Public space

The Jakarta Post ,  Jakarta   |  Tue, 09/19/2006 8:20 AM  |  Opinion

Singapore was in the headlines last week, mostly for reasons that any government would be less than enthusiastic about. For it took the strict requirements for entry into the city-state, including a blacklist of would-be visitors, to put the spotlight on its government and hundreds of non-governmental organizations set to attend the IMF-World Bank meetings, or related events, there.

If Singapore was not altogether proud of the coverage, neither was anyone else. Enough news and views on what the financial bodies want had been processed, along with the messages of country delegates.

But what were the protests all about other than shouting to get in, and eventually, shouting to stay out of the IMF-WB events and Singapore? In the end, the general public was disadvantaged, because it likely failed to grasp the issues raised by the activists.

In the past few decades, networking among NGOs has enabled them to regularly hold discussions and campaigns parallel to or prior to the events of international bodies. The responses of institutions like the IMF, the Bank and the World Trade Organization have also facilitated a mechanism that accommodates the participation of civil society representatives in their meetings. Access to their policy papers and reports have also been made easier in the past few years.

Details of the IMF-WB talks aside, the main message in this regard is the mutual recognition of the necessity of public participation in decision-making processes that affect everyone's lives.

They are too crucial to be left to the elite alone, although many would happily leave the technical jargon and discourse to the men and women in suits.

This message has been much slower to reach governments, as we saw last week. Although not as frank as Singapore, other governments are also anxious about rowdy activists who care zero about protocol and niceties. Violent incidents have certainly helped to give a bad name to activists, from Seattle to Singapore. Acts of anarchy are what people remember most, unfortunately, about movements and organizations raising counter views to the establishment; the hard work that goes into position papers and studies by NGOs and their scholars are drowned in the clamor.

Governments like Singapore's may have tried to be selective and refrained from making blanket accusations about activists. But the resulting blacklist still failed to be convincing in regards to whether the people mentioned, including researchers, were a threat to ""security and order, and whether they now have criminal records.

The arguments of these activists may be unsettling, distasteful, radical, or ring refreshingly true, depending on one's perspective. What is evident is they are making a start on examining the other side of the policies of world institutions and governments -- the impact on the people.

Whatever ""agenda"" one suspects the activists have, their work with the grass roots of society enables them to look closely at, for instance, fancy economic models and statistics -- and the people in them; whether they be farmers, traders or workers.

In failing to accommodate their views, we are robbed of an opportunity to be informed as much as possible by different sources.

Many may appreciate the government's efforts to spare citizens from traffic jams and rowdy rallies that could turn ugly. The curious among us can still look at the websites of civil society organizations that intended to share their views during and prior to the IMF-WB meetings.

But this means there is still much room for governments to cater to a public that feels entitled to make its own judgments, based on access to information and knowledgeable sources -- on any issue.

Particularly when it comes to matters that concern our livelihoods, this requires a less patronizing attitude, and again, the facilitation of freedom of expression.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.