The "state approach" to the study of international non-governmental organizations in modern political science

Gurkovskii Aleksandr Andreevich Postgraduate student; Department of International Relations, Political Science and World Economy; Pyatigorsk State University 357532, Russia, Stavropol Territory, Pyatigorsk, Kalinin Ave., 9 gurkovskiy-93@mail.ru

Introduction and relevance

Formally, a non-governmental organization (NGO) today refers to an organized group of people who do not directly represent any government, do not engage in criminal and violent activities, and do not seek profit and political power ^{[17, p. 31]}. It is argued that such organizations are free from direct government control, operate in the legal field, and differ from commercial structures and political parties ^{[5, p. 4]}. However, such statements are increasingly being questioned, especially when it comes to international non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

If an international governmental organization (IGO) is made such by the participation of two or more States in it, then the MNPO is an international activity. Based on this, an NGO is a non–governmental organization whose activities cover two or more States. It is not the nature of the founders that makes a non-governmental organization international, but the breadth of its activities, the territorial activity parameter ^{[1, p. 282]}.

For a long time, the number of MNPOS increased, their functions and space of activity expanded ^{[11, p. 1]}. Gradually, states and their leaders realized that the capabilities and resources of MNPOS could be useful for the realization of certain national interests. The ongoing attempts to instrumentalize INPOS, observed today on the world stage, actualize the topic of this article.

Materials and methods

The empirical base of the research underlying this article consists of reports and reports of MNPOS, databases of companies and institutions involved in accounting for MNPOS, materials from domestic and foreign QMS, various political and legal documents, data obtained by the author in the course of his professional activity.

The study applied the provisions and conclusions of theories related in one way or another to the activities of modern MNPOS, transformations and directions of such detail: the theory of network interaction of MNPOS ^[9], the theory of transcalar activity of MNPOS ^[12], the theory of the structural limits of the strength of MNPOS ^[14]. Various classifications of analytical interpretations of MNEs were also used, which made it possible to prove and justify the importance and potential of the so-called "state approach" in MNES research.

Approaches in the research of international non-governmental organizations

An analysis of the relevant scientific literature shows that by now there are three main approaches in the research of INPOS ^{[4, p. 76-79]}, which can be called "cosmopolitan", "national" and "state".

According to the "cosmopolitan approach", MNPOS are formed independently to implement the globalist agenda. Created on the basis of global, transnational norms and principles, they are seen as cosmopolitan actors that are not rooted in any particular country or place. Sharing established values and following the developed discourse, MNPOS, from the standpoint of this approach, are engaged in solving global problems, looking for allies not in states, but in non-state actors. On the one hand, MNPOS protect the autonomy of various societies from the encroachments of "repressive" states, exerting an upward influence. On the other hand, they try to force states to comply with certain global norms beneficial to societies, thereby exerting a downward influence ^{[8, p. 1-8]}.

If, from the point of view of the "cosmopolitan approach", MNPOS have cut ties with their national origins and gone beyond the national organizational base, then from the point of view of the "national approach" their nature is still more determined by national factors than by the international context. Proponents of the "national approach" in the research of the MNPO believe that instead of a single global civil society, there is a set of national civil societies that periodically contact each other. As a result, MNPOS are not cosmopolitan, but national actors responding to all kinds of challenges, depending on national origin. NGOs are regulated by national laws and regulations, funded by national donors, and their strategies are based on internal political opportunities ^{[15, p. 13-14]}.

The "national approach" in MNPO research is similar to the "state approach". Two statements serve as a kind of foundation for the "state approach". First, the effectiveness of MNPOS is determined not by their independence, but by strict accountability to donor States. Secondly, INPOS are not created independently, based on independent regulatory and professional standards, but externally in order to realize the interests of donor States. According to this approach, States act as patrons, and MNOs act as agents who solve the tasks of patrons. MNPOS are subordinate actors who adhere to the mission and interests of their "leaders". Of course, NGOs can, as the proponents of the "state approach" admit, try to free themselves from the influence of states, but this will, as it is claimed, be nothing more than a deviation from the norm.

Thus, the main argument of B. Thomason's dissertation research is that the donation of "political aid" and "promotion of democracy", which the United States is engaged in through the MNPO, is subordinated to the interests of the American elite, as well as to the economic and military interests of Washington. American organizations for the "promotion of democracy", as B. Thomason proves, often commit and encourage anti-democratic and sometimes, in cases of geopolitical necessity, illegal acts of aggression contrary to their declared principles, in particular the principle of impartiality towards democratic competitors in a particular target country ^{[16, p. 9]}.

