Some Thoughts on Ethics, Civil Society, and Global Reform

Some Thoughts on Ethics, Civil Society, and Global Reform

Hyo-Je Cho

The following is a posthumous publication of the late Robin Crompton on civil society and NGOs. Born in North England Robin Crompton studied modern languages in Cambridge University before he went on to teach English and British regional studies at Heidelberg University, Germany. His stint in Germany coincided with the 1968 student protest in Europe. This has left some deep impression on young Crompton about the importance of social movement in shaping social changes.

After joining the British diplomatic service Robin Crompton spent much part of his professional career in such areas as sub-Saharan African countries, Austria and Korea. Being a diplomat he was never a typical desk-bound bureacrat. Unusual as a professional diplomat Crompton always favoured a direct contact with local people and viewed the development of civil society as a key element of democracy long before this term has gained contemporary political currency. He was one of the very few diplomats in the west who gave hard thoughts on the feasibility of human rights and ‘ethical’ diplomacy in the 1970s. His approach was to seek a viable and responsible idealsm in the world of realpolitik, in other words, to pursue an idealistic realism.

He retired in 1998 when he was a senior diplomatic official in British Embassy in Seoul. His retirement did not consign him to a quiet secluded life at home though. After working as a parliamentary lobbyist for the Oxfam, a prominent NGO for the development of third world countries, he came over to Korea as Visiting Professor at Seoul National University. Apart from teaching students he has regularly contributed to the Korean Herald. His weekly essays on world affairs quickly became a ‘must read’ for Koreans as well as expatriate community in Korea. His writings were full of insights, balanced but fiercely opinionated, and above all, intellectually honest and independent. There was no doubt that he had gathered a large enthusiastic readership. Those who are interested in reading his essays can get access to a large chunk of his writings in the electronic archives of the Korean Herald via internet.

Robin Crompton was invited to the Department of NGO Studies at Sungkonghoe University to give a special lecture on civil society and NGOs in October 2000 which was a great success. The following article is the rough scheme of his lecture which he sent to us for reference. He was to elaborate on and expand this manuscript for a publication in a special pamphlet form for the Sungkonghoe University. But his sudden death shortly after the lecture meant that this is in effect his last piece of writing for people in the civil society in Korea. Although in a sketch form the manuscript still maintains his basic position on NGOs very clearly and shows some penetrating insight on the subject. His premature death was mourned by many including students and myself in the Sungkonghoe. I may finish this introduction by mentioning his favourate maxim which he used to add at the end of his customary succinct but warm e-mail message: “Good things take time”.  

Some Thoughts on Ethics, Civil Society and Global Reform

(Notes for a Lecture)

Main focus/concept:

1. Thumbnail sketches (description and evaluation) of selected British NGOs, with a domestic or international focus, as examples of a long tradition of civil society activity:

Charter 88 (domestic political reform), Fabian Society (think-tank) Oxfam, Greenpeace, Shared Interest (international focus)

2. Embedded in a more general, theoretical background:

ethics versus materialism in modern society ethics,civil society and global reform

3. Some questions for reflection and discussion

———–

DRAFT OUTLINE

All the great moralists have taught that there are two fundamental approaches to life: the ethical and the egotistical. Erich Frommdescribed these two conflicting sets of attitudes and impulses as:

ethical/religious/humanitarian, focusing on being, life, critical rationality and charity; and authoritarian/pagan/narcissist, focusing on death, power, domination and wealth/property.

When we look at history with a detached eye, we can see that humanity, while torn between these two conflicting sets of impulses, has usually found it difficult to rise above the second set of impulses: the instinct of self-preservation, self-seeking and conflict/competition for resources. But in certain periods, ethical and religious feeling have, for a limited time and in limited places, lifted men and women above these short-term considerations into greater harmony, solidarity, mutual cooperation and the peaceful resolution of differences.

Further, there seems to be an increasing aspiration towards greater refinement of manners over time, as mankind develops and its mind matures, as witness the emergence of great ethical thinkers over the period 600 BC to 600 AD: Buddha, Confucius, Mencius, Socrates, Seneca, Jesus and Muhammad. Despite their transendental differences, theirs ethics have much in common, as Aldous Huxley memorably showed in his “Perennial Philosophy”. But mankind has found it impossible to maintain, even attain, those high standards, periodically relapsing into war, chaos and barbarism. Man’s reach exceeds his grasp. That is his classic, and painful, dilemma. He never learns from history, but seems condemned to repeat the same fatal mistakes over and over again.

So politics and statecraft have traditionally been dominated by ‘realist’ theory, or Realpolitik, a philosophy of might is right. This reached new dimensions in the unique destruction and savagery of the 20th century, particularly World Wars I and II, and the cold war which followed them. For many, it marked the nadir and discrediting of political ‘realism’.

In the modern world, the Realpolitik, neo-realist model is no longer sustainable. The ethical/humanist approach to life, foreign and domestic, is a categorical imperative: the only viable mode of being for the new century. The world has grown too interdependent, dangerous and complex for the old, inefficient, unstable and inequitable ways to be allowed to continue. New technology, the information society and the Web have complex and contradictory effects; but they are, on the whole, widening horizons and raising people’s sights. Popular expectations of political leaders are increasing, but are increasingly disappointed.

