Giving a strong voice to all in society

This is the text of an editorial I published in The Examiner on 7 June 2013, with my Advocacy Initiative hat on.


ON the surface it may seem natural that any government would be hesitant to fund criticism of its own policies.

Is this not simply a case of an organisation in receipt of state funds biting the hand that feeds it? At first glance the argument against state funding of “political activity” such as social justice advocacy by civil society organisations seems pretty solid.

In the first instance, a government’s role is to use taxpayers’ money to fund public services. It is a waste of those resources to seek to buy its own judge and jury. Secondly, governments should create environments in which civil society organisations can thrive and contribute to democracy. Third, acceptance of state funding fatally wounds the independence that is fundamental to the mission of civil society organisations. NGOs are non-governmental and that includes funding. Many organisations, such as Amnesty International and Greenpeace, operate from this principle.

This begs the question why the State funds advocacy at all. Why has it defined an ambition to support the policy-making contribution of civil society in 2000? Why has it invested in building organisations that represent the voice of the poor? Does this boil down to a sinister strategy to silence criticism or buy political support?

Last year former justice minister Michael McDowell described the tactic as institutionalised dissent, when he argued that “former taoiseach Bertie Ahern brought dissent into the semi-state world by subsidising interest groups to beat their own drums from public money”.
But life is a bit messier than that. The arguments for the State funding social justice advocacy by civil society organisations are a response to the complexities of a mature modern democracy.

First, by involving those affected, better decisions are made. In the case of excluded communities this inclusion needs to be funded and supported. Those operating at the coalface of our most difficult social problems know more about their causes and solutions than any other actors.

Second, democracy is not something that happens once every five years. All kinds of groups seek to influence democratic decision-making every day. Big business and other sectoral interests invest heavily in influencing government, however, state funding can balance that power.

Finally at the core of our democracy is a robust election system. But by definition democracy involves winners and losers. When those losers are dis-proportionately communities who are disenfranchised, disillusioned and excluded, that is a failure of democracy. Social cohesion is achieved by supporting the participation of all voices.

The experience here may not be a perfect one, but we face long-term consequences if we undermine one fundamental pillar of that cohesion — a government’s commitment (financial and otherwise) to ensuring inclusive democratic debate and process at all stages of decision-making.

While some organisations can and do sustain their advocacy work without using direct state funding, others do not have the capacity or popularity to run successful mini-marathons or attract corporate or philanthropic investment. A principled, but simplistic stand against providing state funding would serve to exclude these voices.

It is both inevitable and desirable that there should be productive tensions between the state and the community and voluntary sector, particularly where they seek to influence and criticise each other. However, as Housing Minister Jan O’Sullivan recently described it, “this may cause a degree of tribulation in a minister’s office [but] robust and evidence based criticism is something that I value and welcome”.

It is also proper the State should seek to regulate the behaviour of any organisation that attempts to exert influence on democratic decision-making processes, and the proposed regulation of lobbying is very welcome.

Money does have the potential to complicate any relationship and there are risks, but governments support advocacy because it makes for better democracy and more effective policy.

Government funding ensures that vulnerable communities and groups are at the policy-making table and not on the menu.

Transfer Assessment

30 May 2013
Sara, Maureen, John and Kathleen

I was not worried about the Transfer Assessment, it was clear that it was a formal process and I would not have been put forward for it if I was not ready.  The panel involved giving a short presentation of the research, I had a powerpoint set up from last year so I just needed to up date it.  It was useful to discuss some of the more methodological questions, and while I was nervous that the discussion might through up something I had not thought of, anything that did come up was either a useful elaboration or repetitive of comments I had heard in the past.

I wonder how much my thinking has changed and developed.  Its certainly has changed a bit and the reading process has been a useful one, but one question I have for myself is whether my thinking is flexible enough.  Undoubtedly I don't want to fall into the trap of not pinning down my question that seems to beset many PhD students, but neither to I want to shut down new ways of thinking about my question because of a fear of ending up in an unending process of question formulation.

My next stage is to start collecting data, I have a plan, we'll see how it goes...

Work in Phd. Phd into work.

I think I had thought about this Phd topic before I started working with The Advocacy Initiative, after all funding is an issue that is very hard to get away from, but I did intend it to be as complementary as possible.

That said, I don't really think there has been as much 'feeding in and feeding out' as I initially would have anticipated.  I think the Phd reading is beneficial to work (more so now than the first chapter), and maybe when it comes to field work I will be relieved to have The Advocacy Initiative stuff to draw on.  But so far I don't think the Phd is getting that much from the day job.  And if I am honest, the day job does at times undermine the Phd when it comes to time management.  It rarely happens that I postpone work stuff to meet a Phd deadline, but the other way around it a frequent enough occurrence.  Inevitable, but true.

The way I am trying to manage it at the moment, is that I ring fence my Thursday and Friday mornings as much as I possible can, and then every quarter or so I want to take a week off work and do some writing.

April is makeup month.  The only trick is to find a week clear of work commitments!

Chapter 1, Draft 1

I've sent it. Nervous.

So before I get any feedback on it here's what I think are the strengths and weaknesses of my first attempt at a theoretical chapter on participatory democracy.

Strengths:

1. Its a bona fide piece of writing, written down into paragraphs with a structure!
2. I think it ends up connecting to my research question, in other words it has the beginnings of an 'NGO test' which might be applicable - a lot of work to do on it though.
3. I think I have a basic handle on the literature - it covers quite a broad range.
4. I think it develops a case for participatory democracy which is on its way to standing up (I might be wrong about that!).
5. It has references, and Zotero is pretty much functioning now (thanks to Charles and his style sheet).

