CONTESTING GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY’S LEGITIMACY CLAIMS: EVALUATING INTERNATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (INGOS)’ REPRESENTATION OF AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO BENEFICIARIES

The global civil society is often regarded as a progressive moral force that provides advocacy and protection of marginalized groups in the global political arena. Nevertheless, departing from the belief that civil society has great power and influence over global dynamics, it sees that the legitimacy claims they articulate and articulated by academics are essential to be evaluated, especially with regard to their representation and accountability groups and individual beneficiaries. This paper concludes that the claims of legitimacy of civil society are less justifiable, both normatively and empirically. From the normative point of view, claims for civil society representation are problematic because they are often less ethical and thus have a counterproductive effect on the benefit of beneficiaries. In addition, they are more accountable to donors and the sustainability of related institutions than the interests of beneficiaries. From the empirical point of view, the legitimacy of civil society is also questionable because it is now emerging discourses from their own beneficiaries who oppose the actions of representatives and the lack of accountability demonstrated by International Non-Governmental Organizations over Beneficiaries. This paper concludes with a recommendation to the International NGOs to put the Beneficiaries' interests as top priority and stop projecting beneficiaries as passive, mute, and without political agency. Keyword: Civil Society, Non-Governmental Organization, Advocacy, Legitimacy, Beneficiaries, Representation, Accountability. Abstrak: Masyarakat sipil global (global civil society) seringkali dianggap sebagai kekuatan moral progresif yang memberikan pembelaan dan perlindungan terhadap kelompok termarjinalisasi dalam arena politik global. Namun demikian, berangkat dari keyakinan bahwa masyarakat sipil memiliki kekuatan dan pengaruh yang besar terhadap dinamika global, tulisan ini menilai bahwa klaim-klaim legitimasi yang mereka utarakan sendiri maupun disampaikan oleh para akademisi sangat penting untuk dievaluasi, khususnya yang berkenaan dengan representasi dan akuntabilitas mereka terhadap kelompok dan individu penerima manfaat (beneficiaries). Tulisan ini berkesimpulan bahwa klaim-klaim legitimasi masyarakat sipil kurang dapat dijustifikasi, baik secara normatif maupun empiris. Dari sisi normatif, klaim representasi masyarakat sipil bermasalah karena seringkali kurang etis dan justru menimbulkan efek kontraproduktif terhadap kemaslahatan beneficiaries. Selain itu, mereka lebih akuntabel terhadap donor dan keberlangsungan institusi terkait dibandingkan pokok kepentingan para beneficiaries. Dari segi empiris, legitimasi masyarakat sipil pun dipertanyakan karena kini bermunculan diskursus-diskursus dari para beneficiaries mereka sendiri yang menentang aksi representative yang dilakukan serta minimnya akuntabilitas ditunjukkan Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat Internasional terhadap para “Beneficiaries” Penerima Manfaat. Tulisan ini diakhiri dengan rekomendasi terhadap LSM Internasional agar kembali menjadikan kepentingan Penerima Manfaat sebagai prioritas utama dan berhenti memproyeksikan beneficiaries sebagai pihak yang pasif, mute, dan tidak memiliki agensi politik. Kata Kunci: Masyarakat Sipil, Organisasi Non-Pemerintah, Advokasi; Legitimasi, Beneficiaries, Representasi, Akuntabilitas. Cazadira Fediva Tamzil 166 INTRODUCTION Heralded as a progressive moral force or defender of the weak and marginalized, global civil society’s rise in the global political arena is generally seen in a positive light and its legitimacy rarely positioned as an object of academic inquiry. This essay neither seeks to reproduce this over-glorification of global civil society or propose a complete denial of all of the good works that they have done in various fields; promotion of human rights and environmental norms, injection of a gender-sensitive perspective, and others. Instead, what this essay seeks to do is discard the normative protective cloak normally worn by global civil society, and as Mercer (2002) puts it, see them for who they actually really are instead of what they are often imagined to be. Specifically, this essay answers Hahn and Holzscheiter’s (2013) call for a deeper interrogation into global civil society’s legitimacy claims, specifically ones which are directly related to their relationship with the ‘weak and marginalized’, or in other words those whom they call their ‘beneficiaries’. Although the focus of this essay is on International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) as the most prominent category of global civil society (Gemmill & BamideleIzu, 2002; Willetts, 2010), this essay accepts that INGOs are not the sole component of global civil society and thus accept that its conclusions may be limited to this type of actor. That limitation notwithstanding, this essay hopes to underscore how global civil society wields strong discursive and also now material power, and that it would potentially be catastrophic for scholars and policymakers to falsely perceive them as inherently good-natured beings whose global ascendance can or should go completely unchecked. Ultimately, this essay argues that INGOs’ problematic representation of and lack of accountability to their beneficiaries, which are endogenously and exogenously-driven, have caused NGOs to come under attack from the very people they claim to speak for and defend. Thus, their legitimacy claims are rendered unjustified on the basis of both empirical and normative grounds. In the first section, conceptual definitions of what this essay means by ‘global civil society’, ‘INGOs’ and their legitimacy claims are served. Next, this essay interrogates INGOs’ representations of their ‘weak and marginalized’ beneficiaries, and argues how they are normatively problematic for reproducing a North/South hierarchy, not firmly grounded in the real demands of beneficiaries as well as morally dubious for affirming certain stereotypes and jeopardizing beneficiaries’ dignity. The third section then delves into the question of INGOs’ accountability, highlighting how INGOs’ accountability is normatively problematic as they tend to be Global Jurnal Politik Internasional 18(2) 167 more accountable ‘upwards’ to donors than ‘downwards’ to their beneficiaries. Next, this essay puts forth the notion that INGOs’ problematic representation of and accountability to beneficiaries may be influenced by the institutional setting rife with power relations and various interests in which they are embedded. Last but not least, the essay underscores beneficiaries’ opposition of INGOs’ representations, which constitutes how their legitimacy claims also cannot be justified on empirical grounds. Conceptual Definitions Going beyond the assumption that International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) as a major component of global civil society are ‘experts’ who speak for the ‘voiceless’ and ‘heroes’ who always defend the ‘helpless’ on the basis of good moral values, this essay seeks to question their legitimacy claims as actors in global politics. Multiple definitions of civil society notwithstanding, this essay employs Florini’s conception (2012) which includes only ‘third force’ agents who claim to operate independently from the interests of states and market actors as well as Gemmill and Bamidele-Izu (2002) and Willetts (2010) conception that INGOs are the most prominent actor and often the face of global civil society. What are ‘INGOs’, and how do they differ from other components of global civil society? In this essay, INGOs are defined as highlyinstitutionalized organizations who have a legal identity as they are registered with states and networks which are transnational in scope. Although some might argue that their legitimacy may not be an important analytical agenda as it does not wield formal political authority as governments do, as elucidated by Jens and Steffek (2010), this essay contends that it is a highly important agenda given how they have been shown to wield strong discursive power, inter alia, by injecting new norms, namely the opposition to inhumane ‘whaling’ practices introduced by environmental INGOs, human rights principles by a transnational network of INGOs led by Amnesty International, and Gender-andDevelopment norms introduced by formal, Western-based feminist activist groups. In addition, INGOs are endowed in many occasions with numerous material resources entrusted by the public and their (government) donors to be delivered to the beneficiaries on the ground. All of those reasons combined, lead to this essay’s assertion that questioning global civil society’s legitimacy claim is highly important as an analytical agenda. Their relationship with and ability to promote wellbeing for their beneficiaries arguably forms the cornerstone of INGOs’ legitimacy, yet we often do not critically assess Cazadira Fediva Tamzil 168 what INGOs’ relationship are like with their beneficiaries as we take their inherent goodness for granted. Although this may seem obvious as INGOs’ behaviors have the most profound effects on the lives of their beneficiaries, it may be surprising to find that a conception of INGOs’ legitimacy as pertaining to their beneficiaries are often forgotten in existing literatures, save for a few exceptions such as Steffek & Hahn (2010) and Hahn & Holzscheiter (2013). Referring to Steffek & Hahn (2010), global civil society’s legitimacy is inextricably linked to a faithful representation of beneficiaries’ interests and accountability through which they can justify that what they have done are in the best interests of their beneficiaries’. To be more specific, Steffek and Hahn (2010) argue that ‘legitimacy’, as a concept, consists of normative and empirical dimensions with the former being defined as representatives’ rightful exercise of power and the latter as the support towards representatives from those who are actually being represente


INTRODUCTION
Heralded as a progressive moral force or defender of the weak and marginalized, global civil society's rise in the global political arena is generally seen in a positive light and its legitimacy rarely positioned as an object of academic inquiry. This essay neither seeks to reproduce this over-glorification of global civil society or propose a complete denial of all of the good works that they have done in various fields; promotion of human rights and environmental norms, injection of a gender-sensitive perspective, and others.
