ABSTRACT
Given the dramatic rise of peacebuilding over the past 15 years, accompanied by the increase in the number and roles of NGOs, it should not come as a surprise that there has been an associated growth in academic attention paid to the subject. To this point the focus has been on the development of literatures on peacebuilding, demonstrating the ways in which both the academic and policy literatures have drawn on liberal thought. In particular it was illustrated how this has led to civil society promotion as a core tool in addressing the causes of conflict. As peacebuilding has incorporated humanitarianism, as well as development narratives and practices, there has been a commensurate increase in the importance of NGOs. While the ways in which NGOs have come to act as the vanguard of civil society and have received broad support from across the political spectrum was explored in the last chapter, there is a growing critical literature that is challenging the efficacy and value of NGO-centric policies. It would be a gross simplification to assert that NGOs in peacebuilding have received little academic or policy scrutiny. In fact, as this chapter demonstrates, there have been numerous critiques levelled against NGOs’ roles in peacebuilding and development. That said, the majority of the literature that critically examines NGOs’ roles and impacts on Southern states does not seek to discard NGOs (let alone civil society). Most of the analysis should be seen as providing ‘friendly critique’, striving to make the sector more effective in both development and democratization. This is not to say that this body of literature has ignored potential problems emerging from the modern practice of civil society-centric reconstruction and rehabilitation. Rather, that by paying close attention to the problems that have emerged, numerous authors and policy makers have striven to correct and improve policies surrounding peacebuilding. There is a secondary body of literature, which challenges the viability of NGOs, in particular the international organizations that are at the heart of the modern rescue industry. However, this work has generally sought to privilege local civil society. In this way, it will be argued that the critiques do not fundamentally undermine the assumptions informing liberal civil society-centric peacebuilding.