Critical analysis of international non-governmental organizations

About 10 years ago, scientists began to wonder more and more often whether the MNPOS serve certain states, whether they act as a kind of agents of their donor states. Most of the conclusions of the first studies conducted on this topic were that public financing does not increase the effectiveness, legitimacy and responsibility of NGOs, but only jeopardizes their activities, making them dependent on external forces ^[3]. It was emphasized that NGOs, of course, help not only the countries indicated to them by donor states, but their motives are far from normative goals ^[10], often their activities take place where the donor state conducts military intervention or provides assistance through government channels.

The current international environment is not conducive to the independent activity and development of INPOS. The conditions for the existence of a global civil society have deteriorated significantly in recent years, due to the tightening of restrictive State policies towards NGOs, financial uncertainty and difficulties in ensuring security. Today, NGOs are justly criticized for their lack of legitimacy, for the lack of internal democracy, for their inability to maintain high standards of transparency and responsibility, for inefficiency and inflexibility, as well as for counterproductive results. At the same time, there is a growing awareness that NGOs are far from universal progress in their goals.

NGOs associated with States often demonstrate counterproductivity in strengthening civil society, the latent nature of their activities and a low level of legitimacy.

Many cases show that NGOs, acting in target States, weaken rather than strengthen local civil society to a greater extent. By generously funding local civil society organizations, they initially strengthen them and develop their potential. However, after some time, the civil society sector is noticeably weakening, since recipient organizations are so strengthening ties with foreign donors that they cannot act otherwise than as simple agents of their patrons. In other words, instead of a strong civil society, including influential and independent organizations, a certain professional sphere is being formed, inaccessible to most local groups and compromised by cooperation with foreign structures that often promote destructive ideology.

Previously, MNPOS supported local groups and individuals, demanding from them instead actions that directly challenge leaders and regimes. Currently, most of the support is provided by groups and individuals who are able to ensure the implementation of more technical, more hidden and less confrontational programs. At the same time, the fact remains unchanged that many MNPOS function as agents of their patron states ^{[2, p. 41]}.

The preferences, rules and institutions specific to the patron States have the greatest influence on the activities and behavior of the MNPO. Opinions that MNPOS are altruistic, noble, deeply principled organizations capable of eliminating political mistakes and failures are increasingly recognized as overly optimistic. NGOs often hide their real priorities, which differ from the priorities that make up their mission. An equal sign is often drawn between the real priorities of NGOs and the priorities of their patron States, making it difficult to assess their humanitarian and other activities. They may abandon goals highly valued in society in favor of those that more accurately correspond to the preferences of their patron states ^{[7, p. 733]}.

For MNPOS, their legitimacy is a key asset. Compared to states and corporations, MNPOS have fewer levers of influence (they do not have military coercive tools and huge financial resources) and do not have a formal status in world affairs. As a result, they can have a more or less significant impact only when they are perceived by legitimate actors. NGOs, as a rule, gain legitimacy, and with it the opportunity to exert influence, when they successfully convince various audiences that they are acting appropriately, protecting public interests and guided by moral principles ^[13].

Currently, the level of legitimacy of INGO has generally decreased, as indicated by many studies. Indeed, MNPOS often violate State sovereignty by protecting human rights or the environment, and represent an unelected elite that promotes undemocratic agendas. Also, many of them have become too professional and large structures, no longer focused on challenging the status quo. Realizing this, MNPOS are now trying to improve their activities by taking many new initiatives.

Quasi-MNPO

The "state campaign" allows for the existence of so-called quasi-NGOs, which are created by states in order to perform a particular range of tasks that they, the states, cannot or do not want to perform ^{[6, p. 267]}. Such organizations turn out to be more preferable agents for States than autonomous NGOs, since they are easier to integrate into the government structure, they are much less likely to challenge the power hierarchy and value their own reputation much more. Quasi-MNPOS are supposed to be able to perform quite complex tasks with a minimum level of political and economic costs and risks, as well as successfully promote a preferred ideology.

States sometimes use quasi-MNEs as a means to determine the prospects for a particular policy course. They allow States to maintain legitimacy by acting as a "test site". If the course launched by quasi-NGOs provokes a negative reaction and criticism, then states can easily distance themselves from them and this course. If it provokes a positive response, then States, emphasizing their role, can count on a high level of trust and support.

Conclusion

Thus, the "state approach" in the research of INPOS has not yet received due attention, but it has analytical productivity and value from the point of view of political science. Currently, a number of signs prove that many MNPOS act as agents of certain states, which are interpreted as so-called patrons. Such signs include: "conspiracy" (support for more hidden and less confrontational programs that do not directly challenge leaders and regimes), "adaptability" (abandoning attempts to replace public services and encouraging citizens to demand governments as bearers of responsibilities), "grassroots control" (transition from employee-led activism to activism led by supporters), "geographical shift" (the transfer of part of its activities from the Global South to the countries of the Global North).