Authoritarian Awareness of Democracy Building?
In the study of democracy, we regularly assume that the subject is researched purely for the purpose of promoting democratic growth. Certainly since the development of democracies in Eastern Europe, if not much earlier, this assumption has been proven flawed. During the varied “color revolutions” of the region, democracy promoters around the world grew to deeply appreciate the importance of “civil society” and the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in bringing about democratic change. Yet during this same period the authoritarian regimes of the world also observed the role of NGOs in promoting democracy and were able to make of it a cautionary tale.
In the wake of the “color revolutions” the governments of China and Russia, among others, took note of the role of NGOs and set about seeking ways to prevent them impacting regime change within these nations. Regularly we now see the activities of NGOs curtailed in nations around the world not only due to concern over uprising in civil society, but due to these organizations being perceived as vectors for Western influence.
In recent days there has been conflict between the governments of China and Norway over the awarding of a Nobel Peace Prize to jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. In response to the award’s announcement, China said that giving the prize to a “criminal” ran contrary to the principles of the award and warned that ties with Norway would suffer. The addressing of problems with the activities of an NGO to the government said NGO resides within speaks leagues of a disconnect in understanding the role these organizations play in democratic societies. The idea that government should be able to influence the activity of an NGO, and that the workings of said NGO must obviously reflect the stance of the government, says a fair deal about the nature of Chinese governance.
On one hand, it is easy to assume that states like China are anti-humanitarian or purely seeking to repress their populace. On the other hand, can we possibly be surprised at the reaction of these regimes, given the perception of NGOs as vectors to undermine authoritarian states? Regardless of the reality, it remains critical that we be aware of how stakeholders view and react to NGOs. NGOs must remain independent and autonomous, rather than an arm of state, if we hope for these organizations to continue their role in promoting human rights and democratic values.
6 Comments
Leave a comment
Sign up for our mailing list
Posts by Region
Posts by Topic
Recent Comments
Archives
- May 2012 (3)
- April 2012 (9)
- March 2012 (16)
- February 2012 (20)
- January 2012 (13)
- December 2011 (10)
- November 2011 (14)
- October 2011 (19)
- September 2011 (25)
- August 2011 (10)
- July 2011 (16)
- June 2011 (14)
- May 2011 (14)
- April 2011 (16)
- March 2011 (20)
- February 2011 (15)
- January 2011 (24)
- December 2010 (16)
- November 2010 (24)
- October 2010 (27)
- September 2010 (17)
- August 2010 (42)
- July 2010 (40)
- June 2010 (65)
- May 2010 (72)
- April 2010 (38)
- March 2010 (18)
- February 2010 (32)
- January 2010 (46)
- December 2009 (45)
- November 2009 (38)
- October 2009 (15)
- September 2009 (24)
- August 2009 (11)
- February 2009 (1)
Who we like
- AfPak Channel
- CIPE Blog
- Countries at the Crossroads
- Cyrus Samii
- Democracy Arsenal
- Democracy Dialogue
- Democracy Digest
- Democracy Resource Center
- EITI Blog
- ElectionGuide.org
- Fruits and Votes
- Global Voices Online
- One Blog
- Open Budgets Blog
- Open Democracy
- Policy and Power
- Progressive Realist
- Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Blogs
- Space for Transparency
- The Coming Prosperity
- The Democratic Piece
- The International Jurist
- The Kaufmann Governance Post
- United Nations Democracy Fund
- Zunia.org
Which is exactly the point. The Chinese government doesn’t like what it can’t control within its borders, so doesn’t want independent NGOs. The Government of China is angry over the prize because its a huge embarrassment to them. From their point of view instead of getting credit for lifting millions out of poverty, they are getting attacked for putting one person in jail. I think this is a false trade-off, but see their point of view.
i think the Chinese government is able to catch up social changes and democratic movements better than anyone, because they are really sensitive for those issues. it does not make sens that the Chinese government didn’t know there would be tremendous social changes after economic development. However, they still don’t know how to manage them, so they are just repressing people pursuing democracy. i think the government is hidding their anxiety. the Chinese government needs new leaders or the new generation who can hadle the next China.
@Barak:
Well put but at the same time I almost find it strange that its even an embarassment. I mean the stance of China on human rights seems fairly well known, and its hard to argue about their economic successes, but I suppose this was a bit of a pointed insult.
@Sue:
I think thats a very good point Sue, its definitely arguable that the government of China must be more aware of these sorts of social changes than other nations might purely because of how critical these issues are to them. The economic development of China of course led to all manner of social changes, but I would argue that at least in part this rapid growth of wealth tempers social change. Maybe its easier to overlook varied social constraints in light of the opportunity for wealth?
Yes it was. That doesn’t mean I think it was a bad idea to give the prize to him. The Government of China is going to have to grow up a bit. The Government of China at times seems like a teenager to me: it wants the rights of a grown-up but not the responsibilities of one.
[...] far attempts by governments to repress these sites only feeds into their publicity. In line with our recent conversation on China and the Nobel Peace Prize I think the current situation with WikiLeaks would be a great opportunity for a “teachable [...]
[...] and I wanted to take a bit to discuss the relationship between the two in regard to China. One of Barak’s comments on a recent post of mine urged me to raise the issue again, as it’s obviously of current relevance given the calls for [...]