Jagdeo’s shallow critique of NGOs

Aug 17, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – The Vice President’s assertion that NGOs lack constituencies reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of civil society organizations. To conflate the notion of a “constituency” with the essence of an NGO is to impose a political framework on entities whose very existence often depends on their independence from popular will and political machinery.

Constituencies, as traditionally understood, are the lifeblood of political parties—groups that aggregate interests, mobilize voters, and vie for electoral power. NGOs, however, operate in a vastly different space, where their legitimacy is not derived from the number of people they can rally but from the principles they uphold and the issues they champion.

A constituency, in the political sense, is a collective of individuals united by common interests or geographic proximity, whose support is solicited by political candidates seeking election. These constituents are courted, surveyed, and mobilized by political parties, who in turn shape their platforms to reflect the desires of their electorate. The very structure of a political party is designed to be responsive to its constituency, whose approval is necessary for the party’s survival and success. This relationship is symbiotic: political parties exist to represent their constituencies, and in turn, these constituencies provide the party with legitimacy through the ballot box.

NGOs, by contrast, are not beholden to a constituency in this sense. Their raison d’être is often issue-based rather than power-based, and their legitimacy derives not from numbers but from the moral or intellectual force of their advocacy. An environmental NGO, for instance, does not exist to serve a constituency but to protect the environment. Its effectiveness is not measured by how many people it can mobilize in support of its cause but by the impact of its work on environmental policy, public awareness, and the preservation of natural resources.

Indeed, many NGOs deliberately eschew the notion of a constituency because their mission is to challenge prevailing norms, question popular opinions, or advocate for marginalized voices that may not be represented within traditional constituencies. Their positions are often principled stances that do not seek popularity or majority approval but aim to advance a cause that transcends the parochial interests of a constituency. The strength of an NGO lies in its ability to influence change not through numbers but through reasoned argument, strategic advocacy, and moral persuasion.

Take, for example, the Amerindian Peoples’ Association (APA), which Vice President Jagdeo singled out in his critique. The APA did not oppose the sale of carbon credits by Guyana; rather, it raised concerns about the process by which these credits were being put for sale, specifically the meet what the threshold of free, prior, and informed consent from Amerindian communities. This is not a matter of constituency politics but of ensuring that the rights of Indigenous peoples are respected in accordance with international norms that are reflected in Guyana’s laws.

The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA), despite being dismissively labeled by Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo as a “one-man organization,” commands significant influence outside of Guyana. Its reports have often been used to frame the US Department of State Country Report on Human Rights practices in Guyana. The latter has consistently quoted the reports of the GHRA. For example in 2001, it referenced a GHRA report that the police killed 15 civilians through September, compared with 13 in all of 2000 and which mentioned that the police shot the victims while attempting to arrest them or while a crime was being committed.

The GHRA also wields influence with international human rights bodies, including Amnesty International. A recent international human rights publication catalogued the GHRA’s contributions to the promotion and protection of human rights. It noted that the GHRA has demonstrated remarkable courage in documenting human rights violations in Guyana, producing annual and thematic reports that are invaluable historical resources. The GHRA, it said, had conducted pioneering studies on critical issues like democracy, Indigenous rights, and justice for rape victims. The GHRA was also credited with playing a significant role in human rights education, campaigns, and promoting racial and religious tolerance. Its advocacy for the rights of marginalized groups, particularly Indigenous peoples and women, was deemed to be instrumental in bringing attention to their plights. The GHRA was also acknowledged for its confronting of corruption and environmental concerns.

This acknowledgment by prominent international organizations signifies the GHRA’s credibility and the substantive impact of its work in highlighting human rights issues in Guyana. The GHRA’s influence demonstrates that the validity and importance of an NGO’s contributions are not determined by the size of its membership but by the integrity and accuracy of its advocacy.

For Jagdeo, therefore to judge NGOs by the metric of constituency size or the number of people they represent is to misunderstand their role in a democratic society. NGOs often operate in spaces where political parties cannot or will not tread. They are the conscience of society, holding governments, corporations, and other powerful entities accountable when they stray from ethical paths. Their value lies in their independence, their willingness to take unpopular positions, and their ability to articulate alternative visions of society that challenge the status quo. It is precisely because they do not have constituencies in the traditional sense that NGOs can speak truth to power without fear of electoral repercussions.

The very nature of advocacy work often requires NGOs to take positions that are not popular, positions that challenge deeply ingrained beliefs or powerful interests. The fight for human rights, civil rights, environmental protection, or gender equality, for example, has often been led by NGOs whose positions were initially unpopular or even reviled by the majority. Yet these NGOs persisted, not because they had constituencies to support them, but because they were driven by a commitment to justice, equity, and human rights. Over time, their advocacy shifted public opinion and led to significant social change. Their legitimacy was not derived from the number of their followers but from the righteousness of their cause and the effectiveness of their advocacy.

It is also important to recognize that NGOs often represent groupings that are not readily visible in the traditional political sense. These constituencies may be future generations, endangered species, or ecosystems—entities that cannot vote or voice their concerns but whose interests are nonetheless vital to the well-being of society. Environmental NGOs, for instance, may advocate for policies that protect forests or rivers, not because these natural entities have a constituency but because they are essential to the health of the planet and, by extension, to human survival. To dismiss the work of these NGOs because they do not have constituencies is to ignore the interconnectedness of all life and the importance of stewardship in policy-making.

The role of government officials, such as Jagdeo, in a democratic society is not to question the legitimacy of NGOs based on their membership or following but to encourage a pluralistic model of advocacy where diverse voices can be heard. This pluralism is essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy, where different perspectives are valued and where policy decisions are informed by a broad range of views, not just those that are popular or politically expedient. NGOs contribute to this pluralism by bringing issues to the forefront that may otherwise be ignored or marginalized. They enrich the public discourse by introducing new ideas, challenging assumptions, and advocating for change.

Instead Jagdeo, seeks to label some of these NGO’s as being anti-PPP, when he should be encouraging the work of NGOs, recognizing that their contributions to public policy are essential to the health and vibrancy of the nation. Vice President Jagdeo’s critique, therefore, is not only misplaced but also indicative of a broader misunderstanding of the role of NGOs in a democratic society, one which obviously is lost on him.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• fundamental, misunderstanding, NATURE, Peeping Tom, Vice President

---