Overview

The goal of Partners in Policymaking is to educate participants to be active partners with those who make policy. They will become partners in policymaking. The idea is to develop partnerships that are based on positive relationships. In today's political climate of radical change, Partners graduates must work harder than ever to prevent the loss of basic rights for people with disabilities. Partners graduates can change the future by influencing public policy today. The conversion of the Partners program to an e-learning site gives Partners participants the opportunity to supplement their learning; Partners graduates can refresh their skills and stay current on best practices; and others can increase their knowledge and understanding of best practices in the disability field, and learn how to communicate effectively with their elected officials. Six online courses are now available to anyone who would like to increase their knowledge and skills:

Partners in Living
This seven-hour self-directed e-learning course has been created to help people with developmental disabilities, their parents, family members and friends, educators and service providers understand the important concepts of self-determination, family support, community living and assistive technology. The course focuses on helping people with developmental disabilities, their family and friends explore these four important elements that, together, can help them create a meaningful life that is independent, inclusive, productive, self-determined and integrated. Last updated in 2011. www.partnersinpolicymaking.com/living

Partners in Time
This eight-hour self-study was created to help people with developmental disabilities, their parents, family members and friends, educators and service providers understand the history of society's treatment of people with disabilities from ancient times through the present. The course focuses on the way that people with disabilities lived, learned and worked throughout history and growth of the Disability Rights Movement. The course also introduces some of the individuals and groups whose efforts resulted in new ways of thinking about people with disabilities and their rights. Last updated in 2011. www.partnersinpolicymaking.com/history

Partners in Education
This three-hour self-directed course was created to help parents of children with developmental disabilities understand and maximize the special education system. The course focuses on a child's right to a free appropriate public education, the laws that protect those rights and offers practical ways that parents can ensure that their children benefit from an inclusive education. The course reviews IDEA 2004 and includes current thinking on educational reform and the importance of teaching children to use digital technology to improve educational outcomes and better prepare children to work in the future. Last updated in 2011. www.partnersinpolicymaking.com/education

Making Your Case

This three-hour self-study course is designed to help people with disabilities and their families create positive change through advocacy. The course helps participants understand the legislative process, the essential elements of good advocacy, identify and research personal issues, then advocate for systems change as individuals and as part of larger community efforts. The course includes opportunities to put what has been learned into practice through a series of interactive exercises. Last updated in 2011. www.partnersinpolicymaking.com/makingyourcase

Partners in Employment
This six-hour self-study course is designed to help people with developmental disabilities find meaningful jobs and plan a career. In this course, participants will create a resume or portfolio of their strengths, skills, and interests; learn how to network and identify potential employers; prepare for an interview; and understand the hiring process. The course has been updated to include information on ways that people with autism and other developmental disabilities can find competitive, meaningful employment in the emerging digital economy. Last updated in 2011. www.partnersinpolicymaking.com/employment

Partners in Employment EZ Read

An EZ Read version of the Partners in Employment online course is now available and can be accessed at www.partnersinpolicymaking.com/employment-ez. This version contains the same information as the regular course along with exercises and exams but uses icons (visuals) to help the reviewer understand concepts and facilitate the learning process. Last updated in 2011.

Policy-Making Process
Ads by Google Process Development - Technology for Gas/Liquid Reactions Process Development and Engineering - www.buss-ct.com Online MA Public Policy - Learn from the Experts CA State University Northridge TsengCollege.CSUN.edu

SMI Evaporative Solutions - Mechanical Evaporation for Produced Water Treatment www.evapor.com

Ads by Google Antibody Humanization Composite Human Antibodies humanization service www.antitope.co.uk Watertec 10 Ideal for Drilling Water Wells up

to 300m Deep, Onboard compressor www.dandowatertec10.co.uk Wet Benches Wet Chemical Process Equipment Clean, Etch, Strip and Plating www.waferprocess.com Shell Marine Products Supplier of Marine Fuels/Lubricants For Marine Industry Worldwide www.shell.com/marine Public policies are developed by officials within institutions of government to address public issues through the political process. When it comes to creating public policy, policymakers are faced with two distinct situations. The first situation, and the ideal one, is for policymakers to jointly identify a desirable future condition, and then create policies and take actions to move toward that desired future state, monitoring progress to allow for necessary adjustments. The alternative, and less desirable, situation occurs when policymakers are unable to reach a consensus regarding a desirable future condition. In this later instance, policymakers try instead to move away from present situations judged as undesirable, even though no consensus exists about the preferred alternative.

Aspects of Policy-Making
The context for the public policy-making process in the United States reflects several important aspects, which are highlighted in the following paragraphs.

Public policymakers evaluate complex aspects of water planning and management, then derive courses of action that attempt to balance competing interests. A hand vote can be a simple way to gage the degree of consensus. Guidance for Policymakers. Ideally, policymakers are guided by core principles. Four examples follow. 1. Politicians and public servants are accountable to the public.

2. Elites , in politics and the private sector, do not have the right to pursue their interests without constraints. 3. Government bureaucratic and decision processes must be open, accessible, and transparent , as well as being responsive to public concerns. 4. Individuals and communities affected by projects have the right to information regarding proposed developments; the right to challenge the need for, and the design of, projects; and the right to be involved in planning and decision-making processes. Public Demands. In addition to the guidance and associated constraints placed on policymakers, demands from the general public, or "bottom up" initiatives, can be as influential as "top down" directives. The general public is reasonably educated and informed, and can mobilize to demand and support desired initiatives. Special Interest Groups. Powerful special interest groups can and do apply significant pressure on elected officials and public servants in order to achieve their ends, regardless of the public welfare. A special interest group is an organized group that exists primarily to advance its own specific interests. For example, a Chamber of Commerce usually advocates for interests of business, whereas the Sierra Club normally represents the views of people interested in the environment. Elites sometimes use questionable means in order to achieve their ends, and such influence is often exerted "behind closed doors." Complex Issues. Public policy issues normally are complex, occur in rapidly changing and turbulent environments characterized by uncertainty, and involve conflicts among different interests. Thus, those responsible for creating, implementing, and enforcing policies must be able to reach decisions about ill-defined problem situations that usually are not well understood, have no one correct answer, and involve many competing interests.

Different Roles of Scientists and Policymakers

Given the above characteristics of the policy-making process, the needs of policymakers and scientists often are different. Policymakers usually focus on the short-term (commonly, the time until the next election), and on actions that will have tangible results and outcomes while minimizing risk. In contrast, scientists are interested in the long-term, in deferring action until understanding has been gained, and in recognizing the nature, extent, and magnitude of uncertainty. Thus, the policymaker normally is interested in the simple rather than the complex, the concrete rather than the abstract, and the immediate rather than a distant result. Policymakers also understand that sometimes conditions will be favorable for a decision or action, even if a technical understanding of the issue is incomplete. Waiting for more data, analysis, and interpretation may result in policymakers losing an opportune moment. The personal characteristics of policymakers and scientists also are often different. The best policymakers are prepared and able to synthesize diverse information, move forward through acts of faith, make major leaps forward into the unknown, and effectively make prodigious bets.

In contrast, scientists are taught to be conservative and cautious, and to doubt results and conclusions until evidence and analysis support them. Scientists present their findings, conclusions, and recommendations qualified with many "if's" and "maybe's," because they recognize and appreciate the complexities and uncertainties associated with their knowledge. However, policymakers usually do not want qualified statements from scientific advisors. Instead, they want simple and clear answers. The Disadvantage of Scientific Uncertainty. Because various scientists may use different models and assumptions to guide their research, it is not unusual for different scientists to reach contradictory conclusions. For example, one scientist may determine that groundwater in an aquifer is being polluted; whereas another scientist may say it is not. If the aquifer is polluted, one scientist may conclude that the type and amount of contaminants in the aquifer is a threat to human health, but another scientist would disagree. One camp of scientists may say that climate warming is occurring, but others may say it is not. As a result of these disagreements among experts, policymakers who do not like specific advice from a scientist usually can find another scientist who will provide a perspective that supports their preferred policy. The fact that scientists can disagree often confuses the public, who may be puzzled as to why scientists are not in agreement about a policy issue. Despite the scientific uncertainty that may exist, policymakers are challenged to find optimal solutions that ideally have been identified through participatory processes that reflect the scientific consensus, and that balance the interests of various groups.
SEE ALSO H YDROPOLITICS ; I NTEGRATED W ATER R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT ; EGISLATION , F EDERAL W ATER .

L AW , W ATER ; L

Bruce Mitchell Bibliography Cortner, Hanna J., and Margaret A. Moote. The Politics of Ecosystem Management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1999. Lasswell, Harold D. The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, 1956. Lindblom, Charles. The Policy Making Process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968. MacKenzie, Susan Hill. Integrated Resource Planning and Management: The Ecosystem Approach in the Great Lakes Basin. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1996. Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision Processes in Administrative Organization, 2nd ed. New York: Free Press, 1965.

User Contributions:

1 anomouys Oct 28, 2009 @ 11:11 am this was a really good article i learned a lot of new things 2 Elton Aclao Nov 25, 2009 @ 11:11 am please help me find a book in this...policy making process or any book that will tackle about public policy and program administration...please please please... 3 patrick May 4, 2011 @ 2:14 pm what are the prospects of public policy and prospects of civil service?

Making public policy is not a quick or easy process, although the steps may seem intuitive. Each step requires a significant amount of time and debate, making what appears to be a quick five step process into a long struggle, full of vigorous opposing opinions, concessions, and unanticipated complications. The five basic steps are: Identify a problem, formulate a policy, adopt a policy, implement the policy, and evaluate the policy. There are three basic areas of public policy within the United States. Almost any policy can be classified as either social, economic, or foreign. Many citizens associate only hot button issues such as welfare, crime, abortion, education, and health care with public policy, but all of these fall under the heading of social policy, and only represent a part of the picture. The first step is to identify a problem. Sometimes, the problem is brought to the attention of government officials by individual citizens. Other times, lobbyists or private groups come to speak out on an issue, or the problem may be identified from above, and handed down to Congress for a resolution. When making public policy, it should be considered whether the problem affects many citizens, and whether the solution will degrade the civil liberties.

Once the problem has been identified, government and citizens work together to formulate a policy. Government is formed in such a way that, ideally, public opinion should rank among one of the biggest factors in making public policy. Citizens appeal to their congressmen and encourage them to vote for or against the policy. Likewise, supporters or detractors will issue media coverage on the policy and attempt to sway public opinion through these avenues. The policy is critiqued and refined among experts to find the best possible wording and compromises on issues that are important to one side or the other.

The next step in making public policy is to adopt the policy. Legislators vote on whether or not the formulated policy should be enacted into law. Once it has been enacted, and approved by the president, suggestions for implementation are passed to the executive branch of government. When the policy has been in effect for enough time, the legislators analyze the effectiveness of the policy. This analysis is based on information gathered from statistics and opinions of the executives who have worked on implementation. If the policy needs to be altered to account for unforeseen complications, amendments can be added to the policy. Making public policy is never truly finished, and in reality the process is far from perfect. Issues can always be revisited over time, however, and adjustments, corrections, or improvements can be made. Public policy is an attempt by the government to address a public issue. The government, whether it is city, state, or federal, develops public policy in terms of laws, regulations, decisions, and actions. There are three parts to public policy-making: problems, players, and the policy. The problem is the issue that needs to be addressed. The player is the individual or group that is influential in forming a plan to address the problem in question. Policy is the finalized course of action decided upon by the government. In most cases, policies are widely open to interpretation by nongovernmental players, including those in the private sector. Public policy is also made by leaders of religious and cultural institutions. Academics continue to contemplate the definition of public policy, since there is currently no consensus. The study of public policy began in 1922, when Charles Merriam, a political scientist, sought to build a link between political theory and its application to reality. Numerous issues are addressed by public policy, including crime, education, foreign policy, health, and social welfare.

Communicating in the Policy Process: Roles and Communication Practices

Communications are presented in forms conventionally used to achieve a roles purposes. For example, elected and appointed legislative officials use bills and resolutions. Administrative officials use executive orders, statutes, legal codifications, standards and rules of enforcement, manuals, and press releases. (You can learn more about legislative and administrative communications in Knowing the Record, which provides information on government records research, where you are referred to respected sources such as the Library of Congresss database Thomas that includes glossaries of government document types.) Advocates use position papers, research reports, action alerts, press releases, witness testimony. To suggest the range of practical policy communications, a listing that sorts actors by role and associated communication practices is provided, next.

