Do a search on Google for National Endowment for Democracy and you’ll find a whole lot of stuff written about the topic, most of it negative. This wonderful website: The International Endowment for Democracy, which comes with the great tagline “Supporting democracy in the country that needs it most – the USA,” has some brilliant pieces exposing this organisation, describing it as a Trojan Horse and Philanthropic Imperialism. The bottom line is that if you need to find out about the truth regarding this institution, the information is out there.
But for those who couldn’t be bothered clicking through the links, what is it all about?
Like any other product which seems too good to be true, National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has a swanky name, a name designed to sound almost infallible in its purity. It removes itself from the possibility of criticism because it is promoting democracy (which we all know and love) and it’s being endowed out of generosity.
NED was founded in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan to “foster the infrastructure of democracy – the system of free press, unions, political parties, universities”. The historical context of the time was that the CIA was reeling from a number of disturbing allegations of subversive and even criminal activity. Latin America was controlled by a few dictatorships that the CIA had played a major role in instituting, but this system was unsustainable as it was becoming increasingly hard to keep under wraps. Reagan needed a way to control the countries within Latin American, and as a result, NED was born.
Allen Weinstein, one of the founders of NED who helped draft the legislation for its formation, made no bones about this fact in a 1991 interview with the Washington Post:
“A lot of what we do today was covertly done 25 years ago by the CIA.”
The NED is a non-profit organisation which administers grants to other NGOs in the pursuit of democracy. This concept of “democracy”, which is entirely US-defined, is promoted all over the world. Half of the funds allocated go to four major NGOs, whose very names give away the true intent of this endowment:
1) The American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS), which has been accused of advancing the USA’s foreign policy objectives and agitating in Venezuala and Haiti,
2) The Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), whose stated aim is the promotion of private enterprise and free-market reform, something which is clearly in the best interests of North American corporations,
3) The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), which aims to promote democracy throughout the world and has been accused of being the global wing of the Democratic Party,
4) The International Republican Institute (IRI), which has been criticised for helping to overthrow democratically elected leaders in Haiti, and for training right wing political parties in Poland – hardly bipartisan activity. It has also been seen as the global wing of the Republican Party and is chaired by Senator John McCain.
The NED is a non-government organisation, which means that it can be truly bipartisan, according to its website. However, the $135.5 million that it receives yearly is almost entirely funded from the US Congress via the Department of State, which makes impartiality rather difficult. The remainder of its funding comes from private corporations such as major oil companies and defence contractors, corporations which ultimately benefit from NED’s grants. Furthermore, one has to ask this: even if it is a bipartisan organisation (in that it serves the interests of both the Republican and Democratic parties), does it serve the interests of the people in the countries where democracy is being promoted? Or is it just US foreign policy dressed up as a form of US foreign aid?
As development workers, we should be well aware of the dangers of hegemony. In my previous post, I described the ability of world leaders to attribute meanings to words such as “terrorist”, which are entirely individually defined. However, the use of these words have become so commonplace in politics that the connotations associated with them have become almost universal, and hence, the hegemonic views of a few are spread throughout society. In the same way, democracy has many meanings to different groups of people, and there are some inherent dangers in one country attempting to spread democracy throughout other nations.
Just as importantly, NED shows us that not all foreign aid is good aid. We saw that recently with the well-publicised project to send a million T-shirts to Africa. Being an effective development worker means putting the community you are trying to help at the centre of the project, and not imposing your own views on them, no matter how well intentioned they are. Unfortunately, National Endowment for Democracy does just the opposite – it promotes democracy for many, but it is democracy that is defined by a few.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Great post. It's an interesting point that they way organizations are named – ie with the well-loved word "democracy" in the title – make them appear to be difficult to criticize.
Great post Weh.
I heard a comedian or commentator once say that the number of buzzwords in their title is directly proportional to the amount you should distrust a government/organisation. For example Democratic Republic of the Congo appears to be more brutal than Republic of the Congo; Democractic People's Republic of Korea (North) compared to Republic of Korea (South).
Similar innocuous labels in Australian politics include Labor, Liberal, Family First, Greens, Democrats and One Nation.
Who wouldn't want a united, democratic nation which supported workers' rights, allowed individuals their freedoms, supported families and cared for the environment. Obviously these parties have quite different agendas, though their names imply missions which are not mutually exclusive. Donors, like voters, should look beyond the spin of an agency before making an informed choice. Development workers should also question the driving forces of their work, especially where buzz words are involved – democracy, governance, "in Australia's national interest", for example.
P.S. I did leave the Nationals out deliberately because while I'm sure its name was also intended to appeal to a concept seemingly above reproach (patriotism etc.), Nationalism itself has quite a few negative connections and seems to belong to a different era.
I like this comment.
Weh, this is the fourth article that you've written for Why Dev that focuses on American development policy (actually you write more about American foreign policy) and that mentions the C.I.A. I'm wondering if you have insights on Australian development policy? I would love to see you turn the same critical eye to what's happening here in Australia. Or do you have extensive experience working with development policy circles in the United States that gives you added insight beyond what we can read on the internet?
