Civil Domains in African Settings

Publication date: Wednesday 16 June 2004

On October 13th, Hivos hosted lively discussion between David Sogge and members of the Africa Bureau.

David Sogge

The discussion focused on Sogge's paper Civil Domains in African Settings, and identified how the issues matched or differed from the Africa Bureau's experiences in terms of Civil Society Building in Africa.

Sogge opened the discussion with the question 'do the issues identified in the paper match reality', and if yes - 'so what'? What can or should Hivos do about these issues in its work as a development agency in the field of Civil Society?

Questions arose on how 'un-civil' groups such as gangs and mafia fit into 'civil society', where it is understood as social groupings pursuing the interests of its members. An understanding of civil society as based on a foundation of Universal Human Rights may provide an adequate response, but nonetheless at times the definition is murky.

Beyond concepts however, what is the reality of civil society participation? For example, participation of women in CS-processes was described by Sogge to be lower due to time constraints. However, practice shows that socio-cultural restrictions are more of an issue: where these are flexible, women do tend to be leading actors and motivated to mobilise on a voluntary basis. Once financial compensation is provided, these efforts are often taken over by men.

Sogge mentions the issue of the 'vernacular' domain becoming more important in civil society building - meaning local or indigenous groupings pursuing civil priorities. As such, it was agreed that the role of traditional power-bastions, such as chiefs, is important in advocating change. Succesful projects are in place in numerous countries whereby these traditional leaders are included in, for example, gender projects, for their inclusion and change from within is critical for the succes of the programme. How to strengthen and use the vernacular should be explored in more detail.

Critical issues for Hivos to keep in mind in its support of civil society building is the local context and priorities, which may vary from our Western perception. Does everything need to fit in an 'NGO-framework'? Does our definition of civil society match that of our counterparts? Does our understanding of how to influence power structures match African reality and what is the most effective way of going about this? The relationship - or often the gap - between civil society actors and their supporters is sometimes an issue in terms of accountibility and support. In Africa, there is a tendency for CSOs to be either emancipatory, or rooted - but rarely both. This dichotomy is something which Hivos should think about in more detail.

Further, Hivos needs to deepen its understanding of cultural processes, and how its interventions may affect these. At times 'objective' but informed outsiders can play an effective role as mediator between interest groups and NGOs, but keeping a fair balance in power structures is a delicate issue.

All in all, 'civil society' can be considered a platform where different actors convene in pursuit of emancipation. As such there is also room for the state and for the private sector. The discourse reflects a tension between mutual strengthening, collaboration, intervention - and cooptation - between the various actors on the civil platform.

Clearly, these issues merely touch upon the vast arena of civil society thinking. Many questions remain, many issues are yet untouched. Space and ambition to continue deepening our understanding was expressed by all. As such, a succesful precedent for ongoing discussion.