Let’s talk about…social movements

Scenes fom a workshop

Tags: Worldwide , Civil Society Building
Additional tags: Social movement dynamics workshop

What characterises social movements? Why are they relevant? How to support a movement that is, by its very nature, fluid and changeable? Does financial support to one organisation or group within a social movement strengthen the movement as a whole, or does it lead to division? These were among the key quesitons that brought together Hivos, the Institute of Social Studies (ISS) and PSO on the 9^th of June 2010 to explore the challenges Northern NGOs face in supporting social movements. Representatives of the South Indian Adivasi Federation, Slum Dwellers International, a Southern staff member of MCNV, and interested staff from VSO, TIE, Schorer Stichting, Mensen met een Missie, Mama Cash, HIVOS, Interface for Cycling Expertise, and a number of ISS students were brought together to discuss the issues.

 

What characterises social movements? Why are they relevant? How to support a movement that is, by its very nature, fluid and changeable? Does financial support to one organisation or group within a social movement strengthen the movement as a whole, or does it lead to division? Does the Northern need to channel funds through NGOs distract committed activists with reporting and accounting requirements? And given the aid chain as it exits today, with all its weaknesses, how can we still try to support legitimate movements for change that give a voice to the voiceless? These were some of the questions faced by those taking part in the workshop.

 

The ISS students, most from developing countries themselves and in The Hague for a Development Studies Master Program, offered sharp counter-questions and comments to those posed by Northern participants. As one participant noted, ‘it was thought-provoking to have input from the field, more institutionalised donors and academics’.

Factors for success and possible pitfalls of social movement support were explored by examining three cases: the Indian Adivasi Movement, the Slum Dwellers Movement and the Lesbian, Gay, Trans- and Bisexual (LGBT) movement in Peru.

 

Father Antonysamy from India illustrated how the Adivasi tribal peoples’ movement in Southern India has been successfully supported by Mensen met een Missie. The latter supports the movement indirectly through an Indian NGO. According to father Antonysamy, part of the success of this support can be attributed to the character and the role of the Indian NGO: it is a activist rather than a classic NGO; they have established a long term commitment to the communities and are willing to accompany their process; moreover, there are little reporting and accounting obligations. The Indian NGO focuses on empowerment of the Adivasi people through legal work on their rights. By doing so they stimulate the members of the movement to voice their needs and claim their rights for basic services in local political spaces.

 

Clearly, Mensen met een Missie made a choice when deciding to support the social movement through this particular Indian NGO. As a consequence, their support has to be long term and their role complementary. They have stimulated and facilitated contacts between Adivasi groups in various regions and provide legal background information and training. This way of cooperating has indeed strengthened the movement, both in size as well as in terms of their political agenda.

 

Nico Keijzer explained the approach of Slum Dwellers International, an NGO that is part of the Slum Dwellers movement. This NGO was established by the movement itself and forms the contact point with the ‘formal’ aid system and policy makers. It serves the needs of the wider and varied international movement and prevents the movement itself being weakened or disrupted by accounting requirements of divisive funding. In this approach the formal and informal worlds are symbiotic, with the informal world leading. Support from the formal NGO facilitates contact between countries and offers both non-financial, and financial support.

 

Marten van den Berge shared his experiences with and studies of the lesbian, gay, bi- and transsexual (LGBT) movement in Peru. This is an extremely diverse movement with a wide variety of strategies, aims and political colours. Marten explained that by funding one particular type of group, often in urban settings, donors have created greater division within the movement. Since funders were mainly interested in more ‘professional’ groups to support, unwittingly they seemed to have chosen urban, gay groups. The role of rural or lesbian groups in the movement as a whole has suffered as a consequence. The emerging findings from Marten’s research also suggest that the movement both gains and loses from outside support. Increasing international donors support enables the movement to grow, but the attached formalities also seems to negatively affect activism. More transparency on the interests and needs of funders might have forestalled some of the antagonism this one-sided funding created. A clear example of possible pitfalls in supporting social movements.

The day closed with Kees Biekart, lecturer at ISS, and facilitator of the lively discussions, naming a number of issues of interest for further discussion. For example, what are other, non-financial, resources we could use to support social movements? And NGO support to a movement needs to be longer term and commitment should be to the movement’s process and choices, instead of to the interests and needs of the donor (i.e. how can donors participate in the process of movement?). Also, often we ‘know’ things, but continue to do the same and repeating the same mistakes. What does it take to ‘learn’? And last but not least, when talking about social movements, we are talking about power. Is there really a common interest or shared cause within a movement, and if so, what is it? When supporting social movements the power issue can’t be ignored.

 

Most people left inspired: ‘I was particularly inspired by the honest and deep reflections on relationships, strategies, agendas and lessons learned’ said a Southern participant. Another participant felt that ‘all was inspiring, but many questions have come up that should be explored further!’. And someone sighted that ‘the dilemmas were very well addressed, but solutions hard to find…. I realise how complicated these things are and how difficult it is to come with general answers.’