Will the whiny socialist kids please stop throwing tantrums about a global system that’s functioning just fine, thank you?

That’s essentially the gist of Kevin Bloom’s article in The Daily Maverick, where he dismisses the critiques of the upcoming World Movement for Democracy conference as nothing more than a fit of "incandescent rage".

His piece, titled Global Democracy Conference in SA Dodges Trump Bullet Fired by an Irate Zwelinzima Vavi, seems to imply that any criticism of this US-state-sponsored event — which is, let’s remember, designed to further the national interests of the US and its corporate backers — should just be swept aside. After all, who needs pesky questions about the role of NGOs in a system built on corporate exploitation and ongoing genocide?

As a journalist, though, Bloom’s evidence for his argument is embarrassingly weak. It’s underwhelming at best and frankly doesn’t even begin to tackle the real issues at play.

From the outset, he describes the South African Federation of Trade Unions (SAFTU)’s statement as the rantings of an individual — Zwelinzima Vavi — even though the statement was an individual pronouncement but a collective statement endorsed by the 21 organisations that make up the second-largest trade union collective in the country, representing something close to a million workers across South Africa. (COSATU, the largest trade union federation in SA, has withdrawn from the conference in protest.)

The personalisation of the issue as Vavi’s — a "past-his-sell-by-date" socialist — is, in my view, not a matter of writing style but a deliberate attempt to dismiss any critiques of the pertinent matter of SA NGOs’ relationship with the US military-industrial complex as ridiculous.

So ridiculous, in fact, that the claims might as well be seen as coming from children. This is the inference we get from the way Bloom justifies the normalcy of US national security personnel being part of the NED. After quoting the NED’s description of its members, which does include national security figures, the author’s condescension is clear: “Of course, it would have been nice had NED not mentioned ‘national security.’ But this was clearly a conference for adults, who knew the world for what it was.”

Aren’t we lucky to have the adults in the room steering us minors away from wayward thoughts like: What is a foreign government-funded organisation, whose co-founder called it an instrument of the CIA, doing holding a conference on democracy in a country that produced figures like Nelson Mandela? (Let’s not forget, it was the CIA that actually tipped off the Apartheid Security Police about Mandela’s whereabouts, leading to his arrest and imprisonment.)

Is it to remind us, girls and boys, that no matter how many times we appeal to international law via the UN or the ICJ, we will not have understood the meaning of ‘democracy’? That the magic wand of freedom can only be waved by the American Godfather (pun intended)?

I wonder how the wise adults would receive a Russian state-backed ‘NGO’ hosting a conference on democracy. Safe to say, The Daily Maverick would hardly be cheerleading for such a scenario. Much has been written about the links between the National Endowment for Democracy, which essentially funds the WMD Conferences, and US intelligence agencies — what Bloom accuses Vavi of as "sleight of hand" through association.

Less is known publicly about the overlap between the NED and AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, considered to be the most important lobby group in US politics, essentially the lobby that can make or break presidential careers.

High-ranking members of AIPAC have been influential in shaping NED policy, aligning US strategic goals with the maintenance of Israeli supremacy over the Middle East. Kenneth Wollack, for example, was AIPAC’s Legislative Director (1973–1980) and played an instrumental role in legalising the mechanisms for U.S.-Israel ties.

Wollack also held a senior position on the Middle East Strategy Task Force and is a member of the George W. Bush Institute's Advisory Council on Human Freedom. More importantly, since 2021, Kenneth Wollack has held the position of Chairperson of the NED.

Moreover, the NGO representatives slated to speak at the WMD conference are not only funded by the NED but also share the ideological consensus that considers democracy and neoliberalism inseparable from human progress.

This is reflected in the links between NED/WMD-sponsored ‘civil society’ organisations and institutions like the World Economic Forum and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR is a highly influential think tank, whose current Chairman, David Rubinstein, is also the co-founder of the Carlyle Group, which manages $447 billion in assets, including large sectors of oil and gas investments in North Africa and the Middle East.

Essentially, the critique of the WMD conference is not that the local participants are CIA agents working under the guise of South African interests, but the acute conflation of private corporate interests with what are portrayed as neutral concepts of ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy.’

By doing so, local NGOs actually work to strengthen the global status quo rather than challenge it.

While NGOs are, by their very nature, outside of the state in challenging the trespasses of the state against citizens, they also have the potential to neutralise structural change by atomising rights to the individual (such as women’s rights, human rights, environmental rights).

The individual is seen as a consumer of services with rights that will check the producer of such services, rather than a citizenry involved in the creation of meaningful change that would benefit a collective nation, regardless of their class status.

In the case of Palestine, funding for organisations that do not espouse the two-state solution or challenge the right of Israel to exist in its current form of illegal settlements are readily defunded and, worse still, placed on the U.S. list of sponsors of terrorism.

Arundhati Roy captures the depoliticisation of activism that dulls the edges of resistance when she says, “NGOs give the impression that they’re filling the gaps created by the withdrawal of the state, but really they’re there to manage dissent.”

Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on market-driven policies, privatisation, and individualism, has had a profound impact on Palestinian society. In the wake of the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, neoliberal economic policies were introduced into the West Bank and Gaza Strip under the guise of economic development. International donors and financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) promoted a framework that emphasised entrepreneurship, microfinance, and private sector growth as tools for "peace-building."

While these initiatives were presented as mechanisms for economic empowerment, they came with significant costs to collective solidarity against occupation. The focus on individual economic advancement undermined collective political mobilization. For instance, microfinance programs encouraged Palestinians to prioritise personal financial success over broader struggles for liberation. This atomisation of Palestinian society diluted the grassroots movements that had been central to resisting Israeli occupation.

Investment in judiciary and legalities of human rights in the West Bank creates a mirage of a state when, in effect, the Occupied Territories have no semblance of autonomy from the Israeli regime. Even in Israeli jails, Palestinians are separated from each other to limit a collective consciousness of struggle against the colonial occupation system, to the extent that they become focused on the well-being of their own individual families left behind. The Palestinian Authority’s complicity in the Israeli occupation has enabled the Israelis to extract much from Palestinian land without having to be responsible for Palestinian welfare. Services like health, education, and poverty alleviation have been made the responsibility of the PA in the absence of a Palestinian treasury or independent legal status.

Moreover, neoliberal policies entrench economic dependency on international donors and Israel. The Palestinian economy is tethered to aid packages and an uneven trade relationship with its occupier, perpetuating a cycle of vulnerability. This dependency weakens the capacity of Palestinians to build an independent economic foundation that could support sustained resistance.

International NGO emphasis on good governance, accountability, and state-building in Palestine is not only laughable but a violent reminder of the hypocrisy of the global unipolar order that undermines the national liberation project. As Khalidi and Samour describe the Palestine Reform and Development Plan developed by the PA’s Fayyad government in collaboration with donors:

“Underlying its (law and order) technical, neutral vocabulary is the desire to escape politics, and indeed the very political nature of the question of Palestine. The statehood program encourages the idea that citizens may have to acquiesce in occupation but will not be deprived of the benefits of smoother-running traffic, a liberal education, investor-friendly institutions, efficient public service delivery, and, for the middle class, access to luxury hotel chains.”

NGOs have been co-opting revolutionary symbols like Mandela and Malcolm X by using their images or names to legitimise their work or gain funding, even when their missions may not align with the radical ideals these figures represented. By associating themselves with these iconic symbols, NGOs tap into their moral authority and public appeal, making their causes seem more credible or worthy of support (think of the names Ahmed Kathrada and Desmond Tutu).

But this diverts attention from the deeper structural issues these revolutionaries fought against, such as inequality and systemic oppression, focusing instead on less confrontational, more palatable initiatives that don’t challenge the status quo. In doing so, NGOs inadvertently or purposefully water down the revolutionary spirit to maintain their relevance in a neoliberal framework.

Bloom signs off his opinion piece with quotes from the NGO’s statement on their commitment to highlighting the situation in Palestine (as if people needed any more evidence of Israeli massacres of Palestinians that have continued unabated for more than a year). I think the words of the prolific Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, who was fond of reading his poetry in public spaces, encapsulate the essence of how real revolution and political change are made:

“It is true that Gaza has its special circumstances and its own revolutionary traditions. But its secret is not a mystery: Its resistance is popular and firmly joined together and knows what it wants (it wants to expel the enemy out of its clothes). The relationship of resistance to the people is that of skin to bones and not a teacher to students. Resistance in Gaza did not turn into a profession or an institution.

It did not accept anyone’s tutelage and did not leave its fate hinging on anyone’s signature or stamp.

It does not care that much if we know its name, picture, or eloquence. It did not believe that it was material for media. It did not prepare for cameras and did not put smiling paste on its face. Neither does it want that, nor we.”

* Mariam Jooma Carikci is a researcher at the Media Review Network. She is the author of Kurdistan: Achievable Reality of Political Mirage?

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.