Although the concept of civil society dates back to the 17th century, the concept recently gained thrust in the development of the contemporary world due to the failure of the state[1] and the market[2] in facilitating development. The concept has been interpreted as the answer to all development issues, and has been termed “the magic bullet,” because of its wide scope which reflects society, in which it is rooted, (Willis 2005: 346). Living in a world of shrinking borders and burgeoning needs, where people are faced with rapid social, economic and political changes, the mantle of seeking new ways of “managing” their lives and the future of their communities has been carried by civil society, (Fowler 2000: 22). Because of this dynamic shift in approaching development, there has been a growing rejection of the myth that the state and the market are the sole legitimate agents of development and the decision-making process.
Based on the above views, the core of this paper is to discuss how the concept of civil society has reappeared in the recent past and indicate why perhaps the world should look at it as an ideology that would help to serve meaningful socio-economic and political ends. And further take into observation some of the major limitations of civil society operations in developing countries.
Civil society does not have a single definition, as it means different things to different people. To Edwards (2004: 01), civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values; with institutional forms that are theoretically distinct from those of the state, family and market, but in practice often comprise of complex, blurred and negotiated boundaries between the family, state, civil society, and market. Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power. Organisations that fall under civil society are often populated by groups such as registered charities, development non-governmental organisations, community groups, women’s organisations, faith-based organisations, professional associations, trades unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy group.
Kamugisha (2008: 02) views civil society as a set of institutions and values that serve as both a buffer and a critical link between the state and individuals; which is manifested when civic and social organisations such a non-governmental organisations (NGOs)[3] combine efforts to come up with a tangible value driven policy. It is perceived as the social space through which people organise themselves to promote shared objectives and values and is usually seen as essential to the proper functioning of a democratic society and to the enrichment of a country’s institutional foundations, (David 1990: 28). This space is populated by civil society organisations (CSOs) that are defined as organisations of formal and informal character operating at different levels of enhancing human development and building on their operations.
To understand better which organisations qualify into the civil society umbrella, it is important to follow the criteria which say: they must be non-profit making organisation. These are value driven and members do not seek profit or governing power, but seek to influence public policy and practice at different levels. They must also posses some autonomy. That is, they must be independent from government control and management. Thirdly, they must have an element of voluntarism. CSOs are not profit driven, but their staffs and supporters volunteer their time, money and skills for the good of society and they can pull-out easily if they wished. Further, all CSOs are usually value driven. Some desire to contribute to the improvement of society’s functioning, others are concerned with improving society’s human rights records, others women’s affairs in access to employment and employment opportunities and others in a diverse areas of human endeavour, (Cannon 1995: 03). In general, it cuts across society as it touches almost all spheres of life be it the environment, human rights, democracy, governance, social issues and the like, thus referred to as a “magic bullet.”
Regardless of the source of inspiration, the resurgence of civil society in the recent past has been driven by many factors ranging from global social, political and economic events, to domestic concerns of individual countries. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the transition to de
mocracy[4] by countries in the Western and Eastern Blocks, and later to Africa, is one of the causal factors of civil society resurgence. The wind of change to democracy was embraced by many countries especially (LDCs) as an ideology that spelt out an economic hope. Democracy was seen as a recipe to the economic misery, poverty and other challenges that “soured” life, as people were fed up with dictatorial economic interventions in development as they wanted a free economy that would allow market forces of demand and supply to address all economic underscores that were paralysing development, (Salame 2000: 04).
Western donor countries took advantage of LDCs’ political transition to propagate for the market economy. They promised foreign aid to those countries that embraced the liberal principles of development, where democracy could be allowed to flourish. The rationale is that when politics is concentrated in few hands, the economy would suffer as the politically powerful tend to be the only ones with access to resources like the media, money, transport, taxes, licences and other requirements in taking part in economic activities. This is common in Africa where political and economic powers are centred around rulers (‘big men’), who rule more in their personal capacity, without regard to formal institutional arrangements, but as office holders (Ake 1996: 08). This kind of rule hinders the involvement of ordinary citizens in policy and decision making as access to contracts, licenses or projects are organised through the presidency or political elite. Democracy was thus seen as solution to that disorder as it allows fair play by creating an environment where political and economic competition controls the routes to wealth creation for society. Businesses are pressured to be innovative and efficient in order to remain in business, rather than being provided stimulus resources by the state and its agencies, (Sakala and Chanda 2005: 52). Innovativeness and creative to remain operational becomes the way of survival in a market driven economy.
Civil society thus found a niche in the advent of democracy to champion for conditions that promote fair play in accessing requisites to development by society regardless of one’s status or otherwise. NGOs and CSOs played a critical part in enhancing democracy by mobilising the masses towards democratisation[5] in different parts of the world especially in the mid-1990s. And since most LDCs were agitated by some economic hostilities of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund like structural adjustment programmes, they welcomed the need for regime change from any arrangement to democracy for thepurpose of economic gains, especially that the concept was attached to aid and some other economic benefits (Chigunta 2004). It anchored on political and economic liberalisation principles. This refers to a political system where people’s freedoms and rights are recognised and people are free to elect leaders on whom they command guidelines on how they want to be ruled through the constitution, where periodic elections are held (ideally freely and fairly) and people are free to form organisations that provide checks and balances on government, among other rights that derive from democracy, (Mbeki 2004: 23).
Taking advantage of certain freedoms embedded in democracy, CSOs chipped in to campaign against injustices, social ills, and poverty, among others and for policy and governance transformation towards defined social development objectives of democracy. They started to advocate for democracy in most LDCs so that the citizenry can be empowered by stripping-off some state powers by institutions like trade unions and the citizenry themselves. Civil society thus ensured that there was room for critical voices alongside the power structure of the state. Maria (2006: 02) states that a democratic state without a civil society loses its legitimacy –its only mandate would stem from regularly holding elections – and taking on the role of an administrator, governing citizens instead of allowing citizens to shape the government.
