Third, as Sikkink ( 2002 , 301 ) has pointed out, as ‘‘transnational social movementsand networks are increasingly permanent features of international life, scholars and
activists need to grapple more thoughtfully with the dilemmas that the presence
and power of these nontraditional actors pose:’’ dilemmas of representation,
democracy, deliberation, and accountability. The power of INGOs and other
manifestations of transnational civil society is a soft, diVuse power, one that shapes
norms and ideas in crucial ways but that is often not reXected in formal power
structures. Thus, traditional political mechanisms, such as electoral politics,
that have evolved over the centuries to apply a modicum of democracy and
accountability to political power do not easily apply here.
But some such mechanisms may be needed if transnational civil society is toWnd
a long-term place as a legitimate participant in global politics. One problem is the
enormous asymmetries within the world of civil society, with citizens of rich
countries far more likely to be able to use civil society channels to participate in
global decision-making than citizens of poor ones. Decisions about which net-
works and campaigns to fund, and thus which part of the many possible global
agendas are likely to see progress, are often made by foundations based in wealthy
countries. Progress is being made toward greater equity. NGOs have proliferated
throughout the developing world (Fisher 1993 ), and northerners involved in
transnational campaigns have become more aware of the need to work with, rather
than on behalf of, counterparts in the south. Yet often these groupsWnd themselves
in competition for available resources.
Moreover, the claim of these groups to a place in international decision-making
rests on claims that their expertise, representativeness of a group legitimately
entitled to a say, and/or processes of deliberation meets a standard that entitles
them to inXuence or even make decisions that have consequences for other people.
No scholar surveyed in this chapter would argue that transnational NGOs and
networks measure up to ideals of representation, democracy, deliberation,
accountability, or autonomy (Sikkink 2002 , 315 ). Nonetheless, public opinion
surveys in many parts of the worldWnd that NGOs routinely outrank governments
and businesses in assessments of trustworthiness and credibility. Little research has
yet been done on why that is true in some parts of the world but not others, or what
such groups need to do if they wish to create or sustain high levels of credibility.
In short, during the 1990 s and in the early years of the new millennium,
scholarship on INGOs and other forms of transnational civil society contributed
greatly to the understanding of this amorphous,Xuid, yet increasingly signiWcant
type of political actor on the international scene. That research has convincingly
demonstrated that transnational civil society has a signiWcant impact, and has
begun to make inroads on questions concerning why that impact varies across
issues and political structures. The broader, more normative questions, however,
have just begun to receive attention. In the absence of a world government to
channel the activities of non-governmental actors, what are the appropriate roles
for civil society? And who decides?
international ngos 687