Weaknesses:

1. Perhaps too broad and definetly too long. Twice as long as it should be in fact. What am I going to send to the PhD roundtable in the next couple of weeks, the whole thing is much too long?
2. Do I read too fast and not spend enough time digesting particular arguments.
3. Not sure about the four fold structure - does the section on 'difference democrcy' really belong?  Or is it the same thing as participatory democracy?
4. Is the first section on the democratic debates too basic and a bit waffly?
5. I am nervous that I do not actually say very much about what participatory democracy would practically look like? Is this actually what I should be doing?
6. I still think there are big gaps in my review of the literature - there is plenty more I could do ( perhaps revisit after I have looked at other areas?).

Next on the agenda: This, then civil society, advocacy and government funding.  Then Irish government policy on NGOs.

What does it do?

This is the published text of a letter I wrote to the Irish Times just before Christmas, and was published on 31 December.  It responds to a particular editorial, but reflects some of the reading I have been doing about associative democracy and the functions of nonprofit organisations.

Sir, – In reading your editorial, I am struck that you pose a challenge to the community and voluntary sector which is not without precedent. Within a broader awareness of the need for change and innovation, many have asked themselves about the possibilities of consolidation, and indeed there have been mergers within the sector.

However mergers are not necessarily the easiest or most effective solution. The first question is, what is the role of the sector and how best can it support those who experience poverty and exclusion? Only then can we consider structures and institutions. In my view the community and voluntary sector has three core roles.

First, the sector responds to new and emerging challenges, innovating in ways that the State is unable to. However innovative service delivery requires quality mainstream public services, which are unfortunately being dismantled by austerity.

Second, NGOs advocate for better mainstream provision of services, as well as other decisions that lead towards a more just and equal society. It is important that decision-makers and their institutions are supportive of and responsive to advocacy. The Advocacy Initiative report, referred to in your comment, raises serious concerns regarding the capacity of the sector and the State to maximise the benefit from advocacy.

Finally, the sector fosters citizen empowerment, critically engaging people and communities in the decisions that will impact their lives and futures. For this work to be more effective we need participative and inclusive democracy, a democracy in which many participate and feel they can make a difference. Voting levels in recent referendums suggest our democracy is not what it should be.

Some within the community and voluntary sector do all three of these things – providing services, advocating for change, and empowering citizens — others do one or two. Different responses to complex challenges.

So yes, the sector has a responsibility to deeply reflect on its future, and that should include the question of consolidation.

However the reality remains that there are immediate urgent reasons — such as the 4,000 phone calls received by the Society of St Vincent de Paul in Dublin in the last week – as well as broader societal challenges, that need to be placed front and centre of any debate on the future of the sector. – Yours, etc,

Anna Visser

So will your thesis have a gender perspective?

Uhm....

The G question, always throws me... 'where is the gender analysis in that?' ... ah... uhm.... yes of course, not problem, its just....

So it happened again tonight at the PhD roundtable, we were discussing someone's work about gender and and the 1913 lockout, interesting stuff says I - in a 'has nothing to do with what I am doing', sort of a way.

The reading was an article providing a framework for taking a gender analysis to history, not the easiest read, but ploughed through it happily enough, and if I am honest did not think about it too much.  Grand stuff, job done.

Until... so, Anna, how do you think this reading is relevant to your work?

Don't get me wrong, I am a 'feminist' (see earlier blog),  in fact I would say I am pretty clear about the gender equality case, and what it means in my life and in society more generally.  I am after all a working mother, loads of gender stuff going on there.  But could I honestly say I deeply connect with the women's movement? Probably not, though I am not sure why.  Maybe a movement of 50% of the population, is just to diverse to feel a deep sense of connection to the entire thing?  Bits of it absolutely - violence against women, abortion, childcare, employment discrimination, sharing care work - all subjects I would get out on the streets for (and likely bore the pants of an unsuspecting relative after a few drinks).  And yet still, somehow the whole gender thing, just does not seem to crop up instinctively for me.

So, what does all this have to do with my thesis... probably needs more than the back of an envelope response but here is a start:

1. Gender informs different NGOs in different ways  - generalised women's organisations, specific issue based orgs that disproportionatley affect women, and others who do (or at least should) integrate a women's persective in their work.
2. Who does the advocacy and on whose behalf - why is the CEO of the Irish Nurses Organisation a man? Does it matter?
3. If the 'targets' of advocacy are by definition more mainstream, how does gender play out - often women are accused of being 'screechy' in the media, not a charge you are likley to hear against men.
4. Another interesting though from today's roundtables: the 'Us and I' conflict. Women talk about 'the movement' or 'we', men tend to talk more about 'I did' - this was a historical take but does resonate with NGO activism today.

Just thoughts, but this is likely to play out, and I should probably get my head around it (at last?!) ... not least in the the case studies I select.

"the subordination of women pre-dates capitalism and continues under socialism"
"We can write the history of that process only if we recognise that 'man' and 'women' are at once empty and overflowing categories"
(Joan W. Scott, 1986)

Reading

Well its taken a bit longer than I anticipated, but beginning to feel like I am getting into the reading on participatory democracy. Some if it is very tough going, some of it really exciting.  The problem is now I don't know where to stop, the more I read the broader it gets. How important is the earlier theoretical stuff, should I concentrate on more recent writing?  How much do I need to know before I start to structure something? And all the while, the more I read the more it feels like I am forgetting.

Every time I go to the library I discover another immobile pile of books, each online search reveals more articles.  It always was going to be a very broad area of reading, I guess I thought I could keep it narrow, just participatory democracy says I.

With a pile of books to one side, a stash of photocopying on the shelf above me, and a drop box folder full of unread journal articles, do I keep going or stop, take stock of where I am and have a go at describing how I might write about this literature?

Recently, I lot of people have started asking 'how is the PhD going?'.... Slow, says I, but it is going.