This shows that civil society has been part of the political landscape in LDCs for sometime. Trade unions, youth organisations, church movements and other social groupings were often the spaces in which colonialism was challenged to endeavour to attain self-governance and currently provided space through which multiparty democratic movements emerged. The current struggles of civil society are centred on the institutionalisation of democratic nature and good governance[6] and the rights of citizens to participate in the formulation and implementation of policies designed to improve standards of living. For example, in Tanzania, CSOs involved in advocacy have built their capacity to contribute to the formulation of government policy especially on sexual abuse on children, inheritance laws, and land ownership, among others, (ODI: 2000). In order to foster democracy, civil society provides checks and balance mechanisms on the behaviour of the state (watchdog function), enhances political participation among citizens through civic education[7], provides political leadership and resisting authoritarianism and nurtures democratic institutions, (Fowler 2000: 7).
According to Ball and Fayeni (2004: 11), “a vibrant civil society is an essential component of systems of governance as it promotes good governance and democratic participation of citizens in the political process.” However, civil society can be more effective in enhancing good governance and citizen participation in the democratic process where other institutions and systems (such as the legal system and the media) are strong and more accountable to the people. Other mechanisms such as a sound electoral process, political parties, media and formal redress procedures play pertinent roles in the democratic process of any country. But even where other systems are dysfunctional, civil society can reasonably be influential in helping to build pluralism[8] as it pushes rulers to be more accountable to populations over which they claim authority. An effective media is a pillar of good governance as it promotes transparency and accountability by exposing any wrong doing by those in power.
The limitations of state and market driven development, especially for the marginalised citizenry socially or politically is another factor which led to the reappearance of civil society. In the 1990s, most developing countries (LDCs) were overwhelmed by a widespread expectation in the adoption of laissez-faire economic system, where the private sector and the market were to occupy the centre stage in these countries’ economic policies, (Schultheiss 2002: 01). It was assumed that the private sector and the market could bring about a more efficient use of resources, hence promoting development and economic growth. The market driven approach to development promoted the liberalisation of interest rates, limit the growth of money supply in order to arrest inflation and provide a stable economy, liberalise trade, adopt flexible foreign exchange policies, decontrol prices and encourage competition, among others.
These measures were assumed to enhance development and improve the well-being of the majority of the citizenry. But in the case of Zambia (and many other developing countries), the net effects of these reforms were the widening of the gap between the poor and the rich, worsened challenge in accessing clean water and sanitation and general inadequacies in the general welfare of the majority Zambians, (econ.worldbank.org/extern). This was mainly because this type of approach to development showed no regard for those who could not stand the competition of the market, as the quest for profit maximisation is rarely compatible with equity consideration or social responsibility.
In order to moderate the severity of the free market reform measures on the weaker members of society, there emerged calls for “liberalism with a human face,” which with the support of the World Bank led to the setting up of a Social Recovery Unit, whose duties amongst others were to monitor the social impacts of the reform programmes, (Sakala and Chanda 2000: 51). These poverty cushioning programmes were largely implemented through the international and local civil society organisations because of their strategic position in filling the gaps left by the market or government. CSOs play a very important role in development because they are well positioned in a number of “axes” so much that they can be very small-scale and operate in one region or country only or very large global organisations with partners throughout the world; a phenomenon which enable them enhance meaningful grass-root development. This is a position where real development starts.
Because of their position (of being at the grassroots and facilitating grassroots development), civil society organisations are often regarded as the answer to the perceived limitations of the state or the market in development mainly because they can provide services that are much appropriate to local communities, Willis (2005: 98). This is because they work with populations at the grassroots to find out what facilities are required. In addition, they are able to provide such services more efficiently and effectively through drawing on local people’s knowledge and also using local materials. Further, due to the scale of operation and the linkages with local people, they are able to react more quickly to local demands (Green and Matthias 1995: 234). The smallness in structures of CSOs makes it ease to track the use of resources.
The revival of civil society can be further attributed to society’s response to capitalism[9] and its brain child neo-liberalism[10]. Capitalism is characterised by the private ownership of the means of production (lands, factories, machinery and equipment, and others) and division within society between owners of the means of production (bourgeoisie) and those who do not, but survive by selling their labour (proletariat), (Frank 1967: 90). The model emphasises on ‘perfect’ competition and the ‘invisible hand’ of the market at the centre of each economic unit (producers and consumers) commanding the operations of the economy. In a new version of neo-liberalism, capitalists argued that the route to greater levels of well-being for all was through reducing state intervention and letting the market set prices and wages. The rationale was that the market would ensure that resources are allocated in the most efficient manner, hence optimising growth rates with concomitant social benefits, ( Willis 2005: 47). This however fragmented society and dismantled welfare states, thus weakening the extended family system and trade unions.
Trade unions have been instrumental in fighting for the welfare of workers, but takeovers by the private sector has destroyed it. Trade unions lost their grip in negotiating for workers’ welfare as the ‘have not’ negotiated for better conditions of services from a weaker position since labour was the only thing they survived on. Capitalism came along with the concept of nucleus family (father, mother and children) in order to boost household savings, which could provide a quantum of loanable funds for investment and re-investment. But this led to increased impoverishment of low income groups, who could not fit in the profit motivated economy and dysfunctional trade unions. Levels of uncertainties and vulnerability among the majority of the people in LDCs increased and ‘social safety nets’[11] were ‘added-up’ to structural adjustment programmes to cushion severe effects of capitalism, (Jones and Carswell 2004: xix). However, the provision of basic needs was still approached with universalistic solutions and a lot of assumptions were made about what local people wanted. To encounter this trend in the 1990s, the orientation of development policy towards participation, empowerment and capacity-building emerged, which represented a paradigm shift in development policy.
Simultaneously, the role of NGOs in the development process became part of this discourse, filling in the ‘service gaps’ that were arising from the withdrawal of the state from the capitalism model’s free market economy approach, (Eade 2001: 97). NGOs became the focal point of development as they can support grassroots activities by lobbying and pressuring governments, organising networks of support and creating ‘strategic alliances’ that provide collective identity for reassuring solidarity and mutual support for the marginalised in society. NGOs emerged in this paradigm shift because they are seen as providers of space where solutions that suit local content are sought and then these ideas are later pursuit by the state or the market. As organisations that cut across nearly every aspect of life ranging from economic to political and environmental matters, CSOs reappeared as a critical point for social transformation since they are able to empower[12] citizens from the grassroots and engage them in the development process sustainably with the state providing pre-requisite conditions. Civil society also has the ability to articulate and defend rights of citizens, a phenomenon which has become pivotal in shaping public policy. For example, Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection has since 2007 advocated for the inclusion of social, economic and cultural rights in the Bill of Rights so that the Zambian government can be answerable for its failures to provide basic needs for the people while resources are spent on personal matters.
However, although civil society activities have been affecting many lives positively since inception, it has many limitations in its operations. These limitations include funding dependency, lack of a legal framework that allows civil society operates effectively, lack of qualified human resource and legitimacy among other miscellaneous others.
While the work of CSOs is touching millions of people the world over and in particular in LDCs, the aspect of funding to these organisations has been a big challenge. This is because there is often great competition among numerous local groups within the donor community for scarce financial resources. Further, central governments of LDCs are sometimes part of this competition since most of them cannot fund their development projects even their budgets, (Cravens 2006: 02). All of them are tapping from the same source be it in terms of finances or technology. Technology can be in terms of vehicles for transportation purposes, computers and other gadgetry embraced in information technology communication basket. In this era of donor fatigue, CSOs are greatly affected. This equally affects their operations and consequently their efficiency in meeting needs of people in the areas they operate. Heavy reliance of a single source of funding hinders the growth of civil society, thus confined to available funds in its programmes.
The financial constraint is often mutually reinforced by the problem of personnel. NGOs without expanding financial bases cannot recruit professional staff, and consequently they cannot expand their financial bases without professional staff. Most CSOs rely on volunteer staff that are greatly committed and dedicated for the cause as opposed to professional staff (partly due to limited funding). There are very few of these organisations that have professional staff. While voluntarism remains cardinal to the operations of CSOs, there is need for civil society personnel to develop stronger interpersonal and professional skills in order to carry out their various tasks with competence as well as enthusiasm.
Legitimacy of civil society is the other limitation that has been daunting it for sometime. Civil society does not have the power over the people it serves. It is taken as voluntary sector that does not have the legitimacy or command over society be it economically, politically or otherwise for it to posses the place it requires in the development agenda and other aspects of human endeavour. When compared to the state, which draws power from the people and the legal framework that governs society, civil society fall short of that power. As a result, civil society has been taken as a voluntary forum which draws its inspiration to work for society from “unknown” sources.
Furthermore, there is a lack of a legal framework in most LDCs that permits civil society to operate effectively. The operations of CSOs require a constitutional recognition that ensures that all these organisations engage in effective programmes to lives of societies they are rooted in. Among the pre-requisites are a body of fundamental rules and laws that allow the right to association as well as the right for workers to organise and bargain collectively, encourage citizens to join together for a variety of other purposes, promote volunteerism and charitable contributions, protect communications media and information networks and generally ensure autonomy from state interference, (Mogella 1999: 96).
The overall attitude of government towards civil society also affects its effectivity and efficiency. Many governments in LDCs sometimes compete with civil society in similar sectors without due regard for overall development objectives mainly because these governments consider civil society as a sphere that is diverting citizens’ allegiance to legally voted-in governing systems. The roles of civic education, fighting for human rights, advocating for environmental consciousness in pursued development approaches, lobbying for better conditions of living for the ordinary people, campaigning for transparency and accountability among public officials, among others, by CSOs are like threatening the central states and governments in LDCs, hence the jitteriness by the presence of CSOs, (Willis 2005: 89). However, civil society is not an enemy to any national state, but a partner in development and an enabler in enhancing the improvement of the wellbeing of the marginalised by the state and the market, which is also the core of every government that claims authority over some territory. The desire for dominance of power has however made many states in LDCs intolerant to civil society in many areas of its operations to the extent that some of them face deregistration as it was the case with Southern Africa Centre for Constructive Resolution of Disputes (SACCORD) in 2006. The organisation was seen as threat to national security in its awareness campaigns on good governance and immediate need for the new constitution in Zambia.
In the final discussionate, it is pertinent to note that regardless of several limitations and shortfalls, civil society at its best can create bridges between local civic actions and national or global actions that are responsive to the realities of the poor and marginalised in society. Although civil society cannot and must not replace the responsibility and human rights obligations of governments and citizens, it provides an essential counterweight to selfishness by those in authority. It provides much needed remedy to the pessimism that infects much of contemporary politics and socio-economic prosperity. It provides a balance to the otherwise-overbearing influence of state authority and the temptations or seemingly incentives of the market in development.
Although the question on whether CSOs fit in citizens’ efforts to reduce poverty and claim authority over the citizenry has often arisen, these organisations’ roles are inevitably diverse, reflecting widely differing organisational values, objectives, intervention sectors, organisational structures and interests, which often derive from the perceived needs of society. But within a right framework, effective civil society promotes people’s participation (when there is genuine inclusiveness) and democratic actions, which reflect thevalues of socio-economic justice and solidarity as global citizens. Civil society makes the citizenry aware of their rights and freedoms politically, economically and otherwise as this awareness help citizens to determine their own destinies, express their views and participate in the decisions that shape their lives at different levels. These capabilities are important for human development – for expanding people’s choices – as well as to enjoy good life.
Governments should thus provide civil society an environment where it can thrive and effectively fill-in the gaps left by the state and market led developments so that the marginalised can also be enabled to leave decent lives. There should be mutual trust and respect between other development players and civil society for development to be enhanced in LDCs where the majority of the people live in abject poverty and destitution because of the inefficiencies of the market and state driven approaches to development in taking them on board.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
Ake C. (1996) Democracy and Development in Africa. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.
Ball N. and Fayeni L. (2004) Civil Society, Good Governance and the Security Sector. A Handbook, Lagos and London: Centre for Democracy and Development.
Camary P. and Gordon A. (2002) “Civil Society as Advocate of Social Change in Pre and Post Transition Societies: Building Sound Governance in Africa.” http://www.ids.ac.uk\ids\
Cannon C. (1995) NGOs and the State: A Case Study from Uganda. Development in Practice Vol. 6. No.3. Washington DC: Oxfam.
Chazzan N et al (1991) Politics and Society in Contemporary Africa. Essex: Lynne River Publishers Inc.
Chigunta F. “Is NEPAD the Panacea to Africa’s Political and Economic Mallaise?” Paper Presented at a Workshop at the Mulungushi International Conference Centre. Lusaka: 6th October, 2004.
Cravens J. (2006) Basic Tips for Fund-raising for Small NGOs in Developing Countries. www.coyotecommunications.com\outreach\
Eade D. (2002) Debating Development: NGOs and the Future. Oxford: Oxfam Publications.
Edwards M. (2004) Civil Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ellis F. (2000) Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fowler A. (2000) Occasional Paper 1, “Civil Society, NGOs and Social Development: Changing the Rules of the Game.” United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
Frank A.G. (1967) Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. London: Oxfam Publications.
Ghassan S. (2004) Is Democracy the Answer to Global Level Challenges: Causes of Democratisation in Africa. www.forum2000. cz\en\projects\forum-2000-changes
Greens N. and Matthews E. (1995) Civil Society Organisations Performance and Accountability: Beyond the Magic Bullet. www.oneworld.net
Kamigisha J. (2008) Civil Society Importance for a Nation. New York: NewTimes.com
Mann H. (2006) “Governance and the Study of Policies.” Boulder: Lynne Reinner Publishers.
Maria E. (2006) How can we Sustain Volunteering for Sustainability? Workshop 23rd-25th October 2006. Potsdam: Heinrich-Boell Foundation Brandenburg.
Mbeki T. (2004) Building a Better Africa. The Washington Post, June 10th 2002. http://www.globalpolicy.org/sol.com
Oversees Development Institute ODI (2000) “Tanzania: A Country Analysis.” http//www.odi.org/uk/WGA Governance/Docs/Tanzania
Schultheisis M (200) The Role of the State in Economic Development in Southern Africa. Lusaka: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
Tomlinson B. (2008) Civil Society and Development Effectiveness: North/South Challenges and the Reality of Aid.http//www.realityofaid.org
Venter D. (2002) “Democracy and Multiparty Politics in Africa: Recent Elections in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Lesotho.” Paper Presented to an Organisation for Social Science Research in Southern Africa Workshop on “The Sustainability of African Political Parties.” 6th May 2002. Addis Abba, Ethiopia.
Willis K. (2005) Theories and Practices of Development: Routledge Perspectives on Development. New York: Taylor and Francis Group.
[1] State in this paper refers to an organised aggregate of relatively permanent institutions of governance…claiming control over defined territories and their populations and constitutes decision making structures (executives, parties and parliaments), decision enforcing institutions (bureaucracies, parastatal organisations and security forces) and decision mediating bodies (primary courts, tribunals and investigatory commissions) that determine its character, (Chazzan 1992).
[2] Market would be used as a system of trade (buying and selling) where prices and wages rise and fall without being controlled by the state but are regulated by demand and supply, (Willis 2005).
[3] In this work, the term NGO refers to an organisation which is neither run by the state nor is it a profit-making entity. It can help local communities set up projects to provide services, create income generating opportunities or improve social relations. And can be very small-scale or very large global organisation. It is often used synonymously with civil society, but it is just part of civil society, (Willis 2005).
[4] Democracy here refers to the system of governance where people are empowered to express their will in voting for their representatives to be engaged in the decision making process in relation to their needs, (Mann 2006: 01).
[5] Democratization in this paper would refer to the transition towards democracy from something of a different arrangement, which could be kinship, monarchy or otherwise, (Venter 2002: 202).
[6] Governance refers to the exercise of power in the process of decision-making and implementation in a variety of institutional contexts. It is the sum of many ways individuals and institutions both public and private, manage public affairs. It can be dictatorship, monarch or democratic rule and ranges from local, national, regional to global levels, (Camary and Gordon 2005: 10).
[7] Civic education means teaching the citizenry their roles, responsibilities and rights; and how democratic governments operate, principles, institutions and laws among others. Civil society provides civic education to local communities, in order to enable people identify leaders, vote, debate public issues and work together in solving common problems and help people in interpreting government policy, (Willis 2005).
[8] Pluralism is a political system in which all significant constituencies can make their interests heard but no particular group or coalition of groups can obtain a dominant role.
[9] Capitalism means an economic system characterised by private ownership of property, production of goods for private profit and the institution of bank credit, (www.marxists.org).
[10] Neo-liberalism is an economic system that focuses on the free market, privatisation of state owned corporations and promoting free trade. The state should retreat from direct involvement in economic activities, (www.developmentgateway.org).
[11] Social safety nets are about cash transfer policies that involve poor households, old people and households that keep orphans to cushion effects of abject poverty so that in the process they would be able to generate some income for themselves by engaging in some small enterprise. And in turn, these income generating activities could lead into thresholds that would enable such households get loans to engage into long term self sustaining economic activities, (Ellis 2000: 05).
[12] Empowerment refers to having power to see possibilities for change; work together collectively to achieve common goals or possessing feelings of self-worth and self-esteem that comes from within individuals when there is an enabling environment for them, (Willis 2005).
Based on the above views, the core of this paper is to discuss how the concept of civil society has reappeared in the recent past and indicate why perhaps the world should look at it as an ideology that would help to serve meaningful socio-economic and political ends. And further take into observation some of the major limitations of civil society operations in developing countries.
Civil society does not have a single definition, as it means different things to different people. To Edwards (2004: 01), civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values; with institutional forms that are theoretically distinct from those of the state, family and market, but in practice often comprise of complex, blurred and negotiated boundaries between the family, state, civil society, and market. Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power. Organisations that fall under civil society are often populated by groups such as registered charities, development non-governmental organisations, community groups, women’s organisations, faith-based organisations, professional associations, trades unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy group.
Kamugisha (2008: 02) views civil society as a set of institutions and values that serve as both a buffer and a critical link between the state and individuals; which is manifested when civic and social organisations such a non-governmental organisations (NGOs)[3] combine efforts to come up with a tangible value driven policy. It is perceived as the social space through which people organise themselves to promote shared objectives and values and is usually seen as essential to the proper functioning of a democratic society and to the enrichment of a country’s institutional foundations, (David 1990: 28). This space is populated by civil society organisations (CSOs) that are defined as organisations of formal and informal character operating at different levels of enhancing human development and building on their operations.
To understand better which organisations qualify into the civil society umbrella, it is important to follow the criteria which say: they must be non-profit making organisation. These are value driven and members do not seek profit or governing power, but seek to influence public policy and practice at different levels. They must also posses some autonomy. That is, they must be independent from government control and management. Thirdly, they must have an element of voluntarism. CSOs are not profit driven, but their staffs and supporters volunteer their time, money and skills for the good of society and they can pull-out easily if they wished. Further, all CSOs are usually value driven. Some desire to contribute to the improvement of society’s functioning, others are concerned with improving society’s human rights records, others women’s affairs in access to employment and employment opportunities and others in a diverse areas of human endeavour, (Cannon 1995: 03). In general, it cuts across society as it touches almost all spheres of life be it the environment, human rights, democracy, governance, social issues and the like, thus referred to as a “magic bullet.”
Regardless of the source of inspiration, the resurgence of civil society in the recent past has been driven by many factors ranging from global social, political and economic events, to domestic concerns of individual countries. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the transition to de
mocracy[4] by countries in the Western and Eastern Blocks, and later to Africa, is one of the causal factors of civil society resurgence. The wind of change to democracy was embraced by many countries especially (LDCs) as an ideology that spelt out an economic hope. Democracy was seen as a recipe to the economic misery, poverty and other challenges that “soured” life, as people were fed up with dictatorial economic interventions in development as they wanted a free economy that would allow market forces of demand and supply to address all economic underscores that were paralysing development, (Salame 2000: 04).Western donor countries took advantage of LDCs’ political transition to propagate for the market economy. They promised foreign aid to those countries that embraced the liberal principles of development, where democracy could be allowed to flourish. The rationale is that when politics is concentrated in few hands, the economy would suffer as the politically powerful tend to be the only ones with access to resources like the media, money, transport, taxes, licences and other requirements in taking part in economic activities. This is common in Africa where political and economic powers are centred around rulers (‘big men’), who rule more in their personal capacity, without regard to formal institutional arrangements, but as office holders (Ake 1996: 08). This kind of rule hinders the involvement of ordinary citizens in policy and decision making as access to contracts, licenses or projects are organised through the presidency or political elite. Democracy was thus seen as solution to that disorder as it allows fair play by creating an environment where political and economic competition controls the routes to wealth creation for society. Businesses are pressured to be innovative and efficient in order to remain in business, rather than being provided stimulus resources by the state and its agencies, (Sakala and Chanda 2005: 52). Innovativeness and creative to remain operational becomes the way of survival in a market driven economy.
Civil society thus found a niche in the advent of democracy to champion for conditions that promote fair play in accessing requisites to development by society regardless of one’s status or otherwise. NGOs and CSOs played a critical part in enhancing democracy by mobilising the masses towards democratisation[5] in different parts of the world especially in the mid-1990s. And since most LDCs were agitated by some economic hostilities of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund like structural adjustment programmes, they welcomed the need for regime change from any arrangement to democracy for the
purpose of economic gains, especially that the concept was attached to aid and some other economic benefits (Chigunta 2004). It anchored on political and economic liberalisation principles. This refers to a political system where people’s freedoms and rights are recognised and people are free to elect leaders on whom they command guidelines on how they want to be ruled through the constitution, where periodic elections are held (ideally freely and fairly) and people are free to form organisations that provide checks and balances on government, among other rights that derive from democracy, (Mbeki 2004: 23).Taking advantage of certain freedoms embedded in democracy, CSOs chipped in to campaign against injustices, social ills, and poverty, among others and for policy and governance transformation towards defined social development objectives of democracy. They started to advocate for democracy in most LDCs so that the citizenry can be empowered by stripping-off some state powers by institutions like trade unions and the citizenry themselves. Civil society thus ensured that there was room for critical voices alongside the power structure of the state. Maria (2006: 02) states that a democratic state without a civil society loses its legitimacy –its only mandate would stem from regularly holding elections – and taking on the role of an administrator, governing citizens instead of allowing citizens to shape the government.
This shows that civil society has been part of the political landscape in LDCs for sometime. Trade unions, youth organisations, church movements and other social groupings were often the spaces in which colonialism was challenged to endeavour to attain self-governance and currently provided space through which multiparty democratic movements emerged. The current struggles of civil society are centred on the institutionalisation of democratic nature and good governance[6] and the rights of citizens to participate in the formulation and implementation of policies designed to improve standards of living. For example, in Tanzania, CSOs involved in advocacy have built their capacity to contribute to the formulation of government policy especially on sexual abuse on children, inheritance laws, and land ownership, among others, (ODI: 2000). In order to foster democracy, civil society provides checks and balance mechanisms on the behaviour of the state (watchdog function), enhances political participation among citizens through civic education[7], provides political leadership and resisting authoritarianism and nurtures democratic institutions, (Fowler 2000: 7).
According to Ball and Fayeni (2004: 11), “a vibrant civil society is an essential component of systems of governance as it promotes good governance and democratic participation of citizens in the political
process.” However, civil society can be more effective in enhancing good governance and citizen participation in the democratic process where other institutions and systems (such as the legal system and the media) are strong and more accountable to the people. Other mechanisms such as a sound electoral process, political parties, media and formal redress procedures play pertinent roles in the democratic process of any country. But even where other systems are dysfunctional, civil society can reasonably be influential in helping to build pluralism[8] as it pushes rulers to be more accountable to populations over which they claim authority. An effective media is a pillar of good governance as it promotes transparency and accountability by exposing any wrong doing by those in power.The limitations of state and market driven development, especially for the marginalised citizenry socially or politically is another factor which led to the reappearance of civil society. In the 1990s, most developing countries (LDCs) were overwhelmed by a widespread expectation in the adoption of laissez-faire economic system, where the private sector and the market were to occupy the centre stage in these countries’ economic policies, (Schultheiss 2002: 01). It was assumed that the private sector and the market could bring about a more efficient use of resources, hence promoting development and economic growth. The market driven approach to development promoted the liberalisation of interest rates, limit the growth of money supply in order to arrest inflation and provide a stable economy, liberalise trade, adopt flexible foreign exchange policies, decontrol prices and encourage co
mpetition, among others.These measures were assumed to enhance development and improve the well-being of the majority of the citizenry. But in the case of Zambia (and many other developing countries), the net effects of these reforms were the widening of the gap between the poor and the rich, worsened challenge in accessing clean water and sanitation and general inadequacies in the general welfare of the majority Zambians, (econ.worldbank.org/extern). This was mainly because this type of approach to development showed no regard for those who could not stand the competition of the market, as the quest for profit maximisation is rarely compatible with equity consideration or social responsibility.
In order to moderate the severity of the free market reform measures on the weaker members of society, there emerged calls for “liberalism with a human face,” which with the support of the World Bank led to the setting up of a Social Recovery Unit, whose duties amongst others were to monitor the social impacts of the reform programmes, (Sakala and Chanda 2000: 51). These poverty cushioning programmes were largely implemented through the international and local civil society organisations because of their strategic position in filling the gaps left by the market or government. CSOs play a very important role in development because they are well positioned in a number of “axes” so much that they can be very small-scale and operate in one region or country only or very large global organisations with partners throughout the world; a phenomenon which enable them enhance meaningful grass-root development. This is a position where real development starts.
Because of their position (of being at the grassroots and facilitating grassroots development), civil society organisations are often regarded as the answer to the perceived limitations of the state or the market in development mainly because they can provide services that are much appropriate to local communities, Willis (2005: 98). This is because they work with populations at the grassroots to find out what facilities are required. In addition, they are able to provide such services more efficiently and effectively through drawing on local people’s knowledge and also using local materials. Further, due to the scale of operation and the linkages with local people, they are able to react more quickly to local demands (Green and Matthias 1995: 234). The smallness in structures of CSOs makes it ease to track the use of resources.
The revival of civil society can be further attributed to society’s response to capitalism[9] and its brain child neo-liberalism[10]. Capitalism is characterised by the private ownership of the means of production (lands, factories, machinery and equipment, and others) and division within society between owners of the means of production (bourgeoisie) and those who do not, but survive by selling their labour (proletariat), (Frank 1967: 90). The model emphasises on ‘perfect’ competition and the ‘invisible hand’ of the market at the centre of each economic unit (producers and consumers) commanding the operations of the economy. In a new version of neo-liberalism, capitalists argued that the route to greater levels of well-being for all was through reducing state intervention and letting the market set prices and wages. The rationale was that the market would ensure that resources are allocated in the most efficient manner, hence optimising growth rates with concomitant social benefits, ( Willis 2005: 47). This however fragmented society and dismantled welfare states, thus weakening the extended family system and trade unions.
Trade unions have been instrumental in fighting for the welfare of workers, but takeovers by the private sector has destroyed it. Trade unions lost their grip in negotiating for workers’ welfare as the ‘have not’ n
egotiated for better conditions of services from a weaker position since labour was the only thing they survived on. Capitalism came along with the concept of nucleus family (father, mother and children) in order to boost household savings, which could provide a quantum of loanable funds for investment and re-investment. But this led to increased impoverishment of low income groups, who could not fit in the profit motivated economy and dysfunctional trade unions. Levels of uncertainties and vulnerability among the majority of the people in LDCs increased and ‘social safety nets’[11] were ‘added-up’ to structural adjustment programmes to cushion severe effects of capitalism, (Jones and Carswell 2004: xix). However, the provision of basic needs was still approached with universalistic solutions and a lot of assumptions were made about what local people wanted. To encounter this trend in the 1990s, the orientation of development policy towards participation, empowerment and capacity-building emerged, which represented a paradigm shift in development policy.Simultaneously, the role of NGOs in the development process became part of this discourse, filling in the ‘service gaps’ that were arising from the withdrawal of the state from the capitalism model’s free market economy approach, (Eade 2001: 97). NGOs became the focal point of development as they can support grassroots activities by lobbying and pressuring governments, organising networks of support and creating ‘strategic alliances’ that provide collective identity for reassuring solidarity and mutual support for the marginalised in society. NGOs emerged in this paradigm shift because they are seen as providers of space where solutions that suit local content are sought and then these ideas are later pursuit by the state or the market. As organisations that cut across nearly every aspect of life ranging from economic to political and environmental matters, CSOs reappeared as a critical point for social transformation since they are able to empower[12] citizens from the grassroots and engage them in the development process sustainably with the state providing pre-requisite conditions. Civil society also has the ability to articulate and defend rights of citizens, a phenomenon which has become pivotal in shaping public policy. For example, Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection has since 2007 advocated for the inclusion of social, economic and cultural rights in the Bill of Rights so that the Zambian government can be answerable for its failures to provide basic needs for the people while resources are spent on personal matters.
However, although civil society activities have been affecting many lives positively since inception, it has many limitations in its operations. These limitations include funding dependency, lack of a legal framework that allows civil society operates effectively, lack of qualified human resource and legitimacy among other miscellaneous others.
While the work of CSOs is touching millions of people the world over and in particular in LDCs, the aspect of funding to these organisations has been a big challenge. This is because there is often great competition among numerous local groups within the donor community for scarce financial resources. Further, central governments of LDCs are sometimes part of this competition since most of them cannot fund their development projects even their budgets, (Cravens 2006: 02). All of them are tapping from the same source be it in terms of finances or technology. Technology can be in terms of vehicles for transportation purposes, computers and other gadgetry embraced in information technology communication basket. In this era of donor fatigue, CSOs are greatly affected. This equally affects their operations and consequently their efficiency in meeting needs of people in the areas they operate. Heavy reliance of a single source of funding hinders the growth of civil society, thus confined to available funds in its programmes.
The financial constraint is often mutually reinforced by the problem of personnel. NGOs without expanding financial bases cannot recruit professional staff, and consequently they cannot expand their financial bases without professional staff. Most CSOs rely on volunteer staff that are greatly committed and dedicated for the cause as opposed to professional staff (partly due to limited funding). There are very few of these organisations that have professional staff. While voluntarism remains cardinal to the operations of CSOs, there is need for civil society personnel to develop stronger interpersonal and professional skills in order to carry out their various tasks with competence as well as enthusiasm.
Legitimacy of civil society is the other limitation that has been daunting it for sometime. Civil society does not have the power over the people it serves. It is taken as voluntary sector that does not have the legitimacy or command over society be it economically, politically or otherwise for it to posse
s the place it requires in the development agenda and other aspects of human endeavour. When compared to the state, which draws power from the people and the legal framework that governs society, civil society fall short of that power. As a result, civil society has been taken as a voluntary forum which draws its inspiration to work for society from “unknown” sources.Furthermore, there is a lack of a legal framework in most LDCs that permits civil society to operate effectively. The operations of CSOs require a constitutional recognition that ensures that all these organisations engage in effective programmes to lives of societies they are rooted in. Among the pre-requisites are a body of fundamental rules and laws that allow the right to association as well as the right for workers to organise and bargain collectively, encourage citizens to join together for a variety of other purposes, promote volunteerism and charitable contributions, protect communications media and information networks and generally ensure autonomy from state interference, (Mogella 1999: 96).
The overall attitude of government towards civil society also affects its effectivity and efficiency. Many governments in LDCs sometimes compete with civil society in similar sectors without due regard for overall development objectives mainly because these governments consider civil society as a sphere that is diverting citizens’ allegiance to legally voted-in governing systems. The roles of civic education, fighting for human rights, advocating for environmental consciousness in pursued development approaches, lobbying for better conditions of living for the ordinary people, campaigning for transparency and accountability among public officials, among others, by CSOs are like threatening the central states and governments in LDCs, hence the jitteriness by the presence of CSOs, (Willis 2005: 89). However, civil society is not an enemy to any national state, but a partner in development and an enabler in enhancing the improvement of the wellbeing of the marginalised by the state and the market, which is also the core of every government that claims authority over some territory. The desire for dominance of power has however made many states in LDCs intolerant to civil society in many areas of its operations to the extent that some of them face deregistration as it was the case with Southern Africa Centre for Constructive Resolution of Disputes (SACCORD) in 2006. The organisation was seen as threat to national security in its awareness campaigns on good governance and immediate need for the new constitution in Zambia.
In the final discussionate, it is pertinent to note that regardless of several limitations and shortfalls, civil society at its best can create bridges between local civic actions and national or global actions that are responsive to the realities of the poor and marginalised in society. Although civil society cannot and must not replace the responsibility and human rights obligations of governments and citizens, it provides an essential counterweight to selfishness by those in authority. It provides much needed remedy to the pessimism that infects much of contemporary politics and socio-economic prosperity. It provides a balance to the otherwise-overbearing influence of state authority and the temptations or seemingly incentives of the market in development.
Although the question on whether CSOs fit in citizens’ efforts to reduce poverty and claim authority over the citizenry has often arisen, these organisations’ roles are inevitably diverse, reflecting widely differing organisational values, objectives, intervention sectors, organisational structures and interests, which often derive from the perceived needs of society. But within a right framework, effective civil society promotes people’s participation (when there is genuine inclusiveness) and democratic actions, which reflect the
values of socio-economic justice and solidarity as global citizens. Civil society makes the citizenry aware of their rights and freedoms politically, economically and otherwise as this awareness help citizens to determine their own destinies, express their views and participate in the decisions that shape their lives at different levels. These capabilities are important for human development – for expanding people’s choices – as well as to enjoy good life.Governments should thus provide civil society an environment where it can thrive and effectively fill-in the gaps left by the state and market led developments so that the marginalised can also be enabled to leave decent lives. There should be mutual trust and respect between other development players and civil society for development to be enhanced in LDCs where the majority of the people live in abject poverty and destitution because of the inefficiencies of the market and state driven approaches to development in taking them on board.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
Ake C. (1996) Democracy and Development in Africa. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.
