Chandhoke brings to light several faults in the way global civil society functions. Among these is the assertion that in many instances, the very populations that INGOs are representing may not be represented at all (327). Many of these global organizations are orchestrated from the West and claim to work in the best interests of troubled populations of the South. Many doubt the democratic implications involved with this system as the leaders and decision makers of these organizations often to not consult with the native populations, but instead make decisions on their behalf, deciding what is best for their welfare. This is certainly an issue, but with the best interests of the people they are representing at hand, is it truly an issue worth debating.
In some cases, many members of disadvantaged communities do not even completely understand the complexities of their own situations, but at INGOs with expansive power and money, experts are in a position to determine what is best. Therefore, these populations have experts at their service that they would otherwise never have. Also, in many cases these people may not have a voice in their own state, let alone the world, so it should be seen at a gigantic advantage of globalization that they have a voice at all. So for now, even though representation by INGOs may not be completely democratic and accountability may not be completely present, it is a reasonable compromise to help people suffering around the world who have few other options. This issue, along with a lack of transparency and a tendency of tunnel vision are acceptable faults in a world where nations have difficulty compromising and these INGOs are, as a collective, working for the greater good in a relatively effective and efficient manner.