Professionals Inside Government

Within government, career or consulting professionals generate most of the working information of a policy process. They communicate in roles as, for example, legislative aides to members of a legislature; experts on the staffs of legislative committees; legal counsels to legislative committees and

agencies; executive agency administrators; policy analysts and technical specialists attached to many offices. To carry out their responsibilities, they might use any of the following document types:

One-pagers (summaries of fact or perspective, limited to one page) Memos (more developed summaries of varying length) White papers (extensive reportage or analysis including evidence) Legislative concept proposals (outlines of model or idea or strategy for policy, without details) Legislative histories (reports of government action or inaction, based on government records) Committee reports (synthesis of committee decision and history of action on a topic) Speeches (to be delivered by elected or appointed officials) Testimonies (to be delivered by executives or professionals)

For some inside professionals, communication is the entire job. The communications director in the state budgeting case (ADD LINK) is an example. A communications director is a generalist who:

Writes and produces internal documents of many kinds Writes external public announcements of many kinds Produces kits of information for news media use

Other professional communicators in government are specialists. They include:

Speechwriters who draft talks for officials to deliver Legislation writers who draft bills for deliberation and formulate laws for codification Debate reporters who produce stenographic transcripts and the published records of deliberation and debate Webmasters who maintain government web sites

Professionals Outside Government

Significant amounts of information used in policy making come from outside government. Experts of many kinds in universities, industries, policy institutes, nonprofit organizations, and businesses write or contribute to white papers, reports of many kinds, and testimonies. Because they are not constrained as government employees are from engaging public debate, they may write opinion in print or online publications. The experts blog in the milk labeling regulation example in the introduction exemplifies this practice. In addition, professionals and managers in publicly regulated industries and businesses might provide needed information. For some outside professionals, communication for public policy purposes is the main focus of their job. Lobbyists are an example. They are experts in a subject and are employed by organizations to ensure that policy makers have information about the subject that is germane to the interests of the employing organizations and to ensure that policy makers are exposed to the full range of arguments on a given issue. Lobbyists might brief legislators and their staffs, or they might draft legislation for consideration. Policy analysts are a different example. They may be either inside or outside government. They are experts in using quantitative and qualitative methods to examine problems and options for solving

problems. Analysts might advise policy makers on the choice of policy instruments or provide research results to aid the formulation of policy.

Active Citizens
Ordinary people in daily life inform and influence public policy making when they:

Write or e-mail officials Provide formal written remarks on their experience relevant to a problem or a policy in response to a call for comment Testify about effects of a problem or a policy on their life or their livelihood Conduct letter-writing campaigns, create e-mail lists, and use phone trees Form a coalition to cooperate in solving a problem Create a mechanism such as a lawsuit or a boycott to force response by institutional authorities Lobby as a representative of civic organizations, trade associations, professional associations, communities of interest, or constituencies

Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that seeks not only the agreement of most participants but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first general agreement and, second group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning literally feel together.[1] It is used to describe both general agreement and the process of getting to such agreement. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned primarily with that process. Consensus should not be confused with unanimity.[2]

Contents
[hide]

1 Objectives 2 Alternative to common decision-making practices 3 Decision rules 4 Consensus blocking and other forms of dissent o 4.1 Dissent options o 4.2 Agreement vs. consent 5 Process o 5.1 Consensus decision-making with consensus blocking 6 Roles 7 Near-unanimous consensus 8 Historical examples 9 Specific models o 9.1 Quaker model

9.2 CODM Model 9.3 Japan 9.4 IETF rough consensus model 9.5 Other modern examples 9.6 Overlaps with deliberative methods 10 Tools and methods o 10.1 Colored cards o 10.2 Hand signals o 10.3 Dotmocracy sheets o 10.4 Fall-back methods 11 The idea of consensus in the abstract o 11.1 Consensus as collective thought o 11.2 Abstract models of consensus o 11.3 In democracy o 11.4 Examples within computing o 11.5 Examples of non-consensus 12 Criticism o 12.1 Consensus blocking o 12.2 Consensus decision-making o 12.3 Majority voting processes 13 See also 14 Notes
o o o o o

15 External links

[edit] Objectives
As a decision-making process, consensus decision-making aims to be:[3]

Agreement Seeking: A consensus decision making process attempts to help participants reach as much agreement as possible.[3] Collaborative: Participants contribute to a shared proposal and shape it into a decision that meets the concerns of all group members as much as possible.[4] Cooperative: Participants in an effective consensus process should strive to reach the best possible decision for the group and all of its members, rather than competing for personal preferences. Egalitarian: All members of a consensus decision-making body should be afforded, as much as possible, equal input into the process. All members have the opportunity to present, and amend proposals. Inclusive: As many stakeholders as possible should be involved in the consensus decisionmaking process. Participatory: The consensus process should actively solicit the input and participation of all decision-makers.[5]

[edit] Alternative to common decision-making practices

Consensus decision making is an alternative to commonly practiced non-collaborative decision making processes.[6] Robert's Rules of Order, for instance, is a process used by many organizations. The goal of Roberts Rules is to structure the debate and passage of proposals that win approval through majority vote. This process does not emphasize the goal of full agreement. Critics of Roberts Rules believe that the process can involve adversarial debate and the formation of competing factions. These dynamics may harm group member relationships and undermine the ability of a group to cooperatively implement a contentious decision. Consensus decision making is also an alternative to top-down decision making, commonly practiced in hierarchical groups. Top-down decision making occurs when leaders of a group make decisions in a way that does not include the participation of all interested stakeholders. The leaders may (or may not) gather input, but they do not open the deliberation process to the whole group. Proposals are not collaboratively developed, and full agreement is not a primary objective. Critics of top-down decision making believe the process fosters incidence of either complacency or rebellion among disempowered group members. Additionally, the resulting decisions may overlook important concerns of those directly affected. Poor group relationship dynamics and decision implementation problems may result. Consensus decision making addresses the problems of both Roberts Rules of Order and top-down models. The outcomes of the consensus process include:[4]

Better Decisions: Through including the input of all stakeholders the resulting proposals can best address all potential concerns. Better Implementation: A process that includes and respects all parties, and generates as much agreement as possible sets the stage for greater cooperation in implementing the resulting decisions. Better Group Relationships: A cooperative, collaborative group atmosphere fosters greater group cohesion and interpersonal connection.

[edit] Decision rules

The level of agreement necessary to finalize a decision is known as a decision rule.[4][7] The range of possible decision rules varies within the following range:

Unanimous agreement Unanimity minus one vote Unanimity minus two votes Super majority thresholds (90%, 80%, 75%, two-thirds, and 60% are common). Simple majority Executive committee decides Person-in-charge decides

Some groups require unanimous consent (unanimity) to approve group decisions. If any participant objects, he can block consensus according to the guidelines described below. These groups use the term consensus to denote both the discussion process and the decision rule. Other groups use a consensus process to generate as much agreement as possible, but allow decisions to be finalized with a decision rule that does not require unanimity.

[edit] Consensus blocking and other forms of dissent

Groups that require unanimity allow individual participants the option of blocking a group decision. This provision motivates a group to make sure that all group members consent to any new proposal before it is adopted. Proper guidelines for the use of this option, however, are important. The ethics of consensus decision making encourage participants to place the good of the whole group above their own individual preferences. When there is potential for a group decision to be blocked, both the group and any dissenters in the group are encouraged to collaborate until agreement can be reached. Simply vetoing a decision is not considered a responsible use of consensus blocking. Some common guidelines for the use of consensus blocking include:[4][8]

Limiting the option to block consensus to issues that are fundamental to the groups mission or potentially disastrous to the group. Providing an option for those who do not support a proposal to stand aside rather than block. Requiring two or more people to block for a proposal to be put aside. Requiring the blocking party to supply an alternative proposal or a process for generating one. Limiting each persons option to block consensus to a handful of times in ones life.

[edit] Dissent options

When a participant does not support a proposal, he does not necessarily need to block it. When a call for consensus on a motion is made, a dissenting delegate has one of three options:

Declare reservations: Group members who are willing to let a motion pass but desire to register their concerns with the group may choose "declare reservations." If there are significant reservations about a motion, the decision-making body may choose to modify or re-word the proposal.[9] Stand aside: A "stand aside" may be registered by a group member who has a "serious personal disagreement" with a proposal, but is willing to let the motion pass. Although stand asides do not halt a motion, it is often regarded as a strong "nay vote" and the concerns of group members standing aside are usually addressed by modifications to the proposal. Stand asides may also be registered by users who feel they are incapable of adequately understanding or participating in the proposal.[10][11][12] Block: Any group member may "block" a proposal. In most models, a single block is sufficient to stop a proposal, although some measures of consensus may require more than one block (see previous section, "Non-unanimous or modified consensus"). Blocks are generally considered to be an extreme measure, only used when a member feels a proposal "endanger[s] the organization or its participants, or violate[s] the mission of the organization" (i.e., a principled objection). In some consensus models, a group member opposing a proposal must work with its proponents to find a solution that will work for everyone.[11][13]

[edit] Agreement vs. consent

Unanimity is achieved when the full group consents to a decision. Giving consent does not necessarily mean that the proposal being considered is ones first choice. Group members can vote their consent to a proposal because they choose to cooperate with the direction of the group, rather than insist on their personal preference. Sometimes the vote on a proposal is framed, Is this proposal something you can live with? This relaxed threshold for a yes vote can help make unanimity more easily achievable.

Another method to achieve unanimity is by using a special kind of voting process under which all members of the group have a strategic incentive to agree rather than block.[14]

[edit] Process
There are multiple stepwise models of how to make decisions by consensus. They vary in the amount of detail the steps describe. They also vary depending on how decisions are finalized. The basic model involves

collaboratively generating a proposal, identifying unsatisfied concerns, and then modifying the proposal to generate as much agreement as possible.

After a concerted attempt at generating full agreement, the group can then apply its final decision rule to determine if the existing level of agreement is sufficient to finalize a decision.

[edit] Consensus decision-making with consensus blocking

Flowchart of basic consensus decision-making process. Groups that require unanimity commonly use a core set of procedures depicted in this flow chart.[15][16]
[17]

Once an agenda for discussion has been set and, optionally, the ground rules for the meeting have been agreed upon, each item of the agenda is addressed in turn. Typically, each decision arising from an agenda item follows through a simple structure:

Discussion of the item: The item is discussed with the goal of identifying opinions and information on the topic at hand. The general direction of the group and potential proposals for action are often identified during the discussion.

Formation of a proposal: Based on the discussion a formal decision proposal on the issue is presented to the group. Call for consensus: The facilitator of the decision-making body calls for consensus on the proposal. Each member of the group usually must actively state their agreement with the proposal, often by using a hand gesture or raising a colored card, to avoid the group interpreting silence or inaction as agreement. Identification and addressing of concerns: If consensus is not achieved, each dissenter presents his or her concerns on the proposal, potentially starting another round of discussion to address or clarify the concern. Modification of the proposal: The proposal is amended, re-phrased or ridered in an attempt to address the concerns of the decision-makers. The process then returns to the call for consensus and the cycle is repeated until a satisfactory decision is made.

[edit] Roles
The consensus decision-making process often has several roles which are designed to make the process run more effectively. Although the name and nature of these roles varies from group to group, the most common are the facilitator, a timekeeper, an empath and a secretary or notes taker. Not all decisionmaking bodies use all of these roles, although the facilitator position is almost always filled, and some groups use supplementary roles, such as a Devil's advocate or greeter. Some decision-making bodies opt to rotate these roles through the group members in order to build the experience and skills of the participants, and prevent any perceived concentration of power.[15] The common roles in a consensus meeting are:

Facilitator: As the name implies, the role of the facilitator is to help make the process of reaching a consensus decision easier. Facilitators accept responsibility for moving through the agenda on time; ensuring the group adheres to the mutually agreed-upon mechanics of the consensus process; and, if necessary, suggesting alternate or additional discussion or decisionmaking techniques, such as go-arounds, break-out groups or role-playing.[18][19] Some consensus groups use two co-facilitators. Shared facilitation is often adopted to diffuse the perceived power of the facilitator and create a system whereby a co-facilitator can pass off facilitation duties if he or she becomes more personally engaged in a debate.[20] Timekeeper: The purpose of the timekeeper is to ensure the decision-making body keeps to the schedule set in the agenda. Effective timekeepers use a variety of techniques to ensure the meeting runs on time including: giving frequent time updates, ample warning of short time, and keeping individual speakers from taking an excessive amount of time.[15] Empath or 'Vibe Watch': The empath, or 'vibe watch' as the position is sometimes called, is charged with monitoring the 'emotional climate' of the meeting, taking note of the body language and other non-verbal cues of the participants. Defusing potential emotional conflicts, maintaining a climate free of intimidation and being aware of potentially destructive power dynamics, such as sexism or racism within the decision-making body, are the primary responsibilities of the empath.[18] Note taker: The role of the notes taker or secretary is to document the decisions, discussion and action points of the decision-making body.

[edit] Near-unanimous consensus

Healthy consensus decision-making processes usually encourage and out dissent early, maximizing the chance of accommodating the views of all minorities. Since unanimity may be difficult to achieve, especially in large groups, or unanimity may be the result of coercion, fear, undue persuasive power or eloquence, inability to comprehend alternatives, or plain impatience with the process of debate, consensus decision making bodies may use an alternative benchmark of consensus. These include the following: (citation needed)

Unanimity minus one (or U1), requires all delegates but one to support the decision. The individual dissenter cannot block the decision although he or she may be able to prolong debate (e.g. via a filibuster). The dissenter may be the ongoing monitor of the implications of the decision, and their opinion of the outcome of the decision may be solicited at some future time. Betting markets in particular rely on the input of such lone dissenters. A lone bettor against the odds profits when his or her prediction of the outcomes proves to be better than that of the majority. This disciplines the market's odds. Unanimity minus two (or U2), does not permit two individual delegates to block a decision and tends to curtail debate with a lone dissenter more quickly. Dissenting pairs can present alternate views of what is wrong with the decision under consideration. Pairs of delegates can be empowered to find the common ground that will enable them to convince a third, decisionblocking, decision-maker to join them. If the pair are unable to convince a third party to join them, typically within a set time, their arguments are deemed to be unconvincing. Unanimity minus three, (or U3), and other such systems recognize the ability of four or more delegates to actively block a decision. U3 and lesser degrees of unanimity are usually lumped in with statistical measures of agreement, such as: 80%, mean plus one sigma, twothirds, or majority levels of agreement. Such measures usually do not fit within the definition of consensus. Rough Consensus is a process with no specific rule for "how much is enough." Rather, the question of consensus is left to the judgment of the group chair (an example is the IETF working group, discussed below). While this makes it more difficult for a small number of disruptors to block a decision, it puts increased responsibility on the chair, and may lead to divisive debates about whether rough consensus has in fact been correctly identified.

