Civil society building strategies

Confronting the state, engaging the state

Author(s): Julie Ferguson
Publication date: Tuesday 27 September 2005

Civil society organisations have to be creative in their strategies employed with the aim of influencing and strengthening the performance and responsiveness of the state. Cases from East Africa, Asia, Central America, and Latin America illustrate a broad range of strategies, ranging from contestation and confrontation to co-operation with the state. Different political conditions – such as post-conflict, transitional or oppressive states – demand different approaches. Which strategies are effective and why? What new and creative arrangements have been recently explored, what are the opportunities and which risks do they entail? Can we find common processes in countries from different regions and what variables seem to be of influence under similar conditions?

Expectations and backlash: before and after political change
Mary N. Wanjiru, Citizen’s Coalition for Constitutional Change (CCCC), Kenya
Kepta Ombati, National Convention Executive Council (NCEC), Kenya

In 2002, Kenya gained its first experience of a coalition government after 24 years of authoritarian rule by President Daniel Arap Moi. The prospect of open democratic governance and participation by citizens was thought to be possible for the first time. A national commission for human rights was established and a sense of hope prevailed regarding the writing of a new Constitution to ensure rights – in earnest consultation with Kenya’s people.

Leaders of energetic and innovative civil society groups flooded government posts. NCEC, a Kenyan movement established during the Moi era by civil society and opposition parties, is one such organisation which saw its founding members taking on leading government positions. Taking advantage of this situation, NCEC’s strategy was to support the new government and advocate for change from within. However, rather than pursuing the priorities of these government leaders, they started to ‘divide and rule’, leaving a void where state and NGOs previously engaged. Now NCEC is seen as part and parcel of the state, whilst the state has lost its credibility, contracting civil society organisations for its services and co-opting its agenda. This rather disillusioning experience leaves NCEC with the question: