Alternative voices from civil society are more necessary than ever

Charities and campaign groups have weathered a storm of controversies in recent years, over everything from senior salaries to fundraising tactics and the conduct of field staff in other countries.
At the same time as being rocked by scandals, the charity sector has increasingly faced attempts to limit its voice. The 2014 Lobbying Act puts huge restrictions on the ability of charities and civil society groups to campaign in the run up to elections. It is likely that the ability of organisations to challenge proposals and suggest what they deem to be progressive alternatives, will be eroded further still.
The former MP and then Minister for Civil Society Brooks Newmark, famously commented in 2014 that charities “should stick to knitting”. While this was relatively easy to dismiss as a flippant remark, it is indicative of the view held by many — that charities and NGOs should stay out of politics.
While of course independent organisations are going to want to remain just that — independent, it is in my view damaging to society to limit the role of NGOs to “helping people” as Newmark stated should be their focus should be. This is also an extremely limited framing as advocacy is a key way that people and communities can be ‘helped’.
Be it housing, the environment or immigration policy — independent perspectives are essential to lively and healthy debate. Not only that, they can bring frontline experience, academic rigour and in many cases the voices of thousands of supporters or members into a discussion.
Attempts have been made to amend the Lobbying Act, but these have been rejected. Much has been made of the Act’s potential “chilling effect” on the behaviour of civil society groups — but we’re likely to see further attempts to limit the space for independent voices in the future.
Much of the lobbying that takes place is highly concerning — but this by and large pertains to the corporate sector. There have been many scandals relating to corporate lobbying, but it is currently NGOs that are being limited in their scope to lobby and take part in public debate.
In many cases, organisations are working to a democratic mandate given to them by their members. Take the example of the RSPB. If they take part in a government consultation on an issue or lobby ministers – they are not just representing a group of paid staff or company shareholders but the voice of over a million members.
RSPB members are of course interested in the practical conservation efforts of the organisation, but they also want to see the organisation’s positions represented in public debate.
An organisation — be it Greenpeace, War or Want, Oxfam or The Tax Payers’ Alliance represents a particular set of values held by a strand of the electorate. Our democracy is at its healthiest when a diversity of positions represented by a range of groups have a space within public discourse.
It is essential that those working for NGOs as well as supporters of organisations and other interested parties make the case as strongly as possible for the positive role of civil society within debate.
Organisations are an essential vehicle for members of the public to make their voices heard, whether by signing a petition, contributing to MP lobbying or taking part in other activities designed to raise an issue. Limiting the space for civil society, not only creates a chilling effect that modifies how organisations operate but it also limits an essential avenue by which public opinion is represented to decision makers and within debates.
