Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
engaged in environmental conservation worldwide have developed a rhetoric which
contends that building localized democratic structures in the form of civil
participatory organizations able to cohere into civil society is one of their
primary agendas. Their rhetoric
suggests that NGOs encourage participation by developing the capacity of
grassroots organizations to actively engage in political, social, economic and
environmental arenas. The rhetoric
also purports that NGOs encourage the growth and establishment of a powerful
civil society fundamental to a vibrant democracy[1],
the focal point in attempt to negotiate vastly diverse interests within
national and global settings. The
rhetoric suggests that where there is democracy, there must be civil society,
and conversely that a healthy civil society will lead to true democracy in
which equality and diversity exist.
In Panama, well-established class relations have
hardened the edges of the structural conditions that function as the context
for the development of civil participation. As discussed in chapter two, in both a literal and a
metaphorical sense, in Panama the interests of an established circle of elites
thrive on economic gain and power produced in an area that is approximately 45
miles long and 20 miles wide, between Col—n and Panama City. This geographic area contains the
Panama Canal and its watershed, the Col—n Free Trade Zone and the offshore
international banking system, which form the basis of PanamaÕs service
economy. This enormous
concentration of power is politically, economically and socially constructed
and reinforced in the structure of class relations. The disparity among various class interests poses an
obstacle to the development of institutions of civil participation in Panama
that could potentially expand the basis for civil society.
Given the economic and political interests
focused in the 45 mile long urban corridor, elites who control the Panamanian
government feel little need to make compromises with the majority of Panama's
population, leaving this population economically poor and politically impotent. Herein lies an inherent weakness in
widescale organized civil participation in Panama. To the extent that a civil society does exist, it is
primarily constituted by the upper class.
Generally, the rest of PanamaÕs populace has not been able to muster a
public force to counter this small yet intensely powerful elite. Nor have they found sufficient impetus
to strategically organize themselves around any particular issue for any length
of time.[2] Primarily, civil organization has come
in response to very specific and limited issues, such as housing costs, canal
operations and treaties, and privatization of state-run services, etc. (Elton 1997; Herrera 1998).
Yet, in the last ten years, there has been
significant growth in the number of NGOs and community organizations in
Panama. Environmental conservation
organizations constitute the largest percentage of any special interest among
these organizations (Elton; Herrera).
If there is truly very little interest in the development of civil society
among the Panamanian elite or interest in environmental conservation among both
the Panamanian elite and the general public, what, then, is the force behind
the establishment of environmental NGOs in Panama? Whose concerns and interests do these organizations
reflect? And what does their
existence indicate about the growth of civil participation and civil society in
Panama?
During the decade following the
1989 US removal of General Manuel Noriega from power, there was an enormous
influx of international governmental and non-governmental aid flowing into
Panama (Herrera 1996: 53). Based on PanamaÕs political and economic dependency on
its service economy, which in turn depends on the international marketplace,
the interests of international governmental and aid organizations heavily
influence the Panamanian government.
PanamaÕs political leaders are
keenly aware of the benefits in responding to interests and imperatives held by
those on whom the national economy rests, even when they arrive in the form of
non-governmental organizations.
This is particularly true concerning interests tied to financial and
technological aid from the United States. According to
Panamanian anthropologist Francisco Herrera, the national government is giving
attention to environmental issues as an economically-biased response to the
far-reaching interests of influence of the US as represented by organizations
such as USAID. It is likewise
directly due to the influence of these organizations that the Panamanian
government is adopting the rhetoric of civil society as part of
democracy-building in Panama (Herrera 1998). The question remains as to what form this rhetoric is taking
as it translates into corresponding practices.
The interests and corresponding
project funding related to the Panama Canal are creating an arena for the
development of an environmental agenda and civil participation. As discussed in chapter two, the United
States government is investing money and resources in Panama to assist in the
transitions of ownership of the canal, desiring to ensure the well-being of the
Panama Canal. One form this US
funding, funneled through USAID, has taken is the FIDECO environmental trust
fund, created specifically to finance projects in the Panama Canal watershed. The US concern for the smooth
functioning of the canal matches that of Panamanians who benefit directly from
canal-generated income (Cardoso and Feletto 1979). Elite concern has in turn precipitated the fledgling
development of an environmental agenda in Panama; an agenda that has further
necessitated elite support for civil participatory organizations that can
implement environmental action plans focused on canal-related issues. The agenda and the specific projects
are largely determined by international sources of funding funneled through
highly controlled mechanisms of distribution, such as the FIDECO Fund and
Fundaci—n NATURA.
