MEKEZ-DIŞI ÜLKELERDEKİ ULUSÖTESİ SİVİL TOPLUM KURULUŞLARI (STK): DIŞ POLİTİKA, FİNANSMAN VE MEŞRUİYET

Öz

Transnational nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are more and more becoming more important in the globalized world. These influencial NGOs in various platforms such as the United Nations can easily organize around the world and become effective in local politics. However, this is not a flawless situation. This study elaborates why the NGOs cannot be immune from some of the main problems that hinder their effectiveness, particularly NGOs in peripheral countries are taken into account. First, the NGOs operating in peripheral countries are under the influence of official or unofficial institutions that provide funding for their cause. Donors expectations do not always overlap with those of receivers, limiting their effectiveness. Second, dependence on foreign donations and the lack of transparency in their sources also negatively affect the place in local politics. Third, related to the previous two and combined with local cultural values, NGOs experience the problem of legitimacy in peripheral countries

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), globalization, legitimacy, funding, foreign politics

MEKEZ-DIŞI ÜLKELERDEKİ ULUSÖTESİ SİVİL TOPLUM KURULUŞLARI (STK): DIŞ POLİTİKA, FİNANSMAN VE MEŞRUİYET

Öz

Soğuk savaş sonrası ortaya çıkan küreselleşmiş dünyada ulus-ötesi sivil toplum kuruluşlarının (STK) önemi giderek daha da artmaktadır. Birleşmiş Milletler dahil bir çok platformda etkin olabilen bu STKlar, gelişen iletişim teknolojisi sayesinde dünyanın her yanında kolaylıkla örgütlenebilmekte ve yerel siyasetlerde etkili olmaktadırlar. Ancak bu sorunsuz bir durum değildir, özellike merkez-dışı ülkelerdeki STK’lar dikkate alındığında. Bu çalışmada, bu tür STKların daha etkin olmalarını engelleyen bazı temel sorunlardan kurtulamadıkları tartışılmaktadır. Birincisi, merkez-dışı ülkelerde faaliyet gösteren STKlar, doğal olarak kaynak sağlayan merkez ülkelerdeki sivil veya resmi kuruluşların etkisi altında kalmaktadırlar. Bağışta bulunanların beklentileri yerel ihtiyaç öncelikleriyle her zaman çakışmaması nedeniyle etkileri sınırlı kalabilmektedir. İkincisi, dış bağışlara bağımlılık ve onların kaynağının şeffaf olmaması da yine STKların yerel siyasetteki yerini olumsuz etkilemektedir. Üçüncüsü, diğer ikisiyle de bağlantılı olarak ve yerel kültürel değerlerle de birleşerek STKlar, merkez-dışı ülkelerde meşruiyet sorunu yaşamaktadırlar

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sivil toplum kuruluşları (STK), küreselleşme, meşruiyet, finansman, dış politika

Kaynakça

1. Ahrne, Göran. 1998. ‘‘Civil Society and Uncivil Organizations’’, Real Civil Societies içinde, derleyen Jeffrey C. Alexander, London: Sage Publication.
2. Alexander, Jeffrey C. (der.) 1998. Real Civil Societies. London: Sage Publication.
3. Awad, Ibrahim. 1997. “The External Relations of the Arab Human Rights Movement.” Arab Studies Quarterly 19(1): 59-75.
4. Ayse Kadioglu. 2005. “Civil Society, Islam and Democracy in Turkey: A Study of Three Islamic Non-Governmental Organizations.” The Muslim World 95(1):23-41.
5. Bach, Jonathan & David Stark. 2002. “Innovative Ambiguities: NGOs’ Use of Interactive Technology in Eastern Europe.” Studies in Comparative International Development 37(2): 3-23.
6. Başkaya, Fikret. 2005 ‘‘Sivil Toplum ve Sivil Toplum Kuruluşları Söylemi’’, http://www.stgp.org/makaleler/sivil_toplum.pdf (Makaleye 01/07/2005 tarihinde ulaşılmıştır.)
7. Batliwala, Srilatha. 2002. “Grassroots Movements as Transnational Actors: Implications for Global Civil Society.” Voluntas 13(4): 393-409.
8. Bell, Daniel A & Joseph H Carens. 2004. “The Ethical Dilemmas of International Human Rights and Humanitarian NGOs: Reflections on a Dialogue Between Practitioners and Theorists.” Human Rights Quarterly 26(2): 300-329.