[edit] Historical examples

Perhaps the oldest example of consensus decision-making is the Iroquois Confederacy Grand Council, or Haudenosaunee, who have traditionally used consensus in decision-making using a 75% super majority to finalize decisions,[21][22] potentially as early as 1142.[23] Examples of consensus decisionmaking can likely be found among many indigenous peoples, such as the African Bushmen.[24] Although the modern popularity of consensus decision-making in Western society dates from the women's liberation movement[25] and anti-nuclear movement[26] of the 1970s, the origins of formal consensus can be traced significantly farther back.[27] Anthropologically, an early practical example from Babylon appeared during a massive awakening amongst the tribe of Abraham, which decided to unite around one principle of Mutual Guarantee [28] ("Arvut" in Hebrew) [29]. First, Abraham allowed for their cooperative self-organization to form and then he taught them the quality of Mercy ("Hesed" in Hebrew) and how to unite by having each and every member openly express their desire and due-diligence intention for the acceptance of the rule or law of "Arvut" (mutual guarantee) at their own free will. The only required commitment (accepted with out force) of each member was to put the collective desires in front of their own self-interest

desires and only out of this summation of agreements between all participants, the guarantee itself would emerge and would hence promote the well-being of the whole group. The most notable of early Western consensus practitioners are the Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers, who adopted the technique as early as the 17th century. The Anabaptists, or Mennonites, too, have a history of using consensus decision-making[30] and some believe Anabaptists practiced consensus as early as the Martyrs' Synod of 1527.[27] Some Christians trace consensus decision-making back to the Bible. The Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia references, in particular, Acts 15[31] as an example of consensus in the New Testament.

[edit] Specific models

[edit] Quaker model
Quaker-based consensus[32] is effective because it puts in place a simple, time-tested structure that moves a group towards unity. The Quaker model has been employed in a variety of secular settings. The process allows for individual voices to be heard while providing a mechanism for dealing with disagreements.[33][34] The following aspects of the Quaker model can be effectively applied in any consensus decisionmaking process, and is an adaptation prepared by Earlham College:

Multiple concerns and information are shared until the sense of the group is clear. Discussion involves active listening and sharing information. Norms limit number of times one asks to speak to ensure that each speaker is fully heard. Ideas and solutions belong to the group; no names are recorded. Differences are resolved by discussion. The facilitator ("clerk" or "convenor" in the Quaker model) identifies areas of agreement and names disagreements to push discussion deeper. The facilitator articulates the sense of the discussion, asks if there are other concerns, and proposes a "minute" of the decision. The group as a whole is responsible for the decision and the decision belongs to the group. The facilitator can discern if one who is not uniting with the decision is acting without concern for the group or in selfish interest. Dissenters' perspectives are embraced.[32]

Key components of Quaker-based consensus include a belief in a common humanity and the ability to decide together. The goal is "unity, not unanimity." Ensuring that group members speak only once until others are heard encourages a diversity of thought. The facilitator is understood as serving the group rather than acting as person-in-charge.[35] In the Quaker model, as with other consensus decisionmaking processes, by articulating the emerging consensus, members can be clear on the decision, and, as their views have been taken into account, will be likely to support it.[36]

[edit] CODM Model

The Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making[37] model offers a detailed step-wise description of consensus process. It can be used with any type of decision rule. It outlines the process of how proposals can be collaboratively built with full participation of all stakeholders. This model allows

groups to be flexible enough to make decisions when they need to, while still following a format that is based on the primary values of consensus decision making. The CODM steps include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Framing the topic Open Discussion Identifying Underlying Concerns Collaborative Proposal Building Choosing a Direction Synthesizing a Final Proposal Closure

[edit] Japan
Japanese companies normally[citation needed] use consensus decision making, meaning that everyone in the company is consulted on each decision. A ringi-sho is a circulation document used to obtain agreement. It must first be signed by the lowest level manager, and then upwards, and may need to be revised and the process started over.[38]

[edit] IETF rough consensus model

In the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), decisions are assumed to be taken by "rough consensus".[39] The IETF has studiously refrained from defining a mechanical method for verifying such consensus, apparently in the belief that any such codification will lead to attempts to "game the system." Instead, a working group (WG) chair or BoF chair is supposed to articulate the "sense of the group." One tradition in support of rough consensus is the tradition of humming rather than (countable) handraising; this allows a group to quickly tell the difference between "one or two objectors" or a "sharply divided community", without making it easy to slip into "majority rule".[40] Much of the business of the IETF is carried out on mailing lists, where all parties can speak their view at all times.

[edit] Other modern examples

The ISO process for adopting new standards is called consensus-based decision making,[41] even though in practice, it is a complex voting process with significant supermajorities needed for agreement.[42]

[edit] Overlaps with deliberative methods

Consensus decision-making models overlap significantly with deliberative methods, which is the name academics such as political scientists use to describe consensus models.

[edit] Tools and methods

[edit] Colored cards

Some consensus decision-making bodies use a system of colored cards to speed up and ease the consensus process. Most often, each member is given a set of three colored cards: red, yellow and green. The cards can be raised during the process to indicate the member's input. Cards can be used during the discussion phase as well as during a call for consensus. The cards have different meanings depending on the phase in which they are used.[11][13] The meaning of the colors are:

Red: During discussion, a red card is used to indicate a point of process or a breach of the agreed upon procedures. Identifying offtopic discussions, speakers going over allowed time limits or other breaks in the process are uses for the red card. During a call for consensus, the red card indicates the member's opposition (usually a "principled objection") to the proposal at hand. When a member, or members, use a red card, it becomes their responsibility to work with the proposing committee to come up with a solution that will work for everyone. Yellow: In the discussion phase, the yellow card is used to indicate a member's ability to clarify a point being discussed or answer a question being posed. Yellow is used during a call for consensus to register a stand aside to the proposal or to formally state any reservations. Green: A group member can use a green card during discussion to be added to the speakers list. During a call for consensus, the green card indicates consent.

Some decision-making bodies use a modified version of the colored card system with additional colors, such as orange to indicate a non-blocking reservation stronger than a stand-aside.[43]

[edit] Hand signals

Hand signals are often used by consensus decision-making bodies as a way for group members to nonverbally indicate their opinions or positions. Although the nature and meaning of individual gestures varies from group to group, there is a widely-adopted core set of hand signals. These include: wiggling of the fingers on both hands, a gesture sometimes referred to as "twinkling", to indicate agreement; raising a fist or crossing both forearms with hands in fists to indicate a block or strong disagreement; and making a "T" shape with both hands, the "time out" gesture, to call attention to a point of process or order.[19][44][45] One common set of hand signals is called the "Fist-to-Five" or "Fistof-Five". In this method each member of the group can hold up a fist to indicate blocking consensus, one finger to suggest changes, two fingers to discuss minor issues, three fingers to indicate willingness to let issue pass without further discussion, four fingers to affirm the decision as a good idea, and five fingers to volunteer to take a lead in implementing the decision.[46] Another common set of hand signals used is the "Thumbs" method, where Thumbs Up = agreement; Thumbs Sideways = have concerns but won't block consensus; and Thumbs Down = I don't agree and I won't accept this proposal. This method is also useful for "straw polls" to take a quick reading of the group's overall sentiment for the active proposal.

[edit] Dotmocracy sheets

Completed Dotmocracy sheet Dotmocracy sheets are designed to compliment a consensus decision-making process by providing a simple way to visibly document levels of agreement among participants on a large variety of ideas.[47] Participants write down ideas on paper forms called Dotmocracy sheets and fill in one dot per sheet to record their opinion of each idea on a scale of strong agreement, agreement, neutral, disagreement, strong disagreement or confusion. Participants sign each sheet they dot and may add brief comments. The result is a graph-like visual representation of the group's collective opinions on each idea. The Step-by-Step Process and Rules defined in the Dotmocracy Handbook[48] reinforce consensus decision-making by promoting equal opportunity, open discussion, the drafting of many proposals, the identification of concerns and the encouragement of idea modification.

[edit] Fall-back methods

Sometimes some common form of voting such as First-past-the-post is used as a fall-back method when consensus cannot be reached within a given time frame.[49] However, if the potential outcome of the fall-back method can be anticipated, then those who support that outcome have incentives to block consensus so that the fall-back method gets applied. Special fall-back methods have been developed that reduce this incentive.[14]

[edit] The idea of consensus in the abstract

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
(November 2010)

This article focuses strictly on the idea of consensus in the abstract, not on the implications of consensus for politics or economics, where follow-up action is required.

[edit] Consensus as collective thought

A close equivalent phrase might be the "collective agreement" of a group, keeping in mind that a high degree of variation is still possible among individuals, and certainly if there must be individual commitment to follow up the decision with action, this variation remains important. There is considerable debate and research into both collective intelligence and consensus decision-making.

Consensus usually involves collaboration, rather than compromise. Instead of one opinion being adopted by a plurality, stakeholders are brought together (often with facilitation) until a convergent decision is developed. If this is done in a purely mechanical way it can result in simple tradingwe'll sacrifice this if you'll sacrifice that. Genuine consensus typically requires more focus on developing the relationships among stakeholders, so that they work together to achieve agreements based on willing consent.

[edit] Abstract models of consensus

The most common and most successful model of consensus is called the prisoner's dilemma.[citation needed] An introduction and discussion of this concept can be found in any contemporary introduction to political science. This approach might be called "algebraic" as opposed to analytic, within mathematics, because it represents an agent by a symbol and then examines the algebraic properties of that symbol. For example, the question, "Can two agents be combined to make a new agent?" sounds like an algebraic question. (More formally, "is the operation of consensus closed in the domain of agents? Is there a larger domain of "abstract agents" in which this operation is closed?") In a more analytic style, we might naively start by envisioning the distribution of opinions in a population as a Gaussian distribution in one parameter. We would then say that the initial step in a consensus process would be the written or spoken synthesis that represents the range of opinions within perhaps three standard deviations of the mean opinion. Other standards are possible, e.g. two standard deviations, or one, or a unanimity minus a certain tolerable number of dissenters. The following steps then operate both to check understanding of the different opinions (parameter values), and then to find new parameters in the multi-dimensional parameter space of all possible decisions, through which the consensus failure in one-dimensional parameter space can be replaced by a solution in multi-dimensional parameter space. An alternative, qualitative, mathematical description is to say that there is an iterative process through (m+n)-dimensional parameter space, starting from initial guesses at a solution in (m)-dimensional parameter space, which tries to converge to find a common solution in (m+n)-dimensional parameter space. A criticism of such modeling is that the opinions or agreements are only theoretical, and that the strength or degree of conviction as measured is not closely correlated to the willingness of any given individual to take action. In direct action politics, the consensus is constantly tested by asking those who agree to immediately place their own bodies 'on the line' and in harm's way, to actually demonstrate that they are committed to a consensus. The ecology movement, peace movement, and labor movement have historically required such demonstrations of commitment. Some have disdained any attempt at formal models or methods, but others have prepared extensive documentation on both formal and informal consensus decision-making processes. Typically, the usefulness of formal models of consensus is confined to cases where follow up action is closely and centrally controlled, e.g. in a military hierarchy or a set of similar computer programs executing on hardware that it completely controls. The idea of consensus itself is probably quite different when considering action by a group of independent human agents, or considering action by those taking orders and committed to executing them all without question, or suffering great harm or exile for any disobedience.

Consensus upon a particular formal model of consensus can lead to groupthink, by making it harder for those who reject that formal model (and using informal or different models) to be heard. This recursion suggests the extreme complexity of reasoning about consensus in a political context. An example is the peace movement's objection to the game theory logic of mutual assured destruction during the Cold War. Peace activists, objecting to military goals and spending found the formal models of the military to be major obstacles. As they had not mastered game theory models they simply were not heard.

[edit] In democracy
As this example suggests, the concept of consensus is a particularly important one in the context of society and government, and forms a cornerstone of the concept of democracy. Democracy, in its most essential form, direct democracy, has been criticized by a significant number of scholars since the time of Plato as well as adherents to strict republican principles, and is sometimes referred to as the "tyranny of the majority", with the implication that one faction of the society is dominating other factions, possibly repressively. Others, however, argue that if the democracy adheres to principles of consensus, becoming a deliberative democracy, then party or factional dominance can be minimized and decisions will be more representative of the entire society. This too is discussed in depth in the article on consensus decision-making, with many actual examples of the tradeoffs and different tests for consensus used in actual societies and polities. A major cornerstone of the Westminster System is Cabinet Government. All Cabinet decisions are consensual collective and inclusive, a vote is never taken in a Cabinet meeting. All ministers, whether senior and in the Cabinet, or junior ministers, must support the policy of the government publicly regardless of any private reservations. If a minister does not agree with a decision, he or she may resign from the government; as did several British ministers over the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. This means that in the Westminster system of government the cabinet always collectively decides all decisions and all ministers are responsible for arguing in favour of any decision made by the cabinet. See also: Criticisms of Consensus decision-making.

