Is the Non-governmental Sector a Reflection of the Government?
During my training, I do not hear much about non-governmental or third sector in Japan. When I ask about the participatory aspect of the decision-making process in the public sector, it seems like, besides governmental agencies, and government-affiliated institutions, the only other stakeholders are university professors and business (association) leaders. My understanding is that the government itself requests input from the academia and the business community (on economic development policies), and then makes the best-informed decisions which are subsequently followed by citizens and businesses. Excluding universities, it looks like the non-governmental sector is either weak or inexistent in Japan. Yet, the Japanese society is highly organized, democratic and developed.
In Moldova, development of the non-governmental sector has been highly encouraged, particularly by the donor community. Everyone has created or wants to establish a non-governmental organization. The focus is frequently on the non-governmental part rather than on organization part. As long as you are not with the government, you can be a hero! I think this attitude is responsible for today’s situation in which we have a weak government, weak opposition, and a weak civil society. None is good (visionary, professional, honest, creative) enough to do a proper job in any sector.
Moldova might want to look at Japan’s model: the government is in the center of decision-making, but for high-quality and informed decisions, it relies on the academic (scientific) and private sectors. Even in the case of the highly decentralized American society, all three sectors (public, non-profit and private) are moving (undoubtedly, with much more debate) in the same direction.
Comments:
This is a very interesting observation about the passivity of civil society in Japan. I'd rather say, Moldova needs to get "in-between" American and Japanese model on involving civil society in governance. None of the extremes is good enough to keep a constant balance. And unfortunately - none of the two sides, government or non-government organizations can govern alone. I think donors in Moldova not only encourage appearance of new NGOs, they at times push the process. As a result - the pride of a village of 3000 residents is creation of 20 NGOs, and not implementation of 20 projects.
I am almost asking myself - may be Japan would be a more valuable donor for Moldova rather than the arsenal of Western donors? It is a little overwhelming for a country like Moldova in 15 years to step from no democracy into "full democracy". Isn't that why we are still in the "transition" period after 15 years of struggle? America has built its democracy in over 200 years, and we wanted to do it overnight… Civil society is not about creating NGOs, it is rather about creating an environment where society feels motivated to action, whether associated in formal organizations or volunteer societies.
I also praise the involvement of academia and science in solving government’s issues. Bravo them! (Japan). Isn’t it why they have the most advanced technologies in the world? Moldovan science and academia exist on a separate island, very much isolated from the ‘white house”…
Unfortunatelly, we don't get to choose the donors. Donors choose their beneficiaries according to their priorities and interests - whatever they may be.
The question is not so much who is the donor, but rather what lessons and practices Moldova is able to learn from the donors. For example, Romanians improved their governance practices after being "pushed" by USAID and EU with the "carrot and stick" approach. So, basically, it boils down to the need for a country to to "do its homework."