Instead, what this essay seeks to do is discard the normative protective cloak normally worn by global civil society, and as Mercer (2002) puts it, see them for who they actually really are instead of what they are often imagined to be. Specifically, this essay answers Hahn and Holzscheiter's (2013) call for a deeper interrogation into global civil society's legitimacy claims, specifically ones which are directly related to their relationship with the 'weak and marginalized', or in other words those whom they call their 'beneficiaries'.
Although the focus of this essay is on International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) as the most prominent category of global civil society (Gemmill & Bamidele-Izu, 2002;Willetts, 2010), this essay accepts that INGOs are not the sole component of global civil society and thus accept that its conclusions may be limited to this type of actor. That limitation notwithstanding, this essay hopes to underscore how global civil society wields strong discursive and also now material power, and that it would potentially be catastrophic for scholars and policymakers to falsely perceive them as inherently good-natured beings whose global ascendance can or should go completely unchecked.
Ultimately, this essay argues that INGOs' problematic representation of and lack of accountability to their beneficiaries, which are endogenously and exogenously-driven,  (2010), global civil society's legitimacy is inextricably linked to a faithful representation of beneficiaries' interests and accountability through which they can justify that what they have done are in the best interests of their beneficiaries'. To be more specific, Steffek and Hahn (2010) argue that 'legitimacy', as a concept, consists of normative and empirical dimensions with the former being defined as representatives' rightful exercise of power and the latter as the support towards representatives from those who are actually being represented.

NGO Representations
If we zoom in on INGOs' representations of their beneficiaries, a host of normative problems emerge to the fore. As argued by Spivak (1988), there are two layers to the term 'representation', with one being 'representation' as in 'speaking for' (vertreten) others in their capacity as political representatives and another being 'representation' as in 'speaking about' (darstellung) others similar to how artists translate from their own standpoints the conditions of specific objects. Oftentimes, INGOs put forth 'paternalistic' forms of advocacies which re-present their beneficiaries as passive, helpless victims who do not know what is in their best interests and thus in need of INGOs to step in and represent them (Barnett & Weiss, 2008). In a similar vein, Hahn and Holzscheiter (2013) state that NGOs commonly utter discourses revolving around notions of 'vulnerability', 'marginalization' and 'victimhood' which ultimately depict their beneficiaries as being unable to speak for or defend themselves -thus in need of INGOs' saving grace. Although some may regard this paternalistic, 'father-child'-like relationship as healthy and true to the realities on the ground, this essay contends that paternalistic advocacies are deeply problematic. In this context, we can turn to Foucault & Seitter (1977) who argue that discourses are powerful because they produce subjectivitiesinfluencing how people see themselves and how they are understood by others, enabling some whilst weakening others. This essay disagrees with Hudson (2000) who argues that the very act of speaking for others inherently disempowers those on whose behalf we speak. What is problematic is the paternalistic tendencies in those acts of speaking; how they produce meek victim subjects and strip beneficiaries of any form of political agency.
