SAAPE: CSB in Nepal

Author(s): Julie Ferguson
Publication date: Wednesday 28 September 2005

What are the particular preconditions in your country that enable or obstruct civil society building strategies of your organisation?

Based on your experiences, how do initiatives and strategies of your organisation contribute to improving the responsiveness and performance of the state?

Sharing Experience of Civil Society Building
In Nepal, civil society structures have developed only since the establishment of democracy in 1990. Since then, the building of civil society has followed both the strategies of `involvement of' and `confrontation with' the State. Both the strategies flow from the provisions of the 1990 Constitution which envisions a plural, equal and liberal society in which civil society organisations will have a crucial role to play. The Constitution engages both the State and civil society in social, economic and political processes. But in practice, the State has often chosen to act on its own, sometimes even undermining the constitutional spirit thus inviting the confrontational role of civil society. Civil society has repeatedly needed to mobilise in protest in order to force the elected parliamentary representatives to enact laws in the interests of the people (such as those in favor of more equality for women) and to get existing laws meaningfully implemented.

The Constitution in theory provides an enabling environment, but in practice, State policies and programmes have not been that encouraging. The relationship between state bodies and civil society organisations has gradually deteriorated as the democratic space in Nepal has decreased, initially after the dissolution of the government on October 4th 2002, and even more after the King's takeover on February 1st 2005.

Encouraging developments
1. Surge of human rights and social awareness campaigns in the 1990s, leading to the establishment of numerous civil society organisations at various levels
2. Community organising (organisation of peasants, women, Dalits, Kamaiyas, ethnic communities), leading to: 
- emancipation of Kamaiyas
- creation of human rights institution (National Human Rights Institution)
3. Development of independent, private media, including community radio stations

Setbacks
Following the escalation of violence (particularly after 2001), the State has viewed civil society organisations with increasing suspicion. The Maoist insurgents are also suspicious of development organisations and seek to co-opt them to their cause, or force their compliance. At the grass roots level, NGO staff are trying to implement development programmes in an environment characterised by violence, insecurity, and human rights abuses. In many parts of the country, the infrastructure of the state is confined to district headquarters, and communities are not able to access government services.

In the current context, NGO staff are struggling to work with communities facing the following realities:

• Migration: people, in particular able-bodied men and youths, are leaving their villages to seek more secure livelihoods elsewhere, or to escape violence or forced conscription by the Maoists. The communities left behind are increasingly vulnerable.
• Development work has decreased and therefore general infrastructure is falling apart
• There is a dynamic of disempowerment: long standing structural poverty + conflict-created problems + population movement = disempowerment
• This is coupled with the erosion of democracy and the dissolution of power structures at the grassroots level, and together these lead to a decreased ability of villagers to maintain the development space
• Disengagement of the state from service provision, from the provision of democracy, institutions etc.
• Human rights abuses, curtailment of basic freedoms such at freedom of movement and communication, which hamper all attempts at organising by civil society groups
  

Since February 1st, the State has not been engaging in dialogue with civil society at all - in fact it has taken the opposite position: arresting and harassing NGO workers, journalists, academics, lawyers, human rights defenders and others, limiting their freedom of movement, and curtailing their freedom to work.

Strategies to improve responsiveness
Rural Reconstruction Nepal is a grassroots organisation working to empower rural communities. Its mission is to improve the lives of the rural poor, particularly rural women, small farmers, landless people and other disadvantaged and socially oppressed groups in Nepali society, through providing them opportunities for their own socio-economic empowerment. RRN has a two pronged strategy:

- To conduct action-oriented research and implement development programmes focusing on the poorest of the poor, socio-economically vulnerable people and their sustainable rural livelihoods
- To raise awareness through campaigns and advocacy at the local, national and international levels about the root causes of poverty, the problems of the poor, socio-economic and cultural rights and the right to development.

Its key themes are education and awareness; sustainable livelihoods; health; and self-government.

RRN's approach - of community empowerment coupled with national and international level advocacy on the root causes of poverty - has enabled it to gain the trust and support of grassroots communities, as well as having a profile at an international level. This means that, in the current context of the conflict, RRN has been able to continue working at grassroots level when other organisations have had to withdraw from rural areas. At the same time, it is at risk of state harassment because of its vocal support for human rights and democracy.

RRN considers it vital in the current context to do all we can to keep open the space for civil society, and is developing different strategies to do this in the context of conflict and the suspension of democratic rights.  Over the past five years, as the conflict escalated, RRN's strategy remained to support rural communities to empower them and enable them to engage with government bodies to demand their development needs, or to have the skills to negotiate their needs with the Maoists. This was supported by advocacy on specific issues directly with the government, and behind-the-scenes support for nascent peace processes.

In the current context, new strategies are required:

• Civil society organisations such as RRN are not able to engage directly with government representatives. Instead, strategies have to focus on working with international organisations - both donor bodies and civil society organisations - to raise awareness of what is happening in Nepal and apply pressure to the government via international support groups. 
• At the same time, RRN must continue to support rural communities, both to avert a humanitarian and human rights crisis, and to attempt to maintain some civil society space for communities squeezed between the parties to the conflict. It is clear that working with grassroots communities will no longer lead to changes in government policy, but it may enable communities to defend their livelihoods and basic rights. 
• Grassroots conflict resolution work is key to supporting and empowering communities, which may enable them to continue local level dialogue with government officials and Maoists to demand the maintenance of basic services 
• Civil society groups must understand the link between human rights abuses and the maintenance of democratic space - the continued suspension of democratic rights will inevitably lead to an increase in the abuse of civil and political rights, but also to increasing abuses of economic, social and cultural rights as communities struggling in poverty see their rights to food, water, health, shelter and education eroded further by the conflict and the collapse of government service provision.

Conclusion
RRN and other Nepali NGOs that take a rights-based approach are not in a position at the moment to build civil society, but are working to stop it being destroyed. At the same time, there are possibilities for positive developments as people realise that the absence of government in any real sense means they have to make their own choices, and run their communities for themselves. This can be both positive - for instance, the Kathmandu Post recently reported on a village which had established its own water supply system; and negative - such as vigilantes taking the law into their own hands and attacking suspected Maoists. Thus the role for NGOs working at the grassroots is vital for the long-term future of Nepal.