The notion that civil
society has a readily employable capacity to provide an alternative to state
power in any given nation at any given time (cite) is misguided and
misleading. There are systemic,
structural conditions that can restrict, manipulate, prohibit or co-opt the
actualization of a civil society.
Concerted public effort does not guarantee the establishment of civil
society if other forces maintain large-scale political, economic, social and
cultural structures that restrict public action at any given moment, and
opportunites cannot be forcefully or coercively created within the structure by
a coordinated citizenry. There are
real structures with real limits and real consequences that can severely limit
individual and group action.
While current rhetoric
suggests that civil society is a kind of free agent, unbound by structural
constraints, I demonstrate that historical relations impact the potential
development of civil participatory organizations, and therefore civil society,
in Panama at this time. By
grounding my research in actual circumstances of the oft invoked, and at times
romanticized, notion of civil society, I illustrate the striking divide between
rhetoric and practice of national and international institutions at work in
Panama.[3] Three donor organizations established
Fundaci—n NATURA with the specific imperative that this NGO should have a
significant impact on the growth of civil society in Panama. However, Fundaci—n NATURAÕs ability to
fulfill a democratizing directive has been limited by the undemocratic and
restrictive controls placed on them by the donors.
At issue is the form and timing of pressure
applied by a nationÕs citizenry; whether radical revolution, coordinated
application of strategies, uncoordinated application of tactics[4]
(de Certeau: 1984), enlisting or taking advantage of the international
influence, or a combination of these forms of pressure; whether a radical
moment in history or a slow, unsteady motion towards a transformation of
structural conditions. Considering
civil societies in particular global, international and national contexts
highlights the fact that the idea of civil society can be understood only in
light of historically and geographically sets of relations of particular
publics and particular states, engaged in specific economic relations of
production and distribution.
The Panamanian NGO Fundaci—n NATURA is a nexus
of interests and uneven power relations.
It is a site at which domineering national and international
governmental and nongovernmental interests are contesting NATURAÕs efforts to
strengthen the capacity of the Panamanian public. Fundaci—n NATURA is not simply the functionary of any single
hegemonic force, but instead serves as a battleground for the predominance of
conflicting ideological and hegemonic forces. NATURA, as a representative of Panamanian civil society,
combines hegemonic norms of the dominant powers as well as norms emerging Òfrom
belowÓ (with addition negotiation and contestation going on at each site).
In
this chapter, I consider events that reflect the specific nature of
contestation between the donor organizations and Fundaci—n NATURA. These examples exhibit dynamic
practices that constitute the translation of the rhetoric of civil society and
democracy into practice. I begin
with an account of Fundaci—n NATURAÕs original director and the difficulties
encountered in his attempts to take an innovative and independent approach to countrywide
development of civil participatory institutions. Following this with a review of the history and current
theories associated with civil society reveals the disparity between the
hegemonic ideal of civil society in democratic theories and the possibilities
for that ideal in Panama. Making
the distinction between the existence of institutions of civil participation
and the existence of a civil society is vital to understanding this disparity. I conclude the chapter with another
example in which Fundaci—n NATURA seeks to circumnavigate structural conditions
and coordinate efforts of various community groups into a civil society.
[1] This
chapter does not examine democracy specifically. My discussion of democracy is raised only in light of the
specific arguments and contexts made by those discussing the role of civil
society in liberal democracy and radical democracy.
[2] The womanÕs movement in
Panama is an exception to this lack of wide-scale organization.
[3] The ethnography of
speaking meets practice theory in this context. Both theoretical approaches deal with the interplay between
structure and agency as well as structure and practice. What is the established norm, if only
rhetorically, and what are actual practices in relation to this stated and
assumed norm? This case study designates the area of contestation provoked by
the space between rhetoric and practices concerning civil society in
Panama. Those with more power tell
a story of development that they themselves have not actually fulfilled. It is quite a show of power that
governments and organizations continue to claim success in development
strategies, even in the face of evident failure. Changes in this rhetoric and in practices have been forced
by contesting forces, such as the "50 Years is Enough" campaign
against the World Bank's structural adjustment policies in particular. Contestation often creates a new space
to question norms and their concurring strategies where no space existed
before. Such is the cyclical
nature of hegemony and habitus.
[4] I will address de
CerteauÕs use of ÒstrategiesÓ and ÒtacticsÓ in the following chapter.