In addition, as Alcoff (1991) argues, despite the 'good' intentions of speakers of discourses which emphasize the notion that beneficiaries as victims, those discourses end up enfeebling as they close off the space through which marginalized beneficiaries can project their own voices. In sum, as Hahn and Holzscheiter (2013)  For Hahn and Holzscheiter (2013), this is a deliberate effort by NGOs to ensure their institutional longevity and preserve the legitimacy of their global role. If beneficiaries can fend for themselves, there is surely no need for NGOs to exist. In other words, NGOs' very survival depends on the existence of victims who they can 'speak for' and 'protect'. Hahn and Holzscheiter (2013) also touched on the notion of cultural bias. In the case of sex workers and child labors, Northern NGOs impose their own preconceived notions of what an ideal childhood or sexuality is; in this sense, validation of family as a social sphere which is to be completely separated from market rationale. In Barnett and Weiss' (2011) words, NGOs are "self-appointed guardians of morality and sound conscience" who view themselves as being morally superior and therefore reject other possible alternatives. Going beyond Hahn and Holzscheiter (2013), this essay regards NGOs as not existing in a political vacuum. Thus, it is imperative for us to examine factors which may be more exogenous in nature. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Gourevitch and Lake (2012, p. 23) who argued that NGOs operate in an environment occupied by various actors who exert control over NGOs, mainly because they provide funding. NGOs' capability or desire to do ideal representations are thus constrained by the structure in which they are embedded. As an example, donors pour the most compassion and money to advocacies grounded on graphic pictures depicting beneficiaries as helpless, innocent victims (Barnett & Weiss, 2008, p. 119). Therefore, NGOs' unethical advocacy is a combination of NGOs' own institutional and cultural bias as well as their effort to follow market demands in conducting advocacies or providing relief for their beneficiaries.

NGO Accountability
This relationship between NGOs and their donors ultimately also affect the 'accountability' dimension of their legitimacy claims. As institutions that depend on their beneficiaries for raison d'etre and others (donor governments, firms or individuals) for resources to operate, in principle, NGOs are accountable to a multiplicity of actors.
However, as Gross Stein (Forthcoming 2017, p. 131) conveys, NGOs generally claim that they are ultimately accountable to their beneficiaries. The notion of accountability immediately puts to play a principal-agent relationship. In the context of NGObeneficiaries relationship, theoretically, NGOs should also be agents who fulfill the demands of beneficiaries as their principals. This is not the case, however, as NGOs tend to be more accountable 'upwards' to their many donors and also their institutional wellbeing rather than 'downwards' to their beneficiaries which, as argued before, are perceived as meek victims with no political agency. As Walker and Maxwell (2014) argue, the majority of major INGOs which are deeply involved in humanitarian and development works in the global South are dependent on Northern government donors for their 'bread and butter' -ultimately limiting the parameters within which INGOs can act (Walker, 2009

CONCLUSION
This essay concludes with the notion that NGOs' legitimacy claims are questionable, or to an extent even unjustified, on the basis of both normative and empirical grounds. To substantiate this overall argument, this essay has shown two things.
First, how the normative dimension of NGOs' legitimacy, which means the rightful exercise of power, has been severely weakened owing to NGOs' problematic representations of and lack of accountability to beneficiaries. Driven by an interplay between endogenous and exogenous factors, NGO representations of beneficiaries are disempowering, counter-productive and ethically indefensible, and they show more accountability to donors than they do to their very own beneficiaries. Second, this essay has how also shown how the empirical dimension of NGOs' legitimacy has been severely weakened by 'speaking back' beneficiaries who have now retracted their support for INGOs due to their disappointment in the performance of INGOs and the emergence of a new space for political subjectivization.
Taking all the aforementioned into account, this essay advocates mainly two things. First, INGOs need to make a shift towards more responsible representations of beneficiaries. Second, INGOs need to remember their promise as part of the third force.
In addition to continuing to put beneficiaries first, INGOs must also work to fully restore the political agency of beneficiaries who have lost them and eventually enable them to partake in global governance. INGOs need to dismantle their perception of superiority, remove cultural bias and try to understand things from the viewpoint of beneficiaries, as well as resist the constraints imposed by other actors. It is absolutely imperative for