in the years ahead. This would be a singular contribution to both the architecture and the functioning of the UN of the 21st century.

Prepared by Elaine French, Junior Fellow.