9. Chandhoke, Neera. 1995. State and Civil Society : Explanation in Political Theory, London: Sage Publications.
10. Clark, Ann Marie. 1995. “Non-Governmental Organizations and their Influence on International Society.” Journal of International Affairs 48(2): 507-525.
11. Colas, Alexandro. 2002. International Civil Society, Malden: Polity Press,
12. DeBardeleben, Joan & John Hannigan (eds.) 1995. Environmental Security and Quality after Communism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
13. Mary Keegan Eamon. 2004. “Digital Divide in Computer Access and Use between Poor and Non-Poor Youth.” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYZ/is_2_31/ai_n61568 15/print
14. Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of the History and the Last Man, New York: Macmillan.
15. Gamson, William A. 1990. The Strategy of Social Protest, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
16. Gellner, Ernest. 1994. Conditions of Civil Liberty: Civil Society and Its Rivals, New York: The Penguin Pres.
17. Gomez, James. 2005. “International NGOs: Filling the ‘Gap’ in Singapore’s Civil Society.” Sojourn 20(2): 177-207. İndirilme Tarihi: 7 Şubat 2006.
18. Hemment, Julie. 2004. “The Riddle of the Third Sector.” Anthropological Quarterly 77(2): 215-41.
19. Huntington, Samuel P. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.
20. nsel, Ahmet. 2004. ‘‘Sivil Toplum, STK’lar ve Gönüllülük’’ (Söyleşi)
21. http://stk.bilgi.edu.tr/docs/a_insel_st_stk.pdf.
22. Janoski, Thomas. 1998.Citizenship and Civil Society, New York: Cambridge University Pres.
23. Keyman, Fuat. 2004. ‘‘Türkiye’de ve Avrupa’da Sivil Toplum’’, Söyleşi, http://stk.bilgi.edu.tr/docs/F_Keyman_tr-avrupa.pdf.
24. Krafchik, Warren. ‘‘Can Civil Socity Add Value to Budget Decision- Making? A Description of Civil Society Budget Work.” http://www.internationalbudget.org/resources/library/civilsociety.pdf. İndirilme Tarihi: 7 Şubat 2006.
25. Lam, Janice H. 2006. “The Rise Of The Ngo In Bangladesh: Lessons On Improving Access To Justice For Women And Religious Minorities.” The George Washington International Law Review 38(1): 101-130.
26. Madison, G.B. 1998. The Political Economy of Civil Society and Human Rights, London: Routledge.
27. Martens, Kertsin. 2002. “Mission Impossible? Defining Nongovernmental Organizations.” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 13(3): 271-85.
28. Mason, Michael. 2004. “Representing Transnational Environmental Interests:New Opportunities for Non-Governmental Organisation Access within the World Trade Organisation?” Environmental Politics 13(3):566-589.
29. McAdam, Doug & David Snow. 1997. “Social Movements: Conceptual and Theoretical Issues.” Ss. xviii-xxvi. Social Movements: Readins on Their Emergence, Mobilization and Dinamics. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing.
30. Mertig, Angela G. & Dunlap, Riley E. 2001 “Environmentalism, New Social Movements, and the New Class: A Cross-national Investigation.” Rural Sociology 66(1): 113-36.
31. Orjuela, Camilla. 2005. ‘‘Dilemmas of Civil Society Aid: Donors, NGOs and the Quest for Peace in Sri Lanka’’, Peace and Democracy in South Asia , Vol.1, No.1.
32. Pfeiffer, James. 2004. “Civil Society, NGOs, and the Holy Spirit in Mozambique.” Human Organization Washington 63(3): 359-72.
33. Pichardo, Nelson. A. 1997. “New Social Movements: A Critical Review.” Annual Review of Sociology 23: 411-30.
34. Raniger, Luis. 1998. ‘‘Civil Society, Patronage and Democracy’’, Real Civil Societies içinde, derleyen Jeffrey C. Alexander, London: Sage Publication.
35. Rohrschneider, Robert & Dalton, Russell J. 2002. “A Global Network? Transnational Cooperation among Environmental Groups.” Journal of Politics 64(2): 510-33.
36. Schecter, Darrow. 2000. Sovereign States or Political Communities? Civil Society and Comtemporary Politics, Manchester: Manchester University Pres.
37. Seligman, Adam B. 1992. The Idea of Civil Society. New York: The Free Press.
38. Smith, Jackie. 1998. “Global Civil Society?” American Behavioral Scientist 42(1): 93-107.
39. Tarrow, Sidney. 1994. Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action, and Politics. Cambridge University Press.
40. Teegen, Hildy, Jonathan P Doh, Sushil Vachani. 2004. “The Importance of Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) in Global Governance and Value Creation: an İnternational Business Research Agenda.” Journal of International Business Studies 35(6): 463-83.
41. Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1966 (ilk basım 1835). Democracy in America. Eds. by J.P. Mayer and M. Lerner. New York: Harper & Row. (1999 Amerika’da Demokrasi, Yetkin Yayınları).
42. Townsend, J.G. & A.R. Townsend. 2004. “Accountability, motivation and practice: NGOs North and South.” Social & Cultural Geography 5(2): 271-284.
43. Trentmann, Frank (Der.). 2000. ‘‘Introduction’’, Pardoxes of Civil Society içinde, New York: Berghahn Boks.
44. UNCTAD. 2004.Development and Globalization : Facts and Figures.
45. Warkentin, Craig & Mingst, Karen. 2000. “International Institutions, the State, and Global Civil Society in the Age of the World Wide Web.” Global Governance 6(2): 237-55.
46. Webster, Paul. 2003. “Global Fund Approves Grants to Fight HIV/AIDS in Russia.” The Lancet 362(9397): 1729-31.
47. Zaidi, S.A. 1999. “NGO Failure and the Need to Bring Back the State.” Journal of International Development 11:259-271.
48. 1 Bu çalışmada, ‘merkez ülkeler’ ibaresi özellikle Avrupa ve Kuzey Amerika’da yer
49. alan gelişmiş ülkeleri, ‘merkez-dışı’ ülkeler ibaresi ise diğer bütün ülkeleri
50. kastetmek için kullanılmıştır. Merkez-dışı ülkeler yerine kimi zaman da ‘diğer’
51. kavramı tercih edilmiştir.