Anon, thanks for the feedback. I'll be the first to admit that I have an (at times unhealthy!) obsession with American politics and foreign policy. Apart from this obsession, I don't have any extra experience beyond what you would find in the internet. In fact, I don't think most of the stuff you would find on this website couldn't be found elsewhere – but then, that's not really the point. I will try and be as hyper-critical of Australian development policy sometime in the future.
Weh,
I agree that the cloaking in the language of democracy, human rights, freedom, is a habit all Western countries have picked up when they shifted from naked colonialism to 21st century neo-colonalism. But..
Why not cut to the chase? Your argument, when boiled down, essentially is that every thing the United States is involved in (promotion of democracy, emergency relief,foreign policy, possibly breathing and existing) is wrong because it is simply the United States. You will offer an example of something they do, then make the argument that because it comes from the United States it must be bad.
Why not call a spade a spade and reverse the argument to make it more genuine. You dislike and are critical of the American system. Why not explain why this is the case for you, and then use Haiti, NED, CIA, USAID, and maybe American Idol, as examples?
Also, picking up on what Anon was saying, why not a critical eye on China, France, the UK, Australia or Canada? What about the BRIC countries and Turkey, who are all investing heavily into Africa? When discussing development it is disingenuous to criticize the United States alone when so many other factors contribute to a country's development and/or underdevelopment.
Here is a link to an essay on the China/Africa relationship, wherein they discuss how Chinese companies can underbid everyone in Ethiopia because they are state-owned. If the project fits the overall "objective" of Chinese-Ethiopian relationships (natural resources), then the bid is okayed and underwritten by the Chinese government. On the streets of Addis Ababa, this process has a lot more efficacy on the lives of Ethiopians then any single American funded initiative.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8436/chinas_rising…
Alex,
You seem to have drawn some pretty strong conclusions about my viewpoint from 3 articles that were written in the space of a few weeks (just because whydev posts them over a certain time period, it does not mean that they weren't written earlier). If indeed, my criticism of American foreign policy is based purely on the fact that I dislike the entire system or country, then the logical conclusion would be that my criticism is not justified based on fact, but instead, on prejudice. If that is the case, then I would like to ask you, in what sense do you think the criticism is unjustified?
Wey,
I didn't say it was unjustified. The USA is neither evil nor saintly and it's good to critique their policies. Remember, I am Canadian, I am sure we probably invented criticising the USA. And I really don't mean it as a harsh critique (notice coy reference to American Idol). I agree with a lot of what you say.
I said your argument would be more powerful if you simply stated your overall disagreement with American foreign policy (or the USA in general) and use examples such as NED and ham-fisted emergency relief, which are fine critiques. Therefore you would be justifying your criticism in a much stronger way, without leaving yourself open to questions of prejudice.
And that is the crux, because I am drawing conclusions of prejudice. You must admit that in the context of WhyDev (which is supposed to be about practising development and current issues in development, if I am not mistaken) you have written largely through a critical lens on the USA and used sources that come from this point of view as well.
Now, I know what it is like to be taken out of context, so if you posted elsewhere with different takes on the USA/Development/Aid, then maybe I am mistaken. But at WhyDev? "Anon" picked up on this as well, so I don't think I am speaking out of turn. Again, critique of the USA can and is to be justified, but the argument is stronger if you start from a position of overall disagreement, call a spade a spade, and use those examples. If not, it can come across as critique for the sake of anti-American critique – which is not what I believe you are are intending.
The U.S. is a lot easier to criticise because of its prominence on the world stage whether it be aid, economics, politics, war and/or spelling. China is like that kid that had a massive growth spurt in highschool and became the new hustler/go-to man. People are still trying to catch up and work out what it's doing and getting the word out. Australia's just not in that big boys league and requires a lot more digging around to criticise but I'm sure Weh will be onto it.
I always find it interesting when people who like to see themselves as engaged stop asking questions when it gets uncomfortable. Good post Weh, it could go on, and on, and on – many have no idea how far. Your statement that what was once done covertly 25yrs ago is now in the open, links very well with the normalization that "Janet" has spoken about in her latest piece on business metaphors. It's the frog in the boiling water metaphor – except in this case we, the public, are the frogs, and we got in early…
I commented at length previously on the damaging use of language, this is a prime example of why language is so important to so many on either side of the equation. It can be used to hide things in plain sight, as you suggest.
It's unfortunate that people refuse to see aid, so-called development, and care as instruments wielded by a much larger hand and for a much larger purpose. The U.S. is most certainly guilty of this, history is littered with examples – and perhaps they engage on a scale far in excess of other Western nations – but all nations are guilty of it, and have been for a very, very long time. Why? Because it is effective.
"International development." There's a loaded phrase, no? What are we developing, why, and exactly who does it benefit in the long-term? These are questions that can applied to almost every situation, and if asked to their logical extent, the answers usually come back "the benefactor." There are some here who like to believe otherwise, and perhaps time and experience will change that, but until that time it is very easy for any of us to unintentionally exacerbate this issue and contribute to the problem. For the religious out there, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Question everything, and when you're done, question it again – just don't expect too many tidy answers in the process.