Can
we get over the unease between the role and participation of civil society and
faith-based organizations in the delivery of social services and other types of
aid provided by government agencies? Since the rise of the modern Welfare State
ushered in by the Franklin Roosevelt administration in its attempt to combat
the most onerous aspects of the Great Depression, liberals have cast a critical
eye on some civil society efforts to provide social services.
To
some degree this is a watchdog attempt to make sure the State doesn’t neglect
the most vulnerable members of society. However, there also is a sense that
some private organizations—especially religious ones—will use relief efforts to
further their own goals, which might run counter to the common good. Liberal
politicians thus tend to view private and religious social aid organizations
with skepticism—especially in circumstances where public dollars may be directed
toward such organizations.
Conservatives
on the other hand, not surprisingly, see the State as the problem. Governmental
efforts to aid the disadvantaged are impersonal and tend to create dependence.
The lower overhead costs of voluntary organizations, plus the enthusiasm they bring
to relief efforts, can help transform the lives of the persons they come in
contact with—especially if they are faith-based. Due to these advantages,
conservative politicians have promoted non-governmental solutions for the needy
and seek to reduce or even eliminate public aid initiatives.
The
bottom line is that while both arguments have merit, the search for promoting
the common good in society appears to reside in adequately funding public
programs for the disadvantaged while welcoming the efforts of civil society to
aid their fellow citizens whenever and however groups can more effectively
address a local or regional problem better than a far-off government agency
might do. Furthermore, The Great Recession’s pinch on public sector budgets at
the very time almost unprecedented numbers of citizens have sought assistance
should provide more opportunities for civil society to make valuable
contributions for the common good.
Under
the principle of subsidiarity, the common good is most effectively achieved
when social matters are addressed by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized
authority that can competently handle the issue. Put another way, if an
individual can tackle an item there is no reason a group would need to. If a
small(er) organization can succeed, a larger one isn’t necessary, and so on.
Bringing these decisions to the lowest effective level tends to promote
solutions by those who have the most local experience and knowledge, as opposed
to an organizational level with less understanding and familiarity.
Harvard
University Social scientist Robert D. Putnam has written eloquently in works
like Bowling Alone, Making Democracy Work,
and American Grace that the greatest
concern in American society since the 1960s is the collapse of “social capital.”
Americans steadily reduced their involvement in civic life, joined fewer
organizations and associations, and took part in less community projects. Poor
social capital can lead communities to less trust, more isolation, cynicism,
less participation in the political process, and less likelihood to come
together to solve local problems or see beyond partisan divides.
Promoting
civility, sustainable communities, and a democratic spirit in society is
something only a combination of the work community foundations, charities, cooperatives,
churches, non-governmental organizations, and voluntary associations can do
with local participation. George Washington said “government is not reason, it
is not eloquence, it is force.” If Washington is correct that
government can be a blunt force in some of the ways it operates, civil groups
can succeed where government might not, because the power of small(er) groups lies
in that they are more likely to have trust and shared values within their
membership and locale. Civil society groups are more likely to understand the
challenges faced by those they seek to serve and are usually more likely to be
trusted by those being served. Non-governmental organizations can also focus on
specific issues whereas public agencies might be responsible for a wide range
of services.
Recent
history suggests that weak social capital can result in an unhealthy society.
If folks from various walks of life lack trust in their communities and aren’t
working through local organizations to combat local problems, then it’s small
wonder why we have the bitter partisanship on the national level where common
solutions are rare and finger-pointing is all too common. Russia has become a more
authoritarian and less free nation precisely at the time that Vladimir Putin’s
government has begun a crackdown on civil society organizations and the social
capital they raise. Human Rights Watch recently issued a report Laws of Attrition [1] that details the invasive investigations
and official harassment of groups that promote civil society and good government
in Russia.
What
about political efforts to more fully integrate Civil Society into partnership
with the government? George W. Bush was elected President in 2000 promoting
himself as a “compassionate conservative.” Bush himself opined, “It is
compassionate to actively help our citizens in need. It is conservative to
insist on accountability and results.” [2]
He ushered in the White House Office of
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (changed to Neighborhood Partnerships in
the Obama administration) to much ballyhoo and derision of liberal
critics who saw an unconstitutional turnover of government aid programs to
conservative Christian organizations. The effort turned out to be mostly negative
given that some faith-based groups balked at what it would mean for their missions
to accept government monies, and later Bush tax cuts were seen to be hypocritical
for someone promoting oneself as “compassionate.”
More
recently the United Kingdom’s Conservative Party
promoted the “Big Society” as part of its winning 2010 general election manifesto.
The Big Society has a number of impressive goals for the advancement of civil
society efforts including: devolving more power away from the central
government to local levels; encouraging more volunteerism nationwide;
supporting the network of cooperatives, mutual assistance organizations, and
other non-governmental groups, and offering more transparency and access to the
public records of central government operations. In short, The Big Society
really means to undertake a transformation of Great Britain. Progress has been slow
and halting.
A
multitude of critics similar in refrain to their American cousins suggest the
Conservatives’ real goal is the elimination and replacement of public services
with a hodgepodge of undependable voluntary efforts. Time will tell whether the
British experiment is successful.
On
the other end of the spectrum, China’s Communist Party began an effort at its
2004 National Party Congress to promote in different regions a “small
government, big society” culture in which regional organizations assist or even
replace direct government aid. China’s status as a one-party
state and its endemic corruption, however, makes its initiative appear to be an
uphill battle. There has been significant growth in non-governmental
organizations in China, but it remains to be seen
whether the Party will reward only those groups that hew closely to their directives
or co-opt activities by means of direct political oversight.
It
is impractical and improper to expect the State to provide all services to
citizens in need, or for it to forfeit its role in maintaining the social
contract by turning over all assistance to voluntary organizations. The best
way forward for cooperation and partnerships between government and society is
more communication on local and regional levels where levels of trust and
understanding are greater. Federal-level aid efforts should continue for those
programs which subsidiarity suggests are large enough to require a broad
national organization. In the United States that would mean things
like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Emergency Management, and some sort
of national health plan (not necessarily the Affordable Care Act in its current
form). Other types of assistance, on the other hand, are better provided by
states or municipalities in combination with civil society. Growing a culture
of grass-roots civic participation, responsibility for our individual communities,
and increased trust will offer the best means forward to a healthy society and
promotion of the common good.
—Kirk G. Morrison
Kirk is a National
Committee member of the American Solidarity Party
Donations to Christian Democracy are gratefully accepted
Donations to Christian Democracy are gratefully accepted