#AI ChatGPT – OpenAI: Does Civil Society (NGOs) sometimes advance more the interests of their own, than the interests of ordinary citizens?

Civil Society is described as 1) the aggregate of non-governmental organizations and institutions that advance the interests and will of citizens or 2) individuals and organizations in a society which are independent of the government.

Without disrespecting Civil Society, can it not be argued that e.g., its NGOs, sometimes advance more the interests of their own, than the interests of ordinary citizens?

I asked ChatGPT - OpenAI what it opined on that and it answered:

"Your observation is not unfounded, and it reflects a nuanced aspect of civil society and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Civil society, which includes NGOs, encompasses a wide range of organizations and groups, and their actions can vary in terms of their alignment with the interests of ordinary citizens. Here are some points to consider:

1. Diverse Goals: NGOs and civil society organizations can have a diverse range of goals and priorities. While many are dedicated to advancing the interests of citizens and promoting the greater good, some may prioritize their organizational interests, funding sources, or specific ideological or political agendas.

2. Accountability: Accountability mechanisms for NGOs and civil society organizations can vary. Some organizations have strong internal and external accountability structures, while others may lack transparency or oversight. In such cases, the interests of the organization or its leaders may take precedence over those of ordinary citizens.

3. Funding Sources: NGOs often rely on funding from various sources, including governments, private foundations, and individual donors. The nature of their funding can influence their priorities and actions. For instance, NGOs heavily reliant on government funding may be more cautious in their criticism of government policies.

4. Mission and Values: The mission, values, and leadership of an NGO or civil society organization can significantly impact its alignment with the interests of ordinary citizens. Some organizations may have a clear commitment to advocacy and action for the betterment of society, while others may be driven by narrower objectives.

5. Ethical Considerations: NGOs and civil society organizations operate in a complex landscape. Ethical considerations, such as the potential for conflicts of interest, can arise. These ethical dilemmas may sometimes lead to actions that appear to prioritize the interests of the organization or specific stakeholders over those of the broader citizenry.

It's important to recognize that the civil society landscape is not uniform. There are numerous NGOs and civil society organizations that genuinely strive to advance the interests of ordinary citizens and uphold principles of transparency and accountability. However, it's also essential for citizens and stakeholders to critically assess and hold organizations accountable when they perceive actions that deviate from the public interest.

Ultimately, discussions around the role and impact of civil society and NGOs should take into account the diversity and complexity of these organizations, and they should include efforts to ensure that they serve the best interests of the communities and societies they aim to represent and serve."

Thanks!

"You're welcome! If you have any more questions or need further information, feel free to ask. I'm here to assist you!"

Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by OpenAI

The statist Basel Accord should be anathema to the American Constitution.

Charles Krauthammer once wrote the American Constitution “stands for the pillars that define a limited government with enumerated powers, whose mission is to preserve liberty and individual rights”, “The enduring miracle of the American Constitution”, Washington Post, November 30.

In 1988, one year before the Berlin wall fell and so many thought the world had freed itself from communism, America, and much of the developed world, signed up on the Basel Accord. That accord, for the purpose of its risk weighted capital requirements for banks, awarded the sovereign a 0% risk weight, while imposing one of 100% on unrated citizens.

If Krauthammer is right when he wrote of a reverence for the Constitution “so deeply ingrained that we don’t even see it; we just think it’s in the air that we breathe”, I cannot understand the American silence on what clearly is a statist concoction; which I believe goes against everything America and its Constitution stands for.

That seriously distorted the allocation of bank credit in favor of governments and has now painted America into a very dangerous corner; in 1988 America’s public debt was about $2.6 trillions, now it owes around $21.7 trillions and still has a 0% risk weight.

@PerKurowski

Basel risk-weights: Sovereign (Monarch) 0%, AAArisktocracy 20% and citizens 100%: And the world said nothing!

With the Basel Accord of 1988 (signed one year before the Berlin wall fall) regulators, for the purpose of setting the capital requirements for banks, assigned a 0% risk weight for loans to the sovereign and 100% to the private sector. Some years later, 2004, with Basel II, they reduced the risk-weight for loans to those in the private sector rated AAA to AA to 20%, and left the unrated citizens with their 100%.

That has introduced a considerable regulatory subsidy for the bank borrowings of the infallible sovereign (government bureaucrats) and of those of the private sector deemed almost infallible. And that has severely taxed the access to bank credit, of those deemed as risky, like SMEs and entrepreneurs.

That de facto means that bank regulators believe that government bureaucrats know better what to do with bank credit than citizens.

And the world said nothing! What's wrong? Have all gone statist?

Here the famous Venezuelan/Nicolás Maduro method to eliminate income inequality among citizens.

For all of you who like Thomas Piketty are very concerned with income inequality, you can sleep like babies now. 

Venezuela´s president Nicolás Maduro has designed an easy 3 step method that will forever condemn to bad memories all inequality among citizens.

1. With expropriations, price and foreign exchange controls, and similar creative methods, you create a scarcity of many vital consumer products.