[edit] Examples within computing

Within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the concept of "rough consensus and running code" is the basis for the standardization process. It has proven extremely effective for standardizing protocols for inter-computer communication, particularly during its early years. In computer science, consensus is a distributed computing problem in which a group of nodes must reach agreement on a single value. Achieving consensus is a challenging problem in distributed systems, particularly as the number of nodes grows or the reliability of links between nodes decreases. "Consensus" may also refer to the Consensus theorems in Boolean algebra.

[edit] Examples of non-consensus

The peer review process in most scientific journals does not use a consensus based process. Referees submit their opinions individually and there is not a strong effort to reach a group opinion.

[edit] Criticism
[edit] Consensus blocking
Critics of consensus blocking often observe that the option, while potentially effective for small groups of motivated or trained individuals with a sufficiently high degree of affinity, has a number of possible shortcomings, notably

Preservation of the Status quo: In decision-making bodies that use formal consensus, the ability of individuals or small minorities to block agreement gives an enormous advantage to anyone who supports the existing state of affairs. This can mean that a specific state of affairs can continue to exist in an organization long after a majority of members would like it to change.[50] The incentive to block can however be removed by using a special kind of voting process.[14] Susceptibility to widespread disagreement: Giving the right to block proposals to all group members may result in the group becoming hostage to an inflexible minority or individual. When a popular proposal is blocked the group actually experiences widespread disagreement, the opposite of the consensus process's goal. Furthermore, "opposing such obstructive behavior [can be] construed as an attack on freedom of speech and in turn [harden] resolve on the part of the individual to defend his or her position."[51] As a result, consensus decision-making has the potential to reward the least accommodating group members while punishing the most accommodating.

[edit] Consensus decision-making

Abilene paradox: Consensus decision-making is susceptible to all forms of groupthink, the most dramatic being the Abilene paradox. In the Abilene paradox, a group can unanimously agree on a course of action that no individual member of the group desires because no one individual is willing to go against the perceived will of the decision-making body.[52] Time Consuming: Since consensus decision-making focuses on discussion and seeks the input of all participants, it can be a time-consuming process. This is a potential liability in situations where decisions need to be made speedily or where it is not possible to canvass the opinions of all delegates in a reasonable period of time. Additionally, the time commitment required to engage in the consensus decision-making process can sometimes act as a barrier to participation for individuals unable or unwilling to make the commitment.[53] However, once a decision has been reached it can be acted on more quickly than a decision handed down. American businessmen complained that in negotiations with a Japanese company, they had to discuss the idea with everyone even the janitor, yet once a decision was made the Americans found the Japanese were able to act much quicker because everyone was on board, while the Americans had to struggle with internal opposition.[54]

[edit] Majority voting processes

Proponents of consensus decision-making view procedures that use majority rule as undesirable for several reasons. Majority voting is regarded as competitive, rather than cooperative, framing decisionmaking in a win/lose dichotomy that ignores the possibility of compromise or other mutually beneficial solutions.[55] Carlos Santiago Nino, on the other hand, has argued that majority rule leads to better deliberation practice than the alternatives, because it requires each member of the group to make

arguments that appeal to at least half the participants.[56] A. Lijphart reaches the same conclusion about majority rule, noting that majority rule encourages coalition-building.[57] Additionally, proponents of consensus argue that majority rule can lead to a 'tyranny of the majority'. Voting theorists argue that majority rule may actually prevent tyranny of the majority, in part because it maximizes the potential for a minority to form a coalition that can overturn an unsatisfactory decision.[57] Advocates of consensus would assert that a majority decision reduces the commitment of each individual decision-maker to the decision. Members of a minority position may feel less commitment to a majority decision, and even majority voters who may have taken their positions along party or bloc lines may have a sense of reduced responsibility for the ultimate decision. The result of this reduced commitment, according to many consensus proponents, is potentially less willingness to defend or act upon the decision.

[edit] See also

Collective intelligence Consensus based assessment (CBA) Consensus democracy Consensus government Consensus theory of truth Contrarian Copenhagen Consensus Decision making Facilitation Facilitation (business) Libertarian Socialism Liberum veto Major consensus narrative Majority rule Nonviolence Participation (decision making) Polder model Social representations Sociocracy Supermajority Truth by consensus Tyranny of the majority Unanimity

[edit] Notes
1. ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus 2. ^ Joseph Michael Reagle, Jr.; Lawrence Lessig (30 September 2010). Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia. MIT Press. p. 100. ISBN 9780262014472. http://books.google.com/books?id=ml7SlTq8XvIC&pg=PA100. Retrieved 10 June 2011. 3. ^ a b http://www.consensusdecisionmaking.org/

4. ^ a b c d Hartnett, T. (2011). Consensus-Oriented Decision Making. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada:New Society Publishers. 5. ^ Rob Sandelin. "Consensus Basics, Ingredients of successful consensus process". Northwest Intentional Communities Association guide to consensus. Northwest Intentional Communities Association. http://www.ic.org/nica/Process/Consensusbasics.htm#Ingredients. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 6. ^ http://www.groupfacilitation.net/Articles%20on%20Meeting%20Facilitation.html 7. ^ Kaner, S. (2011). Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-making. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass. 8. ^ Christian, D. Creating a Life Together: Practical Tools to Grow Ecovillages and Intentional Communities. (2003). Gabriola Island, BC, Canada:New Society Publishers. 9. ^ Richard Bruneau (2003). "If Agreement Cannot Be Reached" (DOC). Participatory Decision-Making in a Cross-Cultural Context. Canada World Youth. p. 37. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20070927025409/http://www.augustana.ca/rdx/bruneau/documents/ PDM+in+an+Intercultural+context.doc. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 10. ^ Consensus Development Project (1998). "FRONTIER: A New Definition". Frontier Education Center. http://www.frontierus.org/documents/consensus.htm. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 11. ^ a b c Rachel Williams; Andrew McLeod (2006). "Introduction to Consensus Decision Making" (PDF). Cooperative Starter Series. Northwest Cooperative Development Center. http://www.nwcdc.coop/Resources/CSS/CSSIntro2Consensus.pdf. Retrieved 2007-01-17.[dead
link]

12. ^ Dorcas; Ellyntari (2004). "Amazing Graces' Guide to Consensus Process". http://www.webofoz.org/consensus.shtml. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 13. ^ a b "The Consensus Decision Process in Cohousing". Canadian Cohousing Network. http://www.cohousing.ca/consensus.htm. Retrieved 2007-01-28. 14. ^ a b c Heitzig J, Simmons FW (2010). Some Chance For Consensus Soc Choice Welf 35. 15. ^ a b c C.T. Lawrence Butler; Amy Rothstein. "On Conflict and Consensus". Food Not Bombs Publishing. http://www.consensus.net/ocac2.htm. Retrieved 2007-01-17.[dead link] 16. ^ "What is Consensus?". The Common Place. 2005. Archived from the original on October 15, 2006. http://web.archive.org/web/20061015105352/http://www.thecommonplace.org.uk/information. php?page=articles&iID=4. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 17. ^ "The Process". Consensus Decision Making. Seeds for Change. 2005-12-01. http://seedsforchange.org.uk/free/consens#proc. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 18. ^ a b Sheila Kerrigan (2004). "How To Use a Consensus Process To Make Decisions". Community Arts Network. http://www.communityarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/2004/09/how_to_use_a_co.php. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 19. ^ a b Lori Waller. "Guides: Meeting Facilitation". The Otesha Project. http://www.otesha.ca/bike+tours/guides/meeting+facilitation.en.html#toc_putting_on_your_fac ilitator_hat. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 20. ^ Berit Lakey (1975). "Meeting Facilitation The No-Magic Method". Network Service Collaboration. http://www.reclaiming.org/resources/consensus/blakey.html. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 21. ^ "How Does the Grand Council Work?". Great Law of Peace. http://sixnations.buffnet.net/Great_Law_of_Peace/?article=how_does_grand_council_work. Retrieved 2007-01-17.

22. ^ M. Paul Keesler (2004). "League of the Iroquois". Mohawk Discovering the Valley of the Crystals. http://www.paulkeeslerbooks.com/Chap5Iroquois.html. Retrieved 2007-01-18. 23. ^ Bruce E. Johansen (1995). "Dating the Iroquois Confederacy". Akwesasne Notes. http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/DatingIC.html. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 24. ^ United Nations (2002). "Consensus Tradition can Contribute to Conflict Resolution, Secretary-General Says in Indigenous People's Day Message". Press release. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/sgsm8332.doc.htm. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 25. ^ David Graeber; Andrej Grubacic (2004). "Anarchism, Or The Revolutionary Movement Of The Twenty-first Century". ZNet. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=4796. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 26. ^ Sanderson Beck (2003). "Anti-Nuclear Protests". Sanderson Beck. http://san.beck.org/GPJ29-AntiNuclearProtests.html. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 27. ^ a b Ethan Mitchell (2006). "Participation in Unanimous Decision-Making: The New England Monthly Meetings of Friends". Philica. http://www.philica.com/display_article.php? article_id=14. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 28. ^ "Error: no |title= specified when using {{Cite web}}". http://www.aecm.be/en/guarantee-societies.html?IDC=34. 29. ^ "Error: no |title= specified when using {{Cite web}}". http://books.google.com/books?id=n3SF58ibuSgC&lpg=PA251&ots=PP_gXfrngs&dq=mutual %20guarantee%20arvut&pg=PA251#v=onepage&q=mutual%20guarantee%20arvut&f=false. 30. ^ Abe J. Dueck (1990). "Church Leadership: A Historical Perspective". Direction. http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?676. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 31. ^ Ralph A Lebold (1989). "Consensus". Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. Archived from the original on March 13, 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20070313044601/http://www.gameo.org/index.asp? content=http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/C6667ME.html. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 32. ^ a b Quaker Foundations of Leadership (1999). A Comparison of Quaker-based Consensus and Robert's Rules of Order. Richmond, Indiana: Earlham College. Retrieved on 2009-03-01. 33. ^ Woodrow, P. (1999). "Building Consensus Among Multiple Parties: The Experience of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission." Kellogg-Earlham Program in Quaker Foundations of Leadership. Retrieved on 2009-03-01. 34. ^ Berry, F. and M. Snyder (1999). "Notes prepared for Round table: Teaching Consensus-building in the Classroom." National Conference on Teaching Public Administration, Colorado Springs, Colorado, March 1998. Retrieved on 2009-03-01. 35. ^ Quaker Foundations of Leadership (1999). "Our Distinctive Approach. Richmond, Indiana: Earlham College. Retrieved on 2009-03-01. 36. ^ Maine.gov. What is a Consensus Process? State of Maine Best Practices. Retrieved on: 2009-03-01. 37. ^ http://www.consensusbook.com/ "Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making: The CODM Model for Facilitating Groups to Widespread Agreement" 38. ^ Ringi-Sho 39. ^ RFC 2418. "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures." 40. ^ "The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force". The Internet Society. 2006. http://www.ietf.org/tao.html. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 41. ^ International Organization for Standardization (September 28, 2000) Report of the ISO Secretary-General to the ISO General Assembly. Retrieved on: April 6, 2008

42. ^ Andrew Updegrove (August 31, 2007). "The ISO/IEC Voting Process on OOXML Explained (and What Happens Next)". http://consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php? story=20070831151800414. Retrieved 2008-09-13. 43. ^ "Color Cards". Mosaic Commons. http://www.mosaic-commons.org/node/44. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 44. ^ Jan H; Erikk, Hester, Ralf, Pinda, Anissa and Paxus. "A Handbook for Direct Democracy and the Consensus Decision Process" (PDF). Zhaba Facilitators Collective. http://www.zhaba.cz/uploads/media/Shared_Path.pdf. Retrieved 2007-01-18. 45. ^ "Hand Signals" (PDF). Seeds for Change. http://seedsforchange.org.uk/free/handsig.pdf. Retrieved 2007-01-18. 46. ^ "Guide for Facilitators: Fist-to-Five Consensus-Building". http://www.freechild.org/Firestarter/Fist2Five.htm. Retrieved 2008-02-04. 47. ^ http://dotmocracy.org Dotmocracy facilitators resource website 48. ^ http://dotmocracy/handbook 49. ^ Saint S, Lawson JR (1994) Rules for reaching consensus: a modern approach to decision making. Pfeiffer, San Diego 50. ^ The Common Wheel Collective (2002). "Introduction to Consensus". The Collective Book on Collective Process. Archived from the original on 2006-06-30. http://web.archive.org/web/20060630154451/http://geocities.com/collectivebook/introductionto consensus.html. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 51. ^ Alan McCluskey (1999). "Consensus building and verbal desperados". http://www.connected.org/govern/consensus.html. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 52. ^ Harvey, Jerry B. (Summer 1974). "The Abilene Paradox and other Meditations on Management". Organizational Dynamics 3 (1): 63. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(74)90005-9. 53. ^ "Consensus Team Decision Making". Strategic Leadership and Decision Making. National Defense University. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ndu/strat-ldrdm/pt3ch11.html. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 54. ^ The World's Business Cultures and How to Unlock Them 2008 Barry Tomalin, Mike Nicks pg. 109 "Consensus or individually-driven decision making" ISBN 978-1-85418-369-9 55. ^ Friedrich Degenhardt (2006). "Consensus: a colourful farewell to majority rule". World Council of Churches. Archived from the original on 2006-12-06. http://web.archive.org/web/20061206132304/http://www.oikoumene.org/en/news/newsmanagement/all-news-english/display-single-english-news/browse/4/article/1634/consensus-acolourful-fa-1.html. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 56. ^ McGann, Anthony J. The Logic of Democracy: Reconciling, Equality, Deliberation, and Minority Protection. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 2006. ISBN 0-472-069497. 57. ^ a b Anthony J. McGann (2002). "The Tyranny of the Supermajority: How Majority Rule Protects Majorities" (PDF). Center for the Study of Democracy. http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=csd. Retrieved 200806-09.

[edit] External links

"Consensus-Oriented Decision Making: The CODM Model for Facilitating Groups to Widespread Agreement" ConsensusBook.com "A Virtual Learning Center for People Interested in Making Decisions by Consensus" ConsensusDecisionMaking.Org

"Articles on Group Facilitation and Consensus Decision Making GroupFacilitation.Net "Consensus Decision Making" Seeds for Change "On Conflict and Consensus." C. T. Lawrence Butler and Amy Rothstein (1987) Food Not Bombs Publishing. Also available in .pdf format "The Formal Consensus Website" Based on work by C. T. Lawrence Butler and Amy Rothstein "Papers on Cooperative Decision-Making" Randy Schutt "One Vote for Democracy" Ulli Diemer "Some Materials on Consensus." Quaker Foundations of Leadership, 1999. Richmond, Indiana: Earlham College. Theory of Consent in a natural order philosophy (from an anarchocapitalistic point of view) Shared Path, Shared Goal a short pamphlet on consensus

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making" Categories: Anarchist theory | Community organizing | Decision theory | Deliberative methods | Evaluation methods | Group processes | Meetings | Organizational studies and human resource management | Working groups | Core issues in ethics Hidden categories: All articles with dead external links | Articles with dead external links from September 2010 | Articles with broken citations | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements from April 2010 | Articles needing additional references from November 2010 | All articles needing additional references | Articles with unsourced statements from July 2008
Personal tools

Log in / create account

Namespaces

Article Discussion

Variants Views Actions Search

Read Edit View history

Navigation

Main page Contents

Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction Toolbox

Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact Wikipedia

What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link Cite this page

Print/export

Create a book Download as PDF Printable version

Languages

Asturianu Deutsch Espaol Hrvatski Italiano Svenska This page was last modified on 2 July 2011 at 00:46. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Contact us

The Definition of NGOs Despite these evident continuities, the final draft of the proposed National Policy on NGOs departs from the system created by the Societies Ordinance in a number of significant respects. For one, the definition of societies under the Ordinance was sufficiently broad to include political parties and to permit political activities, however limited these rights were.1 However, the final draft defines an NGO more narrowly as "... a voluntary grouping of individuals or organisations which is autonomous, nonpolitical ... organized ... for the purpose of enhancing the legitimate economic, social and/or cultural development or lobbying or advocating on issues of public interest or interest of a group of individuals or organisations" (emphasis supplied).2 The key feature of this definition is that, in the document's own words, it "excludes Trade Unions, political parties or religious/faith organisations".3 This point is also emphasized by the consultants whose report appears to have been instrumental in drafting the proposed policy document (see Millinga and Sangale, 7). Only organisations that fit within this definition shall be eligible for registration, while those already registered shall be obliged to conform to this requirement before they are granted a certificate of compliance.4 Policy-making is the central role of city and state legislative bodies. The policies created affect everyone in some way. Public policy determines what services will be provided to the residents and the level of those services, what kinds of development will occur in the community, and what the community's future will be. Policies are created to guide decision-making. Elected councilmembers of cities, towns, and counties have public policy-making responsibilities. County commissioners also set policy, but have an executive role of administering policy as well. Local policy-making is complex, and demands the very best of local officials, something not always available. The public policy-making process is highly decentralized. Policy initiation, formulation, adoption, and implementation involve many interests. It is a fluid process that tends to be "incremental, confused, often disorderly and even incoherent." [Public Policy Making, Washington Style, Bone et. al., p. 4]. And yet, from this, the destiny of a community - the fulfillment of its dreams and aspirations - flow out of the exercise of the policy-making process. This is an overview of the local government policy-making process. It doesn't discuss theories, or the "art and science" of policy-making. It's intended to provide a better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of legislators as policy-makers, e.g., how local public policy is created and how to make the policy-making process more productive and satisfying for citizens. Since confusion or disagreement about policy-making has been a frequent source of conflict for local governments, an important objective of this publication is to help Washington local government officials distinguish between policy and administrative matters. What Is Policy? Formally adopted policy generally takes the form of a governing principle, plan, or course of action. It grows out of a deliberative process, and is adopted by an ordinance or resolution. Legislative bodies make public policy decisions; others perform the administrative task of implementing those policies. The decisions could be the adoption of a vision for the community, a comprehensive plan, a budget, or a policy relating to a specific issue, such as allowing or prohibiting local gambling activities. Policymaking requires political wisdom, diplomacy, and prudence to bring diverse community interests together around a shared purpose (something rare). Policy should include the wise and expedient conduct of management without blurring the line between policy and administration that causes confusion in the roles of elected legislators. Public policy is a combination of basic decisions, commitments, and actions made by those who hold authority or affect government decisions, and should weigh and balance public values. Often there is

no "right" choice or "right" technical answer to the issue at hand. Policy-making is usually an adversarial process, demonstrated by the clash of competing and conflicting interests and viewpoints rather than the impartial, disinterested, or "objective" search for "correct" solutions for policy issues. The larger and more diverse the constituency, the more difficult policy-making becomes, particularly when addressing regional issues. Democracy is usually messy. Since our government is a representative democracy, an effective policymaking process insures that all relevant viewpoints are heard, and that the rights of individuals are protected. That, of course, is when greed and "me" don't enter into the picture.

What is a Non-Governmental Organization?

By Professor Peter Willetts, City University, London Summary
The term, "non-governmental organization" or NGO, came into currency in 1945 because of the need for the UN to differentiate in its Charter between participation rights for intergovernmental specialized agencies and those for international private organizations. At the UN, virtually all types of private bodies can be recognized as NGOs. They only have to be independent from government control, not seeking to challenge governments either as a political party or by a narrow focus on human rights, nonprofit-making and non-criminal. The structures of NGOs vary considerably. They can be global hierarchies, with either a relatively strong central authority or a more loose federal arrangement. Alternatively, they may be based in a single country and operate transnationally. With the improvement in communications, more locallybased groups, referred to as grass-roots organizations or community based organizations, have become active at the national or even the global level. Increasingly this occurs through the formation of coalitions. There are international umbrella NGOs, providing an institutional structure for different NGOs that do not share a common identity. There are also looser issue-based networks and ad hoc caucuses, lobbying at UN conferences. In environmental politics, this occurs in the unique form of the nine "Major Groups", listed in Agenda 21. At times NGOs are contrasted with social movements. Much as proponents of social movements may wish to see movements as being more progressive and more dynamic than NGOs, this is a false dichotomy. NGOs are components of social movements. Similarly, civil society is the broader concept to cover all social activity by individuals, groups and movements. It remains a matter of contention whether civil society also covers all economic activity. Usually, society is seen as being composed of three sectors: government, the private sector and civil society, excluding businesses. NGOs are so diverse and so controversial that it is not possible to support, or be opposed to, all NGOs. They may claim to be the voice of the people and to have greater legitimacy than governments, but this can only be a plausible claim under authoritarian governments. However, their role as participants in democratic debate does not depend upon any claim to representative legitimacy.

Introduction

The term non-governmental organization or NGO was not in general currency before the UN was formed. When 132 international NGOs decided to co-operate with each other in 1910, they did so under the label, the Union of International Associations. The League of Nations officially referred to its "liaison with private organizations", while many of these bodies at that time called themselves international institutes, international unions or simply international organizations. The first draft of the UN Charter did not make any mention of maintaining co-operation with private bodies. A variety of groups, mainly but not solely from the USA, lobbied to rectify this at the San Francisco conference, which established the UN in 1945. Not only did they succeed in introducing a provision for strengthening and formalizing the relations with private organizations previously maintained by the League, they also greatly enhanced the UN's role in economic and social issues and upgraded the status of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to a "principal organ" of the UN. To clarify matters, new terminology was introduced to cover ECOSOC's relationship with two types of international organizations. Under Article 70, "specialized agencies, established by intergovernmental agreement" could "participate without a vote in its deliberations", while under Article 71 "non-governmental organizations" could have "suitable arrangements for consultation". Thus, "specialized agencies" and "NGOs" became technical UN jargon. Unlike much UN jargon, the term, NGO, passed into popular usage, particularly from the early 1970s onwards. Many diverse types of bodies are now described as being NGOs. There is no generally accepted definition of an NGO and the term carries different connotations in different circumstances. Nevertheless, there are some fundamental features. Clearly an NGO must be independent from the direct control of any government. In addition, there are three other generally accepted characteristics that exclude particular types of bodies from consideration. An NGO will not be constituted as a political party; it will be non-profit-making and it will be not be a criminal group, in particular it will be non-violent. These characteristics apply in general usage, because they match the conditions for recognition by the United Nations. The boundaries can sometimes be blurred: some NGOs may in practice be closely identified with a political party; many NGOs generate income from commercial activities, notably consultancy contracts or sales of publications; and a small number of NGOs may be associated with violent political protests. Nevertheless, an NGO is never constituted as a government bureaucracy, a party, a company, a criminal organization or a guerrilla group. Thus, for this article, an NGO is defined as an independent voluntary association of people acting together on a continuous basis, for some common purpose, other than achieving government office, making money or illegal activities. This basic approach will be elaborated and modified below.

NGOs, Interest Groups, Pressure Groups, Lobbies and Private Voluntary Organizations
In discussion of politics within countries, a distinction is often made between interest groups and pressure groups, but it is taken for granted that both types of private groups have an impact upon government policy-making. The term, interest group, is biased towards consideration of groups such as companies or trade unions. Use of the term is unsatisfactory, as it tends to imply that such groups are only concerned with economic policy, that they only act to safeguard their own economic position and that only groups with substantial economic resources can have an impact on politics. None of these propositions is valid. Major economic actors are also concerned with values beyond the accumulation of wealth. At the minimum, they also pursue security and status. At the maximum, they have a wider responsibility towards health and safety, social welfare and environmental values. The term, pressure

group, invokes a wider range of groups. Its use is intended to cover those, such as environmentalists and human rights groups, who are pursuing goals that do not directly benefit themselves. It emphasizes the processes by which groups mobilize support to promote their political values. The contrast between interest groups and pressure groups can be used to suggest a contrast between objective goals and subjective goals and hence privilege the pursuit of economic returns over environmental values and other abstract values. In the United States, a similar distinction is made, with stronger, but different, normative connotations. Mention of a lobby seems to imply the illegitimate use of wealth in a secretive manner, while private voluntary organizations or public interest groups convey a positive image. There is a logical problem with the distinction in that membership of a lobby is both private and voluntary. These terms are also unsatisfactory as the latter two suggest charitable activity and do not readily bring to mind campaigning groups nor those who are concerned with global issues, such as Greenpeace and Amnesty International. "Public interest" appears to cover the general good, in an objective manner, but it is an essentially-contested concept, both with respect to what is "the public" and with respect to identifying "the common interest". One person's view of the public interest may be seen by another person as the assertion of unacceptable values, ideological extremism or special pleading. The distinction between interest groups and pressure groups or between lobbies and private voluntary organizations has no analytical value. All pressure groups or voluntary organizations have some interests to protect, even if it is only the maintenance of their reputation, increasing the number of active supporters and gaining sufficient income to communicate effectively. Altruistic charities use sophisticated public relations campaigns to raise funds and standard lobbying techniques when government taxation policy affects their income. Equally, all interest groups and lobbies are of political importance, precisely because their pressure influences social and political outcomes. They do not necessary operate in a secretive manner in the corridors of power and they do at times seek to mobilize public support. When they engage in political debate, company representatives often argue for general abstract values that go beyond their specific concrete interests. Companies can only challenge the public interest or more precisely public opinion at the risk of damaging their public reputation, their brand values and their income. Many companies more positively promote what is often seen as the public interest. They may donate profits to charitable activities, identify directly with environmental values to benefit from green consumerism or even reduce consumption of energy and raw materials to reduce costs. Trade unions usually go much further than companies in making explicit their endorsement of a wide range of political values. They also allocate money, personnel and other resources to campaigning, both independently and in coalition with other pressure groups. Whatever one might think of these terms from the discourse on politics within countries, they are never used in global politics. Because diplomats like to claim that they are pursuing "the national interest" of a united society, they will not admit to relations with interest groups or pressure groups and they prefer the bland title, non-governmental organizations. The thinking behind the concept of a public interest group has been transferred to some people's attitudes to NGOs. There is a desire to limit access to the UN system to "proper" NGOs, but all this means is that groups supported by the person concerned should be included and other groups excluded. The other terms interest group, pressure group, lobby and private voluntary organization could all be applied legitimately to most NGOs. However, there is mutual connivance in most political processes at the global level to hide behind the uncontroversial catch-all term NGOs. The only significant exception, which is discussed below, is the tendency in global environmental politics to talk about "Major Groups". This sounds more positive, but it is still a vague term, devoid of any direct association with participation in policy-making.

In the logic of the language, there is no difference between a non-governmental organization and a private voluntary organization, but NGO still carries neutral connotations and applicability to a diverse range of political actors, whereas PVO suggests moral approval of a more limited range of groups. In practice, it is impossible to agree any general terms to distinguish praiseworthy from unacceptable groups, either in domestic politics or in global politics, because such a distinction is a subjective choice made on the basis of each observer's own value preferences.

Transnational Actors
In academic study of international relations, the term "transnational" was adopted to refer to any relationship across country boundaries, in which at least one of the actors was not a government. It was adopted in order to deny the assumption that international relations was the same as inter-state relations, or more precisely intergovernmental relations. It came into currency in the 1970s as a result of economic and environmental questions being recognized as a high priority for the global agenda. It is immediately apparent that the academic concept of a transnational actor is quite different from the political concept of an NGO. Firstly, it excludes all NGO activity that is confined to a single country. Secondly, it includes all the other non-governmental actors that have been defined as being outside the world of NGOs. It is commonplace to refer to transnational companies, transnational criminals, transnational guerrillas and transnational terrorists. In global politics, it is rare for any reference to be made to transnational NGOs, presumably because an NGO's involvement in global politics ipso facto makes it transnational.

NGOs and their Independence from Governments

The most difficult question about the independence of NGOs is whether they come under governmental influence. Individual governments do at times try to influence the NGO community in a particular field, by establishing NGOs that promote their policies. This has been recognized by quite common use of the acronym GONGO, to label a government-organized NGO. Also, in more authoritarian societies, NGOs may find it very difficult to act independently and they may not receive acknowledgment from other political actors even when they are acting independently. Beyond these unusual situations, there is a widespread prejudice that government funding leads to government control. In the field of human rights, it would damage an NGO for such a perception to arise, so Amnesty International has strict rules that it will not accept direct government funding for normal activities. On the other hand, development and humanitarian relief NGOs need substantial resources, to run their operational programs, so most of them readily accept official funds. While these NGOs would like the security of a guaranteed budget for their administrative overheads, governments generally only want to support field costs for projects. Nominally NGOs may appear to be independent, when they design their own programs, but government influence can arise indirectly if the program is designed to make it more likely that government grants or contracts will be forthcoming. On the other hand, confident experienced NGOs can appeal for funding for new approaches and in so doing cause government officials to re-assess policy. The best example of this is the way in which NGOs, particularly the International Planned Parenthood Federation, dragged governments into adopting population programs. There is no obvious

method to identify the direction of influence, without detailed knowledge of the relationship between an NGO and a government. Environmental NGOs may have either type of funding relationship. Conservation and research groups may happily obtain government funds to support their programs: some are innovative and some are not. Beyond these situations, radical campaigning groups may be unwilling and unable to attract government funds.

NGOs, Political Parties and Ethnic Minorities

While a political party is not regarded as an NGO and cannot gain recognition at the UN, a small number of transnational groupings of political parties do gain consultative status with ECOSOC. There are also several groups of parliamentarians with consultative status. No problems have arisen with either group, because they have carefully avoided trying to involve the UN in the "internal affairs of states". Human rights NGOs feel aggrieved that the same principle is applied to them, even though one of the purposes of ECOSOC is "promoting respect for, and observance of, human rights". In May 1968, ECOSOC Resolution 1296 (XLIV) specified that NGOs "should have a general international concern with this matter, not restricted to the interests of a particular group of persons, a single nationality or the situation in a single State". While this provision was dropped from the revised text in July 1996, it is still applied in practice. On this basis, the Indian government can block the World Sikh Organization from gaining UN recognition. Christian Solidarity International also lost its consultative status in October 1999 after it had allowed the guerrilla leader, John Garang, to speak on its behalf, at the Commission on Human Rights. The recognition of minority rights is such a complex question that it is handled very differently in different countries. In both North and South America, the minority communities who are descendants of the inhabitants prior to the arrival of the great waves of European settlers are given the privileged title of "indigenous peoples". The term has also been adopted in Australia and New Zealand and a few other countries. On the other hand, governments in various ethnically diverse countries do not wish to accord any special recognition to minorities. The compromise is that the UN refers to indigenous people, as individuals who have rights, and not to indigenous peoples (note the plural). This avoids recognition of any collective identity or any claim to the right of self-determination. The restrictions deriving from Resolution 1296 mean the organizations with consultative status are mainly global or regional coalitions of ethnic minorities. However, special procedures have been adopted in both the Commission on Human Rights and the Commission on Sustainable Development to allow participation by a wider range of indigenous organizations. In addition, in July 2000, ECOSOC established a Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, consisting of sixteen independent experts, half of whom are nominated by indigenous organizations. Through a variety of complex issue linkages, these NGOs can be important in environmental politics, notably in the conservation of rainforests. While they are only present in the UN system under the auspices of the arrangements for NGOs, indigenous people are often keen to claim a unique status that is separate from and superior to the representatives of NGOs. As a result, their alliance with environmentalists does not always operate smoothly.

NGOs and their Relations with Business and Commerce

A few intergovernmental economic organizations do allow an individual company to have access under their provisions for NGOs, but this is only in cases where there are loose ad hoc procedures and there are no formal institutional arrangements. However, as with political parties, non-profit-making federations of companies, established for industry-wide collaboration and to act as lobbies, are widely accepted. From the earliest days of the UN, bodies such as the International Chamber of Commerce, the International Organization of Employers and similar organizations for particular economic sectors have been included among the NGOs. Until the 1990s, they were not of much significance in the UN itself, but they have always been important in the specialized agencies. The more technical the question under discussion, the more the policy-making process will draw on their expertise. One of the outcomes of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the UN Conference on Environment and Development, was to draw companies into global environmental politics and hence more into the work of ECOSOC. Sectoral bodies are prominent when questions such as energy or transport are on the agenda. In addition, issue-oriented commercial grouping have been formed. The most prominent is the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, a successor to various lobbies that focused on the Earth Summit, to promote environmentally friendly business. The oil companies have sound environmental credentials in some forums, but not in others. The Oil Companies International Maritime Forum is making a useful contribution to the reduction of oil pollution at sea, but the Global Climate Coalition opposes reductions in oil consumption. OCIMF is registered as an NGO by the International Maritime Organization, and the GCC is admitted as an observer to the sessions of the Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change. At the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 1999, the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, explicitly called upon companies to widen their social responsibilities by entering into a Global Compact with the UN. Companies that do so agree to endorse nine principles, covering promotion of a set of core values in the areas of human rights, labor standards and protection of the environment. Soon afterwards, global business organizations, several hundred companies and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions responded positively, but only a handful of human rights, environment and development NGOs did so. There remains a deep suspicion among many such NGOs about the possibility of companies implementing commitments to social responsibility. Despite the suspicion of business, some NGOs have chosen to engage directly in collaborative arrangements to formulate and monitor statements of business ethics. This has been done both on an industry-wide basis and with individual companies. For example, WWF (known as the Worldwide Fund for Nature until July 2000) took the lead in forming the Forest Stewardship Council in 1993 and the Marine Stewardship Council in 1996. Each Council works to promote sustainable practices, with participating companies gaining the benefit of having their products endorsed by the NGOs as being environmentally friendly. Similarly, various companies are having environmental and/or social audits undertaken on an annual basis, by independent assessors.

NGOs and the Political Use of Violence

There has been no compromise in any political system with the idea that the use of violence is not a normal part of the political process. In the UN, aggressive behavior by individuals is sufficient to raise the question of suspension of an NGO's consultative status. In the exceptional circumstances where group of guerrillas wish to claim their use of violence is acceptable as part of the struggle against an

oppressive regime, the group does not call itself an NGO. Their supporters call them a national liberation movement, whereas their opponents call them terrorists. Sometimes these groups gain admittance to intergovernmental organizations, as if they were the governments of recognized states. At the UN, they have never been classified as NGOs, but a few have been given a different status, as observers at the General Assembly and at UN conferences. Within individual countries, there are rare examples of the use of violence as a deliberate tactic, by groups that would normally be referred to as NGOs. A clear example is the Animal Liberation Front in the United Kingdom. They are simply regarded as criminals by the government and by the public, including many who support their goals. A commitment to non-violence is the best respected of the principles defining what is an NGO.

Different Types of Structures Among NGOs

There is a great variety of ways in which NGOs are structured. The classic model is of a membership organization, co-ordinated in a geographically-defined hierarchy. Individual people work in local groups, which co-ordinate in provinces and then have a headquarters in the capital city for the country as a whole. Such country-wide organizations are called national NGOs. Frequently, the national NGOs combine in an international NGO, or INGO, which may consist of regional groups of countries and be capped by a global body. Not all the levels of the hierarchy need exist. Many countries are too small to have provincial structures. Smaller specialist NGOs may simply enroll individual members at the national level, without having any local branches. Occasionally, individuals are enrolled at the international level. On the other hand, in large organizations, the international level often seems relatively remote and attracts little attention, even among the NGO's own members. The group running a local family planning clinic does not necessarily know about the work of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) at the UN World Conference on Women in Beijing. Nevertheless, such global organizations with their membership measured in millions do maintain a democratic policymaking process. While some may hold direct elections for key posts at the national level, the responsibility to the membership at the global level is always indirect, via some international council or assembly of national representatives. It should be noted that one of the ambiguities about the term, NGO, is whether it is referring to a local, provincial, national, regional or global body. Until the early 1990s, the matter was generally straightforward in academic, news media or political discussions. The overwhelming majority of local and provincial NGOs never engaged in transnational activities. Thus NGO, by itself, usually meant a national NGO and regional or global bodies were called international NGOs. National NGOs did engage in transnational development and humanitarian activities, but, with very few exceptions, they were not, in their own right, participants in international diplomacy. When they wanted to exercise political influence at the global level, they did so through the appropriate INGO. In the 1990s, there was a great upsurge in local organizations becoming active at the global level, particularly on environmental issues, because of the Rio Earth Summit in June 1992, and on social issues, because of the Copenhagen Social Summit in March 1995. Since then, the term INGO has not been used so much and NGO, by itself, has come to cover both national and international NGOs. As an expression of the new politics, various terms then were popularized to refer to local NGOs. Grass-roots organizations, community based organizations (CBOs), and civil society organizations (CSOs), all came into currency. There is still an ambiguity whether these newer terms cover organizations that only operate at the local level or also include local branches of national organizations. Grass-roots and community

organizations clearly refer solely to the local level, but civil society has connotations of any level within a single country. Indeed, it has become quite common to refer to global civil society. Linguistic usage in the legal atmosphere at the UN used to be somewhat different. When the UN was formed, any involvement of private individuals or groups in its work constituted deviation from the norm of diplomacy being the exclusive preserve of "states". Thus, a national organization, as mentioned in Article 71 of the UN Charter, was any NGO based in a single country. No distinction was made between an organization that covered a large constituency, over the whole country, and an organization based solely in a local community or a small section of the population. The lack of any distinction did not matter, as participation by either country-wide or more limited national NGOs was so rare in the permanent UN organs. Participation began on a small scale in the 1970s at UN conferences, on an ad hoc basis. When the ECOSOC rules were changed in 1996, to admit "national NGOs" to consultative status as a matter of routine, the presumption became that a national organization was a country-wide membership organization or a federation of local groups or an umbrella group, that is a coalition of NGOs operating in different fields. As is common at the UN, practice has not been consistent: a few local NGOs have been admitted as "national NGOs" to consultative status. The Rio conference also produced a term that has only been used in environmental politics at the UN. "Major Groups" refers to a system of categorizing NGOs from all levels, for the purposes of participating in UN policy-making processes. Hereafter, use of NGO alone will imply that any or all levels are included, while local, national or global will be used when the meaning must be restricted to that level. Terms such as CBOs and Major Groups will also be used in the appropriate political context.

Changes in Terminology Covering NGOs

Level of From 1945 to Organisation Early 1990s National NGO, at the UN Not discussed elsewhere National NGO, at the UN Not discussed elsewhere National NGO, at the UN NGO, outside the UN International NGO International NGO Early 1990s Onwards Grass-roots, community based or civil society organization, or local NGO

Local

Provincial (USA - state)

Civil society organization or local NGO

National Regional Global

NGO or national NGO or civil society organization NGO or civil society organization NGO or Major Group or civil society organization

A minority of NGOs conform to the model of a global democratic hierarchy, in which any person may become a member. One variant is for the NGO to have subscribers or supporters, providing income, receiving newsletters and responding to calls for action, but not having any democratic control either over expenditure or over policy priorities for the organization. This is common among altruistic NGOs, promoting social welfare and poverty alleviation, and also among environmental NGOs. Another variant is for a specific status or participation in some activity to be a prerequisite for membership. Thus trade unions are only open to those employed in certain occupations (sometimes very broadly defined). Similarly, professional, scientific and technical bodies are only open to people with the relevant qualification. Such organizations may then be grouped on a functional basis rather than a geographical basis, before they form national and/or international federations. Trade unions do maintain democratic decision-making structures (at least in principle, if not always in practice). However, professional, scientific and technical bodies have professional norms that override democratic norms and members may be expelled for violating the professional norms. A third variant is a religious organization. The major religions do all have complex hierarchies, from the local faith community through to global spiritual authorities. None of them claim to be democratic: authority is based on faith, a holy text, the charisma of individuals or a hierarchical tradition. To some it will be surprising to discuss trade unions, professional bodies and religious organizations as if they are NGOs. Indeed, the leaders of all three will usually deny they are NGOs. Nevertheless, they are treated on the same basis as NGOs throughout the UN system, with the exception of the special place for unions in the International Labour Organisation's tripartite system of governance.

Coalition-Building Among NGOs

Once NGOs do decide to influence public policy, they organize, in broad coalitions, specifically for this purpose. This means there is a large number of NGOs that bear no resemblance to the classic model of a unified hierarchy. Coalitions may take the form of umbrella INGOs, networks or caucuses. In the days when the main form of communication was by mail and even transnational telephone conversations were expensive and time-consuming to arrange, multi-national coalitions generally took the form of institutional structures. Many international women's organizations, the International Council of Voluntary Agencies and the World Conservation Union are examples that date from this era. They are referred to as umbrella organizations, to signify the presence under the single umbrella of a variety of different NGOs that do not share a common identity. In the 1960s, direct transnational telephone dialing was established and air travel became sufficiently cheap for individuals to meet occasionally. Then in the 1970s the news media gradually used satellite communications, so that events in one place were shared around the world as television images. These processes encouraged the formation of looser issue-based networks of NGOs to exchange information, mobilize support and coordinate strategies. At this stage, networks still required some degree of formal organization, with enough resources being raised to pay the salary of a network administrator and associated costs for the paperwork. The International Baby Foods Action Network was the prototype, followed by similar networks on pesticides, rainforests, climate change and other questions. The advent of e-mail and the web in the 1990s then meant that the costs of running a network dropped substantially and individual people could afford to take part in sophisticated instantaneous global communications. The number of networks increased dramatically and they no longer needed any formal structure. Once a lead organization or even a lead individual establishes technical and political communication skills, a

coalition of thousands of NGOs can be formed rapidly and their influence focused on specific targets. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines, the Coalition for an International Criminal Court and Jubilee 2000 are the most spectacular examples. However, the impact of technological change should not be exaggerated. The most effective modern networks still derive their impact from being coalitions of well-organized NGOs. Although communication costs are now minimal, it is still essential to have sufficient resources at the center, even if they are provided by a single member of the network, for at least one person to devote most or all of his/her time to servicing the network. A variant of the global network is a global caucus. This arises when a group of NGOs come together as lobbyists at an international diplomatic event, such as a UN agenda-setting conference or a UN forum for negotiating on the formulation or implementation of a treaty. The caucus will be highly focused on achieving specific outcomes from the diplomatic process. The impression is given that such a caucus is an ad hoc grouping that only exists during the two or three weeks of the relevant diplomatic meetings. It may be accurate that the particular combination of NGOs having the particular political purpose will never meet again. However, a successful caucus will be well prepared and will carry forward procedural expertise, substantive knowledge, political status and diplomatic contacts gained in one forum through to the next forum, handling similar questions. Key organizations and key individuals provide continuity. Women's organizations and environmentalists are among the most successful operating in this way. When we consider something as loose and transient as a caucus, it is perhaps inappropriate to call it an organization. Nevertheless, structured umbrella coalitions, networks and caucuses are all handled in the same way by governments. In the UN system, all transnational actors have to accept the label "NGO", in order to participate. They may be present under the label of the coalition or of its constituents or through both routes. Umbrella INGOs have consultative status and networks usually are listed, but caucuses rarely have any formal recognition. Coalitions that focus on policy outcomes in a particular country or a particular intergovernmental organization will tend to take the form of an umbrella organization. Coalitions that focus on issues tend to take the form of a network or a caucus, with different members being active in different policy forums. In global environmental politics, there is a unique set of caucuses the system of "Major Groups". The term was adopted at the Earth Summit, when Agenda 21 devoted one of its four sections to "Strengthening the Role of Major Groups". The preamble argued that "one of the fundamental prerequisites for the achievement of sustainable development is broad public participation in decisionmaking" and this must be done as a "real social partnership" with "individuals, groups and organizations". The aim was for the UN to move beyond the traditional reliance on the established NGOs, in two ways. Communication must reach down to individuals at the level of local communities and particular sectors of society of importance for the environment must be mobilized. The section devoted separate chapters to nine Major Groups, under the following headings.

Global action for women towards sustainable and equitable development Children and youth in sustainable development Recognising and strengthening the role of indigenous people and their communities Strengthening the role of non-governmental organizations: partners for sustainable development Local authorities' initiatives in support of Agenda 21 Strengthening the role of workers and their trade unions Strengthening the role of business and industry

Scientific and technological community Strengthening the role of farmers.

The choice of these nine groups was the arbitrary and incoherent outcome of negotiations at UNCED. It was influenced by the personal concerns of Maurice Strong and by the lobbying of NGOs who were accredited to the conference. It is arbitrary to single out women but not men; the young but not the elderly; indigenous people but not other minorities; unions but not professional associations; business and industry but not commerce, finance and services; natural scientists but not social scientists; and farmers but not fishing communities. It is anomalous, but understandable, to emphasize one level of government, local authorities, when they have responsibility for all the Major Groups. Above all it is incoherent to have NGOs as one of the Major Groups, when all the other eight (including associations of local authorities) are represented in the UN system via the ECOSOC "arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organizations". This incoherence arises because many in the other Major Groups did not wish to be labeled as NGOs and there had to be a category to encompass environment and development NGOs. In the Commission on Sustainable Development set up after the Earth Summit, special arrangements were made to allow for participation by all the new groups that had engaged with the UN for the first time at Rio. Any NGO that had been accredited for UNCED was allowed to apply for Roster NGO status at sessions of the CSD and later was given a special fast-track procedure for gaining full status with ECOSOC. Although the CSD is constitutionally a standard subsidiary body of ECOSOC, it has developed its own procedures for relating to NGOs. Rather than each NGO attempting to exercise its participation rights separately, the NGOs are organized into the nine Major Groups from Agenda 21. These categories are used both by the NGOs in their own caucusing and in the formal proceedings. In addition, the CSD has gone beyond the normal consultative arrangements to hold various types of formal, and informal, panels and seminars. Notably, each of the annual sessions starts with the appropriate Major Groups making presentations in special "stakeholder dialogues" on the different substantive agenda items for that year. In pragmatic terms, the illogicality of having NGOs as one of the nine groups of NGOs serves a useful function, in enabling any organization that does not fit elsewhere to be included. This Major Groups system has only operated in the CSD and in other processes that have been derived from UNCED.

The Geographical Spread of NGOs

It used to be widely argued that NGOs were predominantly a feature of Western societies. This false proposition was derived from a mixture of ignorance, Western presumptions of their superiority in the Cold War and nationalist rhetoric from authoritarian regimes. All societies in modern times have had large numbers of NGOs at least at the local level. Under the most authoritarian regimes or in the least developed countries there are still self-help co-operative groups, community welfare associations, religious groups, professional and scientific associations, sports and recreational bodies, etc. Even Romania during the dictatorship of President Ceaucescu was host to the International Federation of Beekeepers' Associations. The presence or absence of a democratic political culture is one of the major variables determining the number of NGOs, but the size of a country, its ethnic, religious and cultural diversity, the complexity of its economy and the quality of its communication infrastructure are also of crucial importance. Thus there are tens of thousands of NGOs in countries such as Bangladesh and India, while there are relatively few in Iceland or Finland.

A particular source of controversy is the idea that the major NGOs are "Northern". Many people are still trapped by the mental prejudice that organizations have to be situated in geographical space. It might be a practical necessity for an international NGO to have a headquarters office in a particular building, but the location of the office in a North American or a European city does not convert a global NGO into a Northern NGO. Equally, the historical origins of an organization being formed in a particular country does not mean it is currently a Northern rather than a global organization. The proper criteria for assessment whether an organization is global are the location of its membership, the staffing of its headquarters, the sources of its funding and the content of its programs. An organization, such as Amnesty International, with 56 National Sections, groups in some 40 other countries, an International Secretariat from over 50 countries and an African Secretary-General is a global NGO, even if it started in Britain and has its headquarters in London. Due to the spread of democracy and the improvements in communications, many international NGOs that started in individual countries became global at the end of the twentieth century.

Types of NGO Activities

Much as observers wish to gain greater understanding by defining different categories of NGOs, it is not possible to do so. We may distinguish different activities, but specific NGOs will often change the balance of the activities they pursue. The most common distinction is between operational and campaigning NGOs. This may be interpreted as the choice between small-scale change achieved directly through projects and large-scale change promoted indirectly through influence on the political system. Operational NGOs have to mobilize resources, in the form of financial donations, materials or volunteer labor, in order to sustain their projects and programs. This process may require quite complex organization. Charity shops, staffed by volunteers, in premises provided at nominal rents and selling donated goods, end up providing finance to the national headquarters. Students in their vacations or during a break in their education provide labor for projects. Finance obtained from grants or contracts, from governments, foundations or companies, require time and expertise spent on planning, preparing applications, budgeting, accounting and reporting. Major fund-raising events require skills in advertising, media relations and motivating supporters. Thus, operational NGOs need to possess an efficient headquarters bureaucracy, in addition to the operational staff in the field. Campaigning NGOs will carry out much the same functions, but with a different balance between them. Fund-raising is still necessary, but on a smaller scale and it can serve the symbolic function of strengthening the donors' identification with the cause. Persuading people to donate their time is necessary, but, in addition to a small number of people giving a great deal of time, it is also necessary to be able to mobilize large numbers for brief periods. External donors may not impose onerous administrative burdens, but supporters still have to be supplied with information on an efficient regular basis. Major events will aim to attract favorable publicity rather than raise funds. Therefore, despite their differences, both operational and campaigning NGOs need to engage in fund-raising, mobilization of work by supporters, organizing special events, cultivating the media and administering a headquarters. Only the defining activities implementing projects or holding demonstrations serve to differentiate them. In reality, the distinctions are not as sharp as the labels suggest. Operational NGOs often move into campaigning when projects regularly face similar problems and the impact of the projects seems to be insufficient. All the large development and

environment operational NGOs now run some regular campaigns, at least by supporting campaigning networks. Similarly, campaigning NGOs often feel they cannot ignore the immediate practical problems of people in their policy domain. Human rights NGOs and women's NGOs end up having programs to assist the victims of discrimination and injustice. Various other types of NGOs can be regarded as promoting change by variants on these two primary functions. Research institutes have special forms of operational programs, in which the goal is to increase knowledge and understanding. They range across a spectrum from those promoting an academic, non-political image to those collating and disseminating information for campaigning purposes. Professional bodies, trade unions, recreational groups and associations of companies provide program activities required by and for their members, but they may also campaign to enhance the economic interests and the status of their organizations. These categories and several others have some practical value for everyday discourse, but they do not provide the basis for an analytical classification of NGOs. The most effective way to distinguish between NGOs is to obtain precise data on a range of different variables. The number of full-time employees, the number of members and the funding of the annual budget give measures of the size of any NGO. Opinion poll data on recognition of and support for an NGO or its goals, along with the frequency of positive mentions in the news media, give measures of its political strength. There are also more subjective variables, such as the professional skill, knowledge and experience of the personnel, that matter for both operational and campaigning purposes.

NGOs, Social Movements and Civil Society

Among some political activists, there is a tendency to see organizations, particularly hierarchical organizations, as conservative and oppressive. As a result NGOs may be seen as part of the established order. This view is enhanced by the fact that prominent NGOs may have a long history, complex structures, technical literature and a leadership who engage more with global politics than with their members or supporters. Thus at times NGOs are contrasted with the 'new social movements'. These can be portrayed as dynamic, innovative and non-hierarchical. The idea of a movement simultaneously invokes two dissimilar ideas: the political impact of mass action, by very large numbers of people, and the role of the individual person, independently making his/her own voice heard. The oldest example is the labor movement, going back to the nineteenth century. Since the 1960s, there have been references to the new social movements, such as those for peace, women's rights, development, the environment and anti-racism. They were 'new', partly because they were not based on class divisions and partly because new methods of mass mobilization became possible. In December 1999, a higher level of aggregation, into a diffuse and incoherent coalition, was recognized as the anti-globalization movement, when mass demonstrations disrupted the Seattle Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization. In practice, the conservative/radical contrast between NGOs and social movements cannot be sustained. There are both conservative and radical NGOs and many other shades of political opinion along the spectrum. There are some writers, including some academics, who refer to 'progressive' social movements, as if all social movements were progressive. This ignores the existence of reactionary social movements, such as neo-fascists and racists, who cannot be distinguished from other movements by any objective criteria.

Furthermore, NGOs should not be contrasted with social movements, because NGOs are essential components of social movements. If an idea is to catch the imagination of people, it has to be articulated by leaders through speeches, pamphlets or visual images. If the idea is going to reach large numbers of people, resources have to be mobilized and allocated to communication processes. If demonstrations are to occur, they have to be organized. If a movement is to achieve change, priorities have to be selected and targets designated. If a protest lasts more than a few days to become a movement, existing organizations or new organizations will provide the skeleton that transforms an amorphous mass into a strong body. This is not to say that social movements are composed solely of NGOs. A social movement consists of a range of organizations who collaborate for some common purpose that is sufficiently compelling to generate a sense of collective identity, along with all the people, within and outside the organizations, who identify with the common goals and the collective identity. Thus, a social movement is more than a coalition of NGOs and less than society as a whole. In the 1990s, four mutually-reinforcing processes of change led to emphasis on the concept of civil society. There was an explosion in global communication facilities; the new forms of private association, from transnational community organizations to networks and caucuses, were recognized; the fall of communist regimes in Eastern Europe and military regimes in developing countries promoted participation in the new democratic systems; and the major UN conferences produced an unprecedented scale of global public engagement with intergovernmental events. In addition, the secretariats of the UN and other intergovernmental organizations sought to overcome the crises generated by the unilateralism of United States administrations and the failure of Congress to deliver US financial obligations, by appealing to global civil society as a source of legitimacy for international co-operation. The simplest, most common, meaning given to "civil society" is all public activity, by any individuals, organizations or movements, other than government employees acting in a governmental capacity. In the broadest sense, it encompasses all social, economic, cultural and political relations, but the emphasis is usually on the political aspects of these relations. Thus, it can be used in reference to any level from the local to the country as a whole, or even global interactions. It also clearly goes beyond traditional NGOs to all forms of networks, caucuses and movements. As a result, it serves as a political tool for all those who want to promote innovative, wider and deeper levels of political participation. Unfortunately, civil society is also imbued with contradictory and contested meanings. In contrast with the paucity of civil society activities in former authoritarian regimes, it is sometimes implied that civil society is in opposition to government. However, academics who adopt the "critical theory" approach of Habermas take the opposite view. They see civil society as integrated with the state in maintaining bourgeois hegemony in capitalist societies. This approach is virtually unknown outside non-academic circles. A second confusion is whether civil society includes or excludes the economic activities. For some, civil society encompasses everything except government, but for others there are three quite separate realms: government, civil society and the economy. On the basis of the former assumption, the United Nations used the term civil society to express its desire to strengthen its relations with both companies and NGOs. The result was furious protests from those NGOs who blame companies for social exploitation, poverty and environmental degradation. In particular, they were most upset to find the UN website providing links to its relations with both business and NGOs from a single civil society web page. (The protests did lead to the UN adopting a wording that separated business from civil society.) Lastly, as with several other terms, some people wish to see civil society solely in a positive light and exclude actors of whom they disapprove. Not only criminals and drug dealers, but also "reactionary" NGOs, are occasionally referred to as "uncivil society". Despite these

various problems, civil society is a useful way of going beyond the traditional NGOs and referring to all the ways in which diverse non-governmental actors are mobilized. Nevertheless, it is necessary to be explicit on whether economic actors are being included or not.

In Conclusion
The discussion so far might appear to imply that all NGOs are politically active. This is obviously not the case, irrespective of the political situation or the issue under consideration. At any specific point in time, an NGO may have little contact with those who are not members. On the other hand, a change in society that is salient to the group can motivate an introspective NGO to engage in sustained political action. It is certainly not true that all NGOs are active in global politics. It is not even true that all NGOs attempt to influence politics at the country level, in the narrow sense of direct engagement in the debate over public policy. However, politics may also be seen, more broadly, as the process by which any set of people reaches a collective decision. This means that attempts by an NGO to mobilize individuals and change their personal behavior, to win support from a religious group or a trade union, or to articulate their values in the news media are all forms of political action. Legal systems may classify raising money for purposes such as poverty alleviation, disaster relief or environmental conservation as non-political, but the legal distinction between charitable and political activity is always based on an arbitrary, illogical and controversial definition of politics. Many NGOs will not see themselves as engaging directly in public policy, but their activities are always a social expression of values. Hence, NGOs are very likely to be political in the broadest sense of affecting social discourse and can often have an indirect effect on politics in the narrow sense of shaping public policy. The point of this debate about terminology is to emphasize that NGOs are not just well-meaning, uncontroversial, non-political groups. Furthermore, there is no difference between the role of NGOs in domestic and in global politics. At both levels, they are diverse, controversial and of major political significance. The impact of a particular NGO may vary across time and place, and from one issue to another, but collectively NGOs generate the dynamics of political change. We have seen that there is often an assumption that NGOs are operating for the general public good or even that they are "progressive". However, there is such diversity to the values advocated by different NGOs that they oppose each other, as well as putting pressure on governments and companies. Many women's NGOs oppose religious NGOs on questions of sexual and reproductive behavior. Hunters, farmers and fishing communities oppose animal rights groups. Environmental and development NGOs have different perspectives on sustainable development from each other. Many radical NGOs are hostile to reformist NGOs who accept incremental change. It is not logically possible for anybody to support all NGOs nor indeed to be hostile to all NGOs. Many government leaders express quite hostile attitudes to NGOs, even in some democratic societies. In as much as this is a general sentiment, it is irrational. There are particular factors that explain the irrationality. Firstly, the increased impact of NGOs has caused resentment among those whom they criticize. Secondly, the claim by some NGOs that they are the "voice of the people" and hence have greater legitimacy than governments is deeply offensive to government officials. As they are quick to point out, it is also a ludicrous claim. Thirdly, the violence and the extreme revolutionary and/or nihilistic attitudes associated with some of the participants in a series of anti-globalization demonstrations, starting at Seattle in 1999, diminished the status of the other NGOs at the demonstrations. In some circles, there was even a generalized negative impact upon NGOs from the

terrorist attacks upon New York and Washington in September 2001. Nevertheless, virtually all government leaders, in both domestic and global politics, including those who have expressed hostility, will work with NGOs when they expect the most active NGOs to be allies, in support of their current political goals. There is often confusion about the role of NGOs in democratic political processes. Denial of their democratic legitimacy arises when democracy is simply reduced to the right to take part in governmental decision-making. Clearly, on this limited basis, NGOs cannot claim a greater legitimacy than elected governments. Many NGOs themselves do not have democratic procedures within their own organizations and many only represent a small number of people. Even the minority of NGOs that elect their leaders, have conferences to decide their policies and have millions of members, still have no basis to claim a right to take decisions on behalf of society as a whole. These arguments were obscured in the 1970s and 1980s when many NGOs significantly expanded their membership and their activities. In this period, more governments were authoritarian than democratic. Under regimes that are communist, feudal, fascist, military dictatorships or corrupt oligarchies it might be reasonable to claim NGOs are more representative of society as a whole, but such regimes have become the exception in a world of democracies from the 1990s onwards. However, a wider view of democracy totally legitimizes the role of NGOs. Democracy is not just the holding of elections every four or five years. It is also the continuous process of debate, in which the legislature, the political parties, the media and society as a whole put questions on the political agenda, formulate alternative policy proposals and criticize the policy of the government. On this basis, any NGO has a right to participate, however large or small and however representative or unrepresentative of a particular sector of society it may be. Indeed, in both domestic and global politics, policy-making could not be democratic without the active participation of NGOs. Nevertheless, their legitimate role in sustaining an independent civil society does not give them any right to supplant the role of governments.

Notes
1. Article 70 The Economic and Social Council may make arrangements for representatives of the specialized agencies to participate, without vote, in its deliberations and in those of the commissions established by it, and for its representatives to participate in the deliberations of the specialized agencies.
Return to text

2. Article 71 The Economic and Social Council may make suitable arrangements for consultation with nongovernmental organizations which are concerned with matters within its competence. Such arrangements may be made with international organizations and, where appropriate, with national organizations after consultation with the Member of the United Nations concerned.
Return to text

Bibliography

B. Arts, M. Noortmann and B. Reinalda (eds.) (2001), Non-State Actors in International Relations, (Aldershot: Ashgate). [An unusual, diverse range of essays from different disciplines, ten of which are theoretical, four on international policy-making and four on country-level questions.]* Chiang Pei-heng (1981), Non-Governmental Organizations at the United Nations. Identity, Role and Function, (New York: Praeger). [An important early study of the origins and operation of the consultative arrangements in ECOSOC.]* M. Edwards and J. Gaventa (eds.) (2001), Global Citizen Action, (Boulder: Lynne Rienner). [A major collection of essays on global issue-based networks.] J. Fisher (1998, Nongovernments. NGOs and the Political Development of the Third World, West Hartford: Kumarian Press). [A study that is focused on NGOs and the development process within countries.]* J. W. Foster with A. Anand (eds.) (1999), Whose World is it Anyway? Civil Society, the United Nations and the Multilateral Future, (Ottawa: United Nations Association in Canada). Also published in French as Un Monde pour tout le Monde. La Socit Civile, Les Nations Unies et l'Avenir des Relations Multilatrales. [An analysis of the role and possible future directions for NGOs in global governance, prepared for the World Civil Society Conference, Montral, December 1999.] D. Humphreys (1996), Forest Politics. The Evolution of International Cooperation, (London: Earthscan). [The authoritative study of international negotiations on forests in the FAO, the International Tropical Timber Organisation and in the UN, from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. Throughout this work, NGOs are demonstrated to be integral to the political processes.] D. Josselin and W. Wallace (eds.) (2001), Non-State Actors in World Politics, (Houndmills: Palgrave). [A diverse collection of essays on major actors, experts and networks, predominantly rooted in British academic writing on International Relations and the impact of NGOs upon states.]* J. McCormick (1995), The Global Environmental Movement, (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons). [A substantial empirical study of NGOs and their interactions, set in a broad political context.] M. K. Meyer and E. Prgel (eds.) (1999), Gender Politics in Global Governance, (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers). [An important source to compare and contrast a much older, more successful movement with the environmental movement.]* P. J. Nelson (1995), The World Bank and Non-Governmental Organizations. The Limits of Apolitical Development, (New York: St. Martin's Press and Houndmills: Macmillan Press). [Argues that, despite their engagement with the Bank, NGOs have been unable to achieve substantial institutional change or challenge the Bank's technical apolitical approach to development.]* R. O'Brien, A. M. Goetz, J. A. Scholte and M. Williams (2000), Contesting Global Governance. Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). [The output from a major research project comparing the impact of social movements on the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO.]

T. Princen and M. Finger (1994), Environmental NGOs in World Politics. Linking the Local and the Global, (London: Routledge). [Combines a sociological approach to theorizing, with rich case-studies on the North American Great Lakes, the ivory trade, Antarctica and the 1992 Rio conference. The conclusion provides stimulating innovative analysis, but overstates the special role of environmental NGOs.] T. Risse-Kappen (ed.) (1995), Bringing Transnational Relations Back In. Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). [An important contribution to debate about the nature of the international system, from the perspective of the United States International Relations academic community.]* C. Rootes (ed.) (1999), Environmental Movements. Local, National and Global, (London: Frank Cass). [A diverse set of materials, primarily from a sociological perspective.] A. Thomas, S. Carr and D. Humphreys (eds.) (2001), Environmental Policies and NGO Influence. Land Degradation and Sustainable Resource Management in Sub-Saharan Africa, (London: Routledge). [A set of specialist case-studies on country-level campaigns in Africa, with one chapter on the desertification convention negotiations.] T. G. Weiss and L. Gordenker (eds.) (1996), NGOs, the UN and Global Governance, (Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner). [A set of case-studies, set within an analytical framework, across a broad range of types of UN activities.] P. Willetts (ed.) (1996), 'The Conscience of the World'. The Influence of Non-Governmental Organizations in the UN System, (Washington: Brookings Institution and London: Christopher Hurst). [A set of case-studies on UN institutions, NGO lobbyists and the interactions between them.] * The UNESCO Encyclopaedia of Life Support Systems requested a limit of ten bibliographic citations. The seven books marked above with asterisks are important for a wider perspective on NGOs, but were considered less useful for the general reader interested in environmental politics.

Glossary
Agenda 21 A document adopted by UNCED as a program of action on sustainable development for all sectors of government and society in each country. Caucus A term derived from politics in the USA, meaning a group of people who meet together to devise a common political strategy. CBO Community-based organization. Civil society

A complex contested term, usually referring to all people, their activities and their relationships that are not part of the process of government. It may also be used to cover all processes other than government and economic activity. Consultative status The arrangements specified in three resolutions of ECOSOC in 1950, 1968 and 1996, whereby NGOs may be given the right to participate in ECOSOC and all its subsidiary bodies. For the text of the current version of the ECOSOC statute for NGOs, Resolution 1996/31, click here. CSD UN Commission on Sustainable Development, reporting to ECOSOC, the most important intergovernmental policy-making body on environmental questions. Its influence is through the impact on the policy of governments. It has no programs of its own. CSO Civil society organization. ECOSOC Economic and Social Council of the United Nations: one of the 'principal organs' specified in the UN Charter and the body to which NGOs are accredited. INGO International non-governmental organization. Major Group One of a list of nine categories of NGOs specified in Agenda 21. National NGO An NGO based in one country. It is a misnomer as most countries are multi-national, but use of this standard term cannot be avoided. Network A coalition of NGOs and/or individual people, at the minimum sharing information and at the maximum devising a common political strategy. Use of the term implies the relationships are loose and informal. Social Movement A large number of people who challenge established social norms and express themselves through a variety of forms of mass social and/or political action. Transnational Any relationship across country boundaries, in which at least one of the actors is not a government. Most commonly applied to companies, but only when they go beyond trade, to own or control branches, subsidiaries or affiliates in more than one country. Umbrella group A coalition of NGOs operating in different fields, in a more formal, structured arrangement than a network.

UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 3-14 June 1992, held in Rio de Janeiro: popularly know as the Earth Summit.

Author Biography
Peter Willetts has a personal chair as a Professor of Global Politics at City University, London. He has written two books on the Non-Aligned Movement, two books on NGOs and many articles or book chapters both on NGOs and on aspects of the UN system. In 2000, he was funded for two years by the UK Department for International Development to study what procedures might provide formal participation rights for NGOs at the IMF and the WTO. Source: City University, London, UK

Return to the Documents Page Comments and suggestions: Hari Srinivas - hsrinivas@gdrc.org