New ideas are afoot, and an impatience with old thinking. But the old encrusted political and social structures remain, a product of older times and circumstances, crying out for adaptation to a changed reality.

This ethical movement of ideas, very noticeable since the end of the cold war, and heightened by distaste at the continuing inequities and barbarisms of the 1990s, takes varying forms. Two of them are the civil and human rights movements (linked, but distinct). These are articulated by NGOs, churches, and other CS bodies, nowadays even, although in a patchy and inconsistent manner, by some Western governments (since the mid-70s in USA and UK).

This trend has two facets: problems and potential, upside and downside. Overall it is good and beneficial, but brings in its wake new questions:

– what kind of ethics? How to reconcile rival conceptions?

– cui bono? Who benefits, and who loses?

– how to apply ethics to state policy in a predominantly non-ethical, pagan, materialist and cynical environment where money and power rule, and the weakest go to the wall?

The IMPLICATIONS of this new ethics are many and varied. They are easily stated, but the mind recoils at the daunting nature of the list: 

– reform of domestic political/social/economic systems on these lines

– human rights guarantees and standards (constitutions, acts and charters, watchdogs)

– basic human needs

– reconciliation, conflict resolution are goals, not supremacism, hegemony, domination

– renewal of diplomacy, re-emphasizing its peace-preservation component

– human solidarity: active commitment to attack world poverty, ignorance, disease, and want (the Beveridge Four)(check)

– a basic human needs strategy

– as a matter of urgency, resolve the problem of Third World debt

– reform international trade and financial systems on fair, stable, efficient and effective lines, a just balance of interests, equal opportunities

– improved disaster and emergency relief

– improvement of global governance (UN Global Governance Commission). 

Institutional reform at supra-national level.

– a new global ethics, citizenship and awareness

– environment: protection and preservation of the global commons

– international criminal accountability and jurisdiction for crimes against humanity. The evolution since 1945: Geoffrey Robertson.

———–

In this light, look at the work of some outstanding UK NGOs

– case studies of the ethical commitment in modern society.

Charter 88 – domestic constitutional/political reform

Fabian Society – left-wing think-tank, 100 years old

Oxfam – disaster relief, Third World development, North-South cooperation, basic human needs and rights.

Friends of the Earth – anti-nuclear activity, anti-GM food

Jubilee 2000 – campaign for write-off of LDC debt

Greenpeace – environmental activism, dramatic, high-profile, high-risk

Shared Interest -fair trade, micro-credit for small producers

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

– a modern growth sector; but in the West (unlike Korea) the NGO sector has deep cultural/social roots (churches, trade unions, cooperative movement, socialism, mutuality and solidarity, often in opposition to or conflict with authority). UK is a classic example. The growth of democracy, civil rights and universal education there owed much, historically, to the pressure of CS-type associations and campaigns over the centuries.

– numbers or organizations and members? Impossible to estimate.

No reliable figures.

– growing power and clout: can change government policies, force even multi-nationals off course (Shell: Brent Spar, Monsanto: GM foods)

– Not all NGOs are idealistic. Many are single-issue pressure groups rooting for material interests

– classic role: the nation’s conscience and constructive critic

– still however a minority sector, dwarfed by a culture of business, free-market capitalism, acquisitive individualism and consumption, high finance, TNCs and merchant adventurers

– accordingly, the political flavour/leaning of the NGO sector in UK tends to be left-liberal, green, reformist. There are of course many conservative, traditionalist NGOs (as diverse as the Adam Smith Institute, the Flat-Earth Society and the fox-hunting lobby) but the activists tend to be left of centre.

– great variety of aims, methods, structure and organization.

Not necessarily democratic in structure: Oxfam, despite a highly progressive outlook, and a will to modern management, retains a peculiarly old-fashioned, complex structure, paternalist rather democratic. A characteristic feature of some British voluntary bodies, as is their domination by an inner group of enthusiasts, supported by an outer ring of non-active financial backers.

Many NGOs are more noted for their idealism than their managerial sense.

FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION / REFLECTION

(Note. Obviously, these ideas far exceed the time-limit and framework of the present lecture. But they can be thrown out as a stimulus, or distributed as a sheet of questions at the end of the talk. The aim is to encourage people to reflect further at leisure.)

1. What is civil society? How can it develop in a traditionally centralist, authoritariam, hierarchical culture like Korea? What progressive elements of that culture can it draw upon?

2. What are basic human rights and needs? How do they affect one’s work and life as a social activist? What are their implications, theoretical and practical?

3. How should a Korean reformer view the outside world? What role should Korean NGOs play in the overseas development field? What objectives and principles should they follow?

4. Where is Korea going, as a nation among nations, in the 21st century? What can and should it aim to achieve, on the strength of its own compartive advantage?

5. What do good neighborliness and global citizenship mean in today’s world? What are their implications for progressive individuals and groups?

6. Is there a difference between Asian and Western values, and does that affect my work as an activist? Are Asian and Western reformers working for the same goals? Do they coincide, overlap or conflict?

————-

M R Crompton

Visiting Professor

Seoul National University

5 October 2000

Tel: 880/5783 (O) 884-0858 (H)

robincrompton@yahoo.com