2. Then you introduce a rationing system which allows for limited purchases of some of the really scarce consumer products, and which requires you to present your right hand thumb at a machine, for fingerprint recognition.

3. Finally, you allow the poor to negotiate freely in the market the lease of their right hand thumb.

It is a beautiful method. The more severe the scarcity, the more are the rich prepared to pay in order to lease the right hand thumbs of the poor, and so the less the inequalities. It can´t go wrong… that is for as long as you are still alive!

PS. I guess they will try to make the thumb of the left hand work too! That way you can lease out two thumbs at the same time… and make the inequalities disappear much faster. Hurrah!

Every time a candidate, no matter how good, looses because he took our votes for granted, that is great news.

I am not an American, and I lack sufficient knowledge of the candidates in order to opine on whether I would prefer Eric Cantor or the other one… of whom I do not even know his name.

But, as a citizen, any time a candidate, no matter how good, loses anywhere, because he seemingly has taken the votes of us citizens for granted… that is great news.

Do developing countries have a real voice in the developed Civil Society Community?

As a former Executive Director of the World Bank (2002-2004) and who since my term ended have been in very close contact with many ONGs or Civil Society Organizations, and have even acted as part of the Civil Society, I must say I am not so sure of how to answer the question made in the title... of course making the caveat that neither am I so sure about what Civil Society really means.

As a citizen I have seen many extremely good NGOs that I have nothing to complain about and much to thank for, but, then again I have also seen some multinational ONG corporations that arrogantly want to impose their agendas and their world views on us… and that we should not let them! No ONG, much less an international, should ever be able to completely substitute for the voice of an individual citizen.

For instance on a somewhat personal note, I am an oil-cursed citizen, I have seen some ONGs taking the side of governments defending their right to manage the oil-revenues on behalf of the (incapable) citizens, and even recommending that this be done through a tripartite arrangement between governments, oil-companies and civil society, presumably their civil society. This is totally unacceptable for a citizen that has seen immense non renewable oil richness being wasted forever and good governance made impossible by the extreme powers vested into any government which receives the oil income.

In other cases I have seen small local NGOs while trying to find real life solutions to their urgent day to day problems, like for instance those derived from bad public services resulting from badly executed privatizations, seeing their agendas completely and unduly taken over for the internationally seemingly more “interesting” quest of “getting back at those bastard multinational corporations”.

I had the opportunity of participating in many debates on the voice and governance issues at the World Bank, and I do think the bank is well served of reaching out very often to the civil society in search of the-other-side-of-the-story but, in doing so, it should first always make clear that in the final count it works for governments, so as not to create false expectations, and secondly to always be really sure of what civil society is represented by which civil society and that each civil society is duly connected to a real life citizen.

The citizen’s minimum minimorum on opinions.

Anyone has the right to opine in anyone’s name... that is an integral part of the freedom of opinions.

Most of those opining in the name of the citizens independently of whether the citizens opine so, or even have an opinion, are usually known, collectively, as the civil society, and this even when they behave somewhat uncivil.

In this respect and though it should be the duty of most citizens to opine on matters of their concern, but which unfortunately they most often do not, the least we should ask from them, as a minimum minimorum, is that they should be informed about what the civil society is opining in their name.

For example here

Growing difficulties to enjoy the booty

During the recent meetings of the World Bank, as a result of the current mess surrounding its president Mr. Wolfowitz, some issues were unfortunately relegated to the background.

One of them refers to the announcement of the Initiative for the Recovery of Stolen Assets, which, together with other agreements such as OECD’s against corruption, shows how the world progresses, very slowly but safely, on the path of better global governance.

The ease by which until now thieves managed to hide their loot is shameful; sometimes even under the noses of their victims. There is of course still a long way for an initiative like this to become an effective instrument ... but perhaps in less time than what the outlaws in the world suspect.

Parallel to official initiatives, the technological advances that allow access, archive and send information is converting civil society, citizens, whether we like it or not, into real-time investigators. It’s not they are searching, but when they do see a knowingly corrupt, and have their cell phone with camera in hand, they will take a photo of him in his moments of enjoyment, which will swell the truth-files until these explode.

In the same way, all those concealment of ill-gotten goods services, to which some corrupt countries have been dedicated are becoming more expensive; as that international community of civil societies develops and understands they have all better row in the same direction, if they are to have a chance for survival on an ever shrinking planet.

Finally and observing how in Canada an ordinary court recently began a trial on violations of human rights (the genocide in Rwanda), the day should not be far away when one of those millions of emigrants in the world who have been much forced to emigrate as a consequence of corrupt acts by their rulers, could successfully sue one he finds enjoying ill-gotten money in their new alternative country. The tests you would need to enter your claims, would all be sent to you on the web.

Does the above threaten the sovereignty of nations? Sadly yes! So therefore it is always much better for nations to free themselves, sovereignly, from their own corrupt.

One of the 4,292,466 shadow citizens of a shadow nation. (Insolently there are still records to be scrutinized)

Translated from El Universal