When NGOs will not be needed
Non-governmental organisations will disappear wherever corruption and exploitation are extinct

`Can the government do anything without you being against it? Does the government always have to ask the locals about what is best for the country?'' These are questions which many government officials ask NGOs. Rossana Torsitrakul of the Thai Holistic Health Foundation said that

If these projects were transparent and fair, the NGOs and the people would not be against the state at all.''

If these projects proceeded according to the Constitution and allowed people their say on whether they affect their livelihood, there would be no problem,'' said the longtime NGO worker.

People protest because many projects are planned by officials or politicians without input from the people who are affected.

People protest for many reasons, and one reason is when a project is planned and implemented without people's participation. Moreover some projects are not necessary and a waste of taxpayer's money.

Rossana said that the government tries to discredit NGOs, who are a social force for examining unjustified projects and situations.

If the government implements projects with sincerity and transparency, there will be no more protests,'' she said.

The Scandinavian countries are a good example for us,'' she said.

They have fewer corrupt government officials. Most projects are consulted with the people before they are implemented.''

If the government is firm in refusing all personal, political, material or cash benefits from any project, NGOs will not make any trouble, she said.

She compares NGOs with the white blood cells that the body produces to eradicate diseases.

If the body is in a balanced, healthy condition, there is no need for the body to produce white blood cells. A country in a balanced condition does not need to have NGOs.

Don't allow the diseases of corruption and exploitation to come in, and the NGOs will disappear,'' she said.

NGO movements such as the Assembly of the Poor are a social instrument to serve the needs of those who cannot rely on mainstream politics. Although these movements aim to help solve problems, some see them as threatening to state power.

In his book, New Social Movement, Dr Chairat Chareonsin-olarn of Thammasat University writes that new social movements in which people stand up to ask for their own rights are unlike the old politics which keeps power in the hands of the state. The new social movement is called

people politics,'' because people rely on themselves and not so much on their Member of Parliament. Mostly people have to take up their issues into their own hands. This movement refuses to use violence, and if it is used, this is only a strategy to challenge and question the establishment. This movement looks beyond state power or violence, to humanitarian governance and equity development, said the lecturer.

This movement would strengthen civil society. One image of the movement would be that of going against the state and toward people's power. These movements are to open up a political space for common people, writes Dr Chairat.

One predominant strategy of the new social movements is the use of non-violence, which has a long history. There are numerous instances of people courageously and nonviolently refusing to cooperate with government injustice. The most notable example is the year-long

salt campaign,'' in which 100,000 Indians were jailed for deliberately violating the salt laws, as part of the Indian struggle for complete independence from the British Empire.

Peace advocate Dr Chaiwat Satha-Anand said that the well known examples of civil disobedience came from historic figures such as Gandhi, Tolstoy and Thoreau, all individuals who never broke the law. Thus, their civil disobedience brought about a moral dilemma in the public perception.

But those who use non-violence are often viewed by state agencies as disruptive and needing to be disciplined _ even punished. Those who use the nonviolent strategy must accept such consequences.

When the state uses violence against its own people, who are not enemies of the state and not criminals, this violence delegitimises the state itself.

When the state criminalises people who object to state policies, such as the Thai-Malaysian pipeline protesters who were arrested for possession of

weapons'' or blocking the road, such practices are akin to burying an act of violence under a cloak of lies. But this tactic can have only limited use.

Eventually, politics based on a shroud of lies leads to problematic relationships between the state and its people. The legitimacy of such a society is, in the long run, tarnished.

SUPARA JANCHITFAH
BANGKOK POST - Perspective
5 January 2003