The NGO-ization of Resistance: Arundhati Roy's Critical Analysis

NGOs and CSOs obtain funds through multiple channels: member contributions from the population, donations from patrons, grants from state partners and UN agencies whose goals align with organizational objectives, and project writing with international partners. Internal funding comes from member contributions, while external funding involves partnerships and grants. Organizations like the National Debate Council receive support from partners like the US Embassy. The choice of funding source depends on organizational activities and available opportunities, with some organizations relying more on internal contributions while others depend heavily on external grants and partnerships.

NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) are independent social service entities formed by ordinary citizens, distinct from government departments. Two primary structures exist: Trusts require minimal setup with just a chairman and secretary, making them ideal for quick initiation. Societies/NGOs require seven to nine members with defined roles including president, secretary, treasurer, and other members, offering more formal organizational structure. Both types pursue social welfare objectives like education, healthcare, and environmental initiatives. Funding originates from donations by individuals, wealthy businessmen, celebrities, and politicians. Key to attracting substantial donations is obtaining 12A and 80G certificates, which provide tax exemptions to donors, incentivizing generous contributions to legitimate social service organizations.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) function as a third sector between public and private sectors, operating independently from the state though this varies by context. In some cases like China, NGOs exist within government-organized frameworks (GONGOs). NGOs constitute global civil society—a thick social space enabling normative and structural change. They also serve as epistemic communities, bringing specialized expertise and policy-relevant knowledge to forums. NGOs derive power from four sources: material power (budget and resources), symbolic power (legitimacy in statements), interpretive power (expertise and meaning-making), and geographical reach (local, national, or international). Their four main functions include agenda-setting through lobbying and media, affecting negotiations with specialized information, conferring legitimacy through public opinion aggregation, and implementing solutions while monitoring compliance.

The NGO complex operates as a pillar of the globalist system alongside international organizations like the UN and wealthy foundations. NGOs function as 'near-state organizations' despite their civil society appearance, receiving substantial state funding (96% for some foundations) while spreading left-wing ideologies. They lack democratic legitimacy despite wielding significant power. The civil society they represent is inherently left-wing, with no officially funded right-wing alternatives. This creates a system where taxpayer money supports organizations that are neither democratically accountable nor politically neutral.

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are civil society organizations that work to address people's suffering, support the poor, protect basic social services, and promote community development. Unlike government organizations, NGOs have no government partnership and operate independently. They may receive government funding but maintain independence by not allowing government representatives as members. Many NGOs accept only individual donations to avoid conflicts of interest with political parties. NGOs serve as bridges between government and citizens, helping express civil society voices and enabling democratic governance. They contribute to policy-making by presenting people's demands to government authorities. Key legislative contributions include the Right to Food Act, Right to Education Act, MGNREGA, and Right to Information Act. NGOs also create awareness, promote social unity, distribute services, and ensure political accountability through government performance monitoring.

Grassroots organizing is defined as building and using the collective power of people to strategically address social problems at their roots and create systemic change, distinguished by two key characteristics: (1) people power, which enables ordinary citizens to challenge the influence of organized money and institutional power through collective action, and (2) systemic change, which focuses on addressing problems at their root causes rather than just symptoms, as illustrated by the river parable where effective organizers work upstream to prevent pollution rather than simply cleaning up downstream effects.

Effective social movements combine sustained grassroots organizing, nonviolent protest tactics, and cross-community solidarity to challenge systemic injustice; historical examples like the Civil Rights Movement demonstrate that collective action using peaceful methods can achieve significant political change when communities unite around shared principles of justice and human dignity.

Grassroots political organizing involves building local movements through sustained engagement with communities. Effective grassroots movements require dedicated organizers, clear goals, and sustained effort over time. Movements that lack grassroots foundations tend to be less effective and more vulnerable to co-optation by more radical elements.

People have agency and power to stop fascism when they collectively organize. Individual measures of power must be aggregated. Effective resistance requires both micro-level individual resistance (small ways to refuse compliance) and macro-level mass movements (protests, strikes, boycotts). Each person must assess hyper-local resistance in their area. Grassroots organizations like Common Dreams, MoveOn, Indivisible, and Black Voters Matter actively organize and need members' skills and participation.

Grassroots organizing begins with ordinary citizens and focuses on reaching people where they live, work, play, and pray. It involves gathering citizens to act collectively, mobilizing them to communicate directly with elected officials, and inspiring them to influence government or community decisions. The process always starts with education—explaining why mobilization matters and helping people understand the purpose behind collective action. Strategies differ from tactics: strategies are overarching approaches to create change (like nonviolent resistance or boycotts), while tactics are specific actions taken to implement these strategies. Effective grassroots movements require identifying genuine causes through research, moving beyond complaints to specific demands, and using social media strategically to mobilize people toward concrete objectives.

The new state emerging tends to outsource social and scientific services for three reasons: first, the pressure for efficiency or cost reduction becomes stronger as the size of such services increases; second, the demand for political accountability increases proportionally; third, while it is extremely difficult to obtain efficiency when the state provides the service directly, it is relatively easier to obtain it when the service is outsourced to non-profit organizations that compete with each other. For this last reason, in the new state emerging, only activities that are by nature exclusive to the state and therefore monopolistic will continue within the state apparatus. The state contracting competitive non-profit organizations to provide social and scientific services is being increasingly adopted by advanced democracies. Services will be more efficient and citizens will have more choices.

When democratic institutions fail, states cannot fulfill their core responsibilities including internal security and financial sustainability. High tax revenues (Germany ranks second in OECD) do not guarantee effective governance when ruling parties avoid accountability. The fundamental responsibility of the state—protecting citizens—becomes neglected. Democratic accountability breaks down when elected officials face no consequences for their actions, including potential loss of benefits. This creates a system where political elites substitute their will for that of citizens, undermining the social contract that underlies democratic governance.

There exists a tacit contract between the state and citizens: citizens provide money (taxes) and obedience in exchange for security, protection, and services. However, the speaker argues the state fails to fulfill its obligations (cutting education, healthcare, pensions, while increasing taxes and funding wars). When citizens stop contributing, they must also stop receiving state services. This creates a framework for understanding state-citizen relationships as contractual rather than inherent.

Governments are outsourcing responsibilities to private entities as a cost-containment strategy, including military operations and municipal services like window washing. This outsourcing reflects fiscal pressures but raises philosophical questions about the appropriate role of the state versus citizens and corporations. Different societies will answer this question differently—France, America, China, and Brazil will develop distinct approaches to defining the appropriate balance between state and individual responsibility.

The increasing privatization of public goods and services, supported by the state, constitutes a crime against democracy because it removes choices from citizens in opaque ways. Private businesses lack the accountability that states possess—states must represent citizens and face electoral consequences, while companies prioritize profit. Research participants argued that privatization itself harms democracy by reducing citizen control over social services. This process creates a vicious cycle where disengaged citizens encourage more state crimes, which further erodes democratic participation.