Ball N. and Fayeni L. (2004) Civil Society, Good Governance and the Security Sector. A Handbook, Lagos and London: Centre for Democracy and Development.
Camary P. and Gordon A. (2002) “Civil Society as Advocate of Social Change in Pre and Post Transition Societies: Building Sound Governance in Africa.” http://www.ids.ac.uk\ids\
Cannon C. (1995) NGOs and the State: A Case Study from Uganda. Development in Practice Vol. 6. No.3. Washington DC: Oxfam.
Chazzan N et al (1991) Politics and Society in Contemporary Africa. Essex: Lynne River Publishers Inc.
Chigunta F. “Is NEPAD the Panacea to Africa’s Political and Economic Mallaise?” Paper Presented at a Workshop at the Mulungushi International Conference Centre. Lusaka: 6th October, 2004.
Cravens J. (2006) Basic Tips for Fund-raising for Small NGOs in Developing Countries. www.coyotecommunications.com\outreach\
Eade D. (2002) Debating Development: NGOs and the Future. Oxford: Oxfam Publications.
Edwards M. (2004) Civil Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ellis F. (2000) Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fowler A. (2000) Occasional Paper 1, “Civil Society, NGOs and Social Development: Changing the Rules of the Game.” United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
Frank A.G. (1967) Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. London: Oxfam Publications.
Ghassan S. (2004) Is Democracy the Answer to Global Level Challenges: Causes of Democratisation in Africa. www.forum2000. cz\en\projects\forum-2000-changes
Greens N. and Matthews E. (1995) Civil Society Organisations Performance and Accountability: Beyond the Magic Bullet. www.oneworld.net
Kamigisha J. (2008) Civil Society Importance for a Nation. New York: NewTimes.com
Mann H. (2006) “Governance and the Study of Policies.” Boulder: Lynne Reinner Publishers.
Maria E. (2006) How can we Sustain Volunteering for Sustainability? Workshop 23rd-25th October 2006. Potsdam: Heinrich-Boell Foundation Brandenburg.
Mbeki T. (2004) Building a Better Africa. The Washington Post, June 10th 2002. http://www.globalpolicy.org/sol.com
Oversees Development Institute ODI (2000) “Tanzania: A Country Analysis.” http//www.odi.org/uk/WGA Governance/Docs/Tanzania
Schultheisis M (200) The Role of the State in Economic Development in Southern Africa. Lusaka: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
Tomlinson B. (2008) Civil Society and Development Effectiveness: North/South Challenges and the Reality of Aid.http//www.realityofaid.org
Venter D. (2002) “Democracy and Multiparty Politics in Africa: Recent Elections in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Lesotho.” Paper Presented to an Organisation for Social Science Research in Southern Africa Workshop on “The Sustainability of African Political Parties.” 6th May 2002. Addis Abba, Ethiopia.
Willis K. (2005) Theories and Practices of Development: Routledge Perspectives on Development. New York: Taylor and Francis Group.
[1] State in this paper refers to an organised aggregate of relatively permanent institutions of governance…claiming control over defined territories and their populations and constitutes decision making structures (executives, parties and parliaments), decision enforcing institutions (bureaucracies, parastatal organisations and security forces) and decision mediating bodies (primary courts, tribunals and investigatory commissions) that determine its character, (Chazzan 1992).
[2] Market would be used as a system of trade (buying and selling) where prices and wages rise and fall without being controlled by the state but are regulated by demand and supply, (Willis 2005).
[3] In this work, the term NGO refers to an organisation which is neither run by the state nor is it a profit-making entity. It can help local communities set up projects to provide services, create income generating opportunities or improve social relations. And can be very small-scale or very large global organisation. It is often used synonymously with civil society, but it is just part of civil society, (Willis 2005).
[4] Democracy here refers to the system of governance where people are empowered to express their will in voting for their representatives to be engaged in the decision making process in relation to their needs, (Mann 2006: 01).
[5] Democratization in this paper would refer to the transition towards democracy from something of a different arrangement, which could be kinship, monarchy or otherwise, (Venter 2002: 202).
[6] Governance refers to the exercise of power in the process of decision-making and implementation in a variety of institutional contexts. It is the sum of many ways individuals and institutions both public and private, manage public affairs. It can be dictatorship, monarch or democratic rule and ranges from local, national, regional to global levels, (Camary and Gordon 2005: 10).
[7] Civic education means teaching the citizenry their roles, responsibilities and rights; and how democratic governments operate, principles, institutions and laws among others. Civil society provides civic education to local communities, in order to enable people identify leaders, vote, debate public issues and work together in solving common problems and help people in interpreting government policy, (Willis 2005).
[8] Pluralism is a political system in which all significant constituencies can make their interests heard but no particular group or coalition of groups can obtain a dominant role.
[9] Capitalism means an economic system characterised by private ownership of property, production of goods for private profit and the institution of bank credit, (www.marxists.org).
[10] Neo-liberalism is an economic system that focuses on the free market, privatisation of state owned corporations and promoting free trade. The state should retreat from direct involvement in economic activities, (www.developmentgateway.org).
[11] Social safety nets are about cash transfer policies that involve poor households, old people and households that keep orphans to cushion effects of abject poverty so that in the process they would be able to generate some income for themselves by engaging in some small enterprise. And in turn, these income generating activities could lead into thresholds that would enable such households get loans to engage into long term self sustaining economic activities, (Ellis 2000: 05).
[12] Empowerment refers to having power to see possibilities for change; work together collectively to achieve common goals or possessing feelings of self-worth and self-esteem that comes from within individuals when there is an enabling environment for them, (Willis 2005).
No comments:
Post a Comment