Surviving neo-Liberalism : NGOs under the Howard years

NGOs fulfil a variety of roles in society that, among others, include delivering aid and assistance, monitoring, education, grass-roots political action and service delivery. One of the fundamental roles of NGOs, however, lies beyond the representation of the marginalised and voiceless or the challenging of government policy but is also integral in promoting hope within society. This is a role that is unmeasurable, unquantifiable, and seemingly intangible until it is threatened. Historically, it has been NGOs and labour unions that have, while promoting progressive change, ensured a counter-balance to both government and corporate influence. Importantly, they play this accountability role by bringing to the public attention conduct that is harmful, immoral or corrupt. That is to say, from the suffragettes and global warming, to third-world debt and the green and pink bands, it is ordinary people that have worked together with organisations as diverse as Aid/Watch, Jubilee Australia and Caritas to raise issues of injustice and sustainability, as well as promoting a heterogenous democracy (Lyons 2001a): one in which conflicting differences fuel progress and creative thought capable of responding to crises. A democracy without independent NGOs would be one that has no formal representation for struggles that give a voice to the marginalised. The role of NGOs in promoting a democratic culture has been well documented. Authors such as Lyons (2001b) argue that NGOs play a vital role in encouraging civil society participation and engagement. By engaging with government and bringing their actions to the attention of the public, NGOs help to ensure that policy development and decision-making is less likely to be dominated by particular stake-holders or established interests. In this way, NGOs fulfil the important task of laying out for social judgement whether particular policy developments are fair in the manner that they consider and treat the most vulnerable members of a society. Depending upon how they ââ"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“lay it outââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢ we are invited, encouraged or demanded to consider who will be gaining from policy decisions to advance economic growth or ââ"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“streamlinedââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢ efficiency: and our response is reflective of where our democratic principles lie. The neo-liberal and neo-conservative politics of the Howard government (while in power from 1996-2007) recast the idealism of NGO chartersââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢ as socially unfashionable and naÃÆ'Ã"šÃ‚¯ve, while the Howard governmentââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s policies sought to undermine their effectiveness. Reflecting on the Howard years we can see how this demoralisation of the work carried out by NGOs also weakened an important social medium for the channelling of hope in Australian society. In the following analysis I will draw on my experiences to explore Joan Stappleââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s (2008) argument that in a healthy democracy NGOs act as a kind of mirror for social aspirations. In this way, I will suggest that their existence is not only critical because of the tangible work they undertake, but also because they reflect our belief that a better and more just world is possible. The aim of this paper then, is twofold: the first is to present the strategies that the Howard government used to undertake a sustained attack on independent voices from civil society. Armed with the combination of neo-liberal and neo-conservative ideology, the Howard government forced many progressive NGOs to fight for both their legitimacy and very existence. The second aim of this chapter is to discuss the survival strategies of progressive NGOs during this period and what lessons exist into the future.