[CivilSoc] Do Gender Programs Work?

[Moderator]

The following item is reprinted courtesy of
RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC
________________________________________________________
from RFE/RL (Un)Civil Societies
Vol. 4, No. 4, 13 March 2003
DO GENDER PROGRAMS WORK? The Western democracy assistance programs most
criticized and even ridiculed locally--yet most-promoted
internationally--are gender programs to promote women's empowerment and
rights. Faced with regional governments increasingly intolerant of reform,
international officials reach for gender workshops as a "soft option"
involving a seemingly nonchallenging topic, although the governments have no
real intention of implementing the Western ideas. Hence the skepticism
towards women's programming from nongovernmental activists, especially those
from civic and political movements with broader concerns. A growing body of
scholars are also now re-examining notions impelling Western aid programs,
as the winds of democracy are no longer at the backs of citizens' movements
in Eastern Europe, and ominous reversals from the rise of extremism to
increasing unemployment have become more visible. They are finding that
quantifying the number of dollars spent or NGOs created does not indicate
whether a qualitative, effective civil society has been created that will
make a lasting difference, especially on a difficult subject like women's
equality.
In "Designing Governance: Western Aid and Civic Development in Contemporary
Russia," Professor Sarah Henderson, a political scientist at Oregon State
University, surveys 200 groups in Russia, many funded by private foundations
as well as Western governments. She found half of those surveyed received
foreign donors' aid which increased their activism, organizational capacity,
and networking among the funding groups--although the purpose and impact
remained elusive and beyond the scope of her work. Most groups were
preoccupied with survival, economic dislocation, unemployment, or other
issues that don't fall within the Western notion of "women's rights," such
as the Committees of Soldiers' Mothers campaigns to protect sons in the
military from rampant abuse. Henderson found that older groups, some formed
from the remnants of official Soviet-era bodies, "remain isolated from
Western assistance" and "younger groups have been more successful" in
attracting international aid, especially those willing to focus solely on
women's issues as understood in the West. Most groups don't have offices or
equipment or the luxury of salaries. More than 60 percent used volunteer
labor.
In "The Power and Limits of NGOs: A Critical Look at Building Democracy in
Eastern Europe and Eurasia" (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992),
editors Sarah Mendelson, of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at
Tufts University, and John Glenn, a visiting scholar at New York University,
say foreign donors have had trouble getting beyond a "ghetto" of activists
who "interact mainly with their transnational partners." In comparing case
studies in Eastern Europe and Eurasia from their own and colleagues' work
presented in the volume, they say "Western NGOs have played a large and
important role in the 'design' and 'building' of institutions associated
with democratic states. These same strategies used by NGOs, however, have
had minimal impact on how these new institutions actually 'function.'"
Western NGOs serving as the implementors of private and public donors'
projects focus on short-term, identifiable objectives rather than long-term
support for infrastructure and overhead, says Patrice McMahon, an assistant
professor of political science at the University of Nebraska, who studied
women's groups in Poland and Hungary. McMahon found a tendency of "Western
NGOs to set the agenda in these countries by establishing or funding
organizations that may appeal to U.S. or Western European constituencies but
not necessarily the home country's population." The "inability of many
women's NGOs to attract significant followers suggests that Western NGOs
have done a poor job of ensuring that institutions become embedded in
domestic society," says McMahon, who contrasts them with the more extensive
grassroots efforts of the Network for East-West Women, which unites 2000
activists in 40 countries by combining both imported and domestic ideas for
more successful outreach. McMahon writes of a first-hand experience common
to civil-society watchers--seeing "impressive modern offices equipped with
the best technology but...devoid of both staff and agenda;" a function, says
McMahon, of some donors' reluctance to dump failing groups in which they
have already invested heavily as well as an unwillingness by others to go
beyond seed money.
Some of the women interviewed in these studies said that Western attention
paid to issues like the trafficking of women tended to serve the interests
of international NGOs rather than those of local ones, and that groups
desperate for support would contort themselves to adjust to
Western-generated issues and even neglect local needs. Infighting and
jealousy were also unintended consequences of Western funding strategies
that tended to single out certain groups over others, based on donor values
and interests. With funding and interest in the region of Central Europe
waning and some marginalization of Western-oriented movements, women's
groups in Poland and Hungary will be forced to rely more on their own
resources and work more with domestic government, political parties, and
social groups, says McMahon. To counter public disdain for Western-inspired
agendas, McMahon believes NGOs should get involved with local and national
politics. Yet the restrictions contained in U.S. tax regulations would limit
the ways in which American groups could become identified with any campaign
for legislative change or for specific candidates or parties.
In another chapter in "The Power and Limits of NGOs" titled "Evaluating
Western Assistance to Russian Women's Organizations," James Richter,
associate professor of political science at Bates College, argues that
Western assistance has strengthened the nonprofit sector but has not helped
civil society--and may have even hurt it. He acknowledges that donors seem
to be responding to some of the criticism of their grantees and scholars,
i.e. the Ford Foundation has cut back on grants to identifiably feminist
NGOs and switched to finance gender studies in education and microfinancing
of women's small businesses as well as legal aid for victims of domestic
violence. Richter does not suggest that borrowed strategies are themselves
negative, citing a Russian domestic violence hotline modeled after a Swiss
service that saves lives. Ultimately, says Richter, the greatest obstacle to
the success of women's programs "remains the profound resistance to feminism
in contemporary Russian society." Regrettably, "Western assistance actually
has widened the distance between the Russian women's movement and the rest
of society by creating a cadre of professional activists involved in their
own networks," he says. Campaigns that succeeded in Western democracies to
change national legislation on issues like domestic violence have failed in
Russia and elsewhere in the region. More limited and successful campaigns of
regional movements to gain seats on councils and attention to
bread-and-butter issues "depends mostly on the personalities in charge of
local government, the personalities in charge of local women's
organizations, and the connection between the two"--an insight that might
well apply to most civil-society efforts in the transitional states.
Although not contemplated by scholars as an intended or unintended
consequence of gender programs, one of the most tangible boons of Western
donor assistance has been to provide employment and resources for women in
the nonprofit sector, whether in specifically women's groups or other kinds
of civic organizations. Richter argues that despite the drawbacks and lack
of depth to these Western-funded movements, support of advocacy for women's
rights in a hostile environment and independence from the state gained
through affiliation with transnational movements are still worthy goals.
Rather than a message to donors to withdraw their support, Richter's and
others' research indicate the need for even longer-term support of women
with more involvement of grantees in decision-making and more encouragement
to reach beyond themselves to broader constituencies.
(Compiled by Catherine A. Fitzpatrick)
*********************************************************
Copyright (c) 2003. RFE/RL, Inc. All rights reserved.
"RFE/RL (Un)Civil Societies" is prepared by Catherine Fitzpatrick on
the basis of reports by RFE/RL broadcast services and other sources.
It is distributed every Wednesday.
Direct comments to Catherine Fitzpatrick at catfitzny at earthlink.net
For information on reprints, see:
http://www.rferl.org/requests/
Back issues are online at http://www.rferl.org/ucs/