Government-Sponsored Non-Governmental Organizations (GONGO):
Genesis of the Problems, Interpretation and Functions
Head of the Department of Sociology, North Caucasus Federal University, Stavropol, email@example.com_id: 180540 |
The article is devoted to a relatively new issue of functioning of the so-called GONGO (governmentorganized non-governmental organizations) in the modern political system. The importance of studying this type of organizations and movements is due to the proliferation of the practice of using non-governmental organizations and “non-state actors” as tools of the political struggle of internal elites and foreign policy influence embedded in the arsenal of mass consciousness manipulation tools, such as “psyop”, soft power, color revolutions and more. Due to their specificity, GONGO have binary functionality, divided into official, declared, explicit functions and unofficial, latent. Their position in the political system is connected not only with obvious or latent engagement with loyal attitude towards the ruling regime, they also act as an instrument of state policy aimed at building civil society institutions in developing countries which are pursuing a secondary catch-up modernization. Thus, GONGO can be both an instrument of political reaction and a collective actor of social change. On the basis of teleology and the criterion of loyalty, GONGO are divided by the author into three types: “Open Conformists”; “Loyalists”; “Latent Loyalists / Nonconformists”. The author also identifies the functions of GONGO: diagnostic; communicative; adaptive; social selection; social integration; legitimization; mobilization; socialization; political, sociocultural and ideological expansion; suppression of internal protest and deviations; valuenormative morphogenesis. As an actual case of using GONGO, the events of the Arab spring in the countries of the Middle East are considered. The author highlights several reasons for the weakness of “pro-Western” GONGO: the problem of resource self-sufficiency; weak ideological, religious, social and cultural agenda; low level of motivation of their participants, insufficient to confront highly motivated opponents religiously and ideologically. In conclusion, the author identifies signs of “successful” or “effective” GONGO.
Deng G., Huang C.C., Wang Y. 2016. China: The Relationship Between Nongovernmental Organizations and the Government in China. – Rebalancing Public Partnership: Innovative Practice between Government and Nonprofits from around the World. Oxford and New York: Routledge. Р. 173-186.
Heurlin C. 2010. Governing Civil Society: the Political Logic of NGO – State Relations under Dictatorship. – Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Vol. 21. No. 2. P. 220-239.
Hsu J., Hasmath R. 2014. The Local Corporatist State and NGO Relations in China. – Journal of Contemporary China. 23(87). Р. 516-534. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2013.843929
Krugman P.R. 1997. The Age of Diminished Expectations: U.S. Economic Policy in the 1990s. MIT Press.
Pallin C. V., Oxenstierna S. 2017. Russian Think Tanks and Soft Power. Totalforsvarets forskningsinstitut (FOI). URL: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Susanne_Oxenstierna/publication/319747832_Russian_Think_Tanks_and_Soft_Power/links/59bb889a458515e9cfc58ae0/Russian-Think-Tanks-and-Soft-Power.pdf (accessed 21.10.2018)
Ryang S. 2016. The Rise and Fall of Chongryun – From Chōsenjin to Zainichi and beyond. – Asia-Pacific Journal. Vol. 14. No.15. Number 11. Aug 01. 16 р.
Seidman H. 1988. The Quasi World of the Federal Government. – The Brookings Review. Vol. 6. No. 3. P. 23-27.
Sooryamoorthy R., Gangrade K.D. 2001. NGOs in India: A Cross-sectional Study. Greenwood Press.
Stevens D. 2010. Osama or the Georges: Shifting Threats and State Policy Towards Civil Society in Uzbekistan. – Development and Change. 41 (2). P. 355-374.
Turner V. 1969. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-structure. Walter De Gruyter Inc.
Wells-Dang A. 2012. Civil Society Networks in China and Vietnam: Informal Pathbreakers in Health and the Environment. New York: Palgrave.
Wu F. 2003. Environmental GONGO Autonomy: Unintended Consequences of State Strategies in China. – The Good Society. 12 (1). P. 35-45.
Gapich A.E., Lushnikov D.A. 2017. Tekhnologii tsvetnykh revolyutsii [Technology Color Revolutions]. Moscow: RIOR: INFRA-M. (In Russ.)
Gurr T. 2005. Why Men Rebel (Russ. ed.: Gurr T. Pochemu liudi buntuiut. St. Petersburg: Piter).
Korotaev A.V., Shishkina A.R., Isayev L.M.,
Arab Spring as a Global Phase Transition Trigger. – Polis. Political Studies. 2016. No3
Malkov S.Yu., Korotaev A.V., Isayev L.M., Kuzminova Ye.V.,
On methods of estimating current condition and of forecasting social instability: attempted quantitative analysis of the events of the Arab spring. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No4
Civilizational Pillars of Russia’s Modernization. – Polis. Political Studies. 2017. No4
Ecological Politics as a Network Process. – Polis. Political Studies. 2002. No2
The globalizing world and political modernization. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No3