Critical Analysis of USAID Study
Ian A. Jorgeson (iaj2550@jeeves.la.utexas.edu)
Tue, 24 Oct 1995 00:13:30 -0500
Under the Clinton administration, the U.S. Agency for International
Development has as one of its prime directives the promoting of democracy
in foreign nations. Whether this means assisting election watch groups in
the Czech republic, or attempting to bring about drastic changes in
Indonesia’s government, seems to matter little to the project planners at
U.S.A.I.D. The first question they had to answer was how best to foster
democracy in other nations. Looking at the United States they realized
that a key to democracy there is civil society. They then made the obvious
conclusion that one way to promote democracy is by promoting civil society
organizations in these nations. To this end, A.I.D. published a study
evaluating it’s current projects affecting civil society, and proposing new
directions for the agency to take in order to promote democracy. In this
study, civil society is defined as inhabiting "the area between individuals
(or families) and the state, and is made up of associational groupings of
all sorts. (pg. 4)" Civil society is composed of civil society
organizations (CSOs) "which can be defined as a non-governmental
organization (NGO) that has as one of its primary purposes influencing
public policy. (pg. 5)" The study goes on to advocate the use of A.I.D.
funds to promote CSOs in foreign nations. Helping these CSOs, the study
proposes, will strengthen civil society, and thus foster democracy, and
democratic reform.
There seems to be several major problems with this hypothesis.
First of all, this implies a strict cause and effect relationship between
civil society and democracy. A strong civil society will make a strong
democracy, AID seems to be saying. However the relationship between
democracy and civil society is much more complex. The two are intertwined.
Civil society does help foster democracy, but at the same time, democracy
is what allows civil society to flourish. The two must grow together.
AID’s concept suffers from the same fallacy that Putnam’s did when he
stated that a strong economy is caused by a strong civil society.
A second problem with AIDs findings is the idea that the
expenditure of funds is sufficient to create a strong civil society in
regions where it has never before existed. AID never considers that other
culture might not be as receptive to civil society, for whatever reason,
as the U.S. What AID doesn’t realize is that no amount of money will be
sufficient to create civil society in regions where the populous is
unreceptive to it. True civil society is greater than the sum of its
individual CSOs, which is all that AID can affect through simple
expenditure of funds.
Finally, there is a moral problem to be addressed. Assuming that
AID can help create a strong civil society in a nation through support of
CSOs, and this strong civil will foster democracy, is this even a course
we would wish to pursue. Although phrased in polite and technical terms,
Edward Said would be quick to agree that AID’s plan smacks of U.S.
imperialism. Past experiences have often shown that even when U.S.
programs work exactly as planned, the countries in which these programs
were carried out often felt hostility to perceived U.S. meddling. Also,
this implies that democracy is somehow the ‘best’ form of government for
every culture. This is an incredibly bold, Eurocentric statement that I
for one am not willing to make.
-----------
Remote host: slip-49-5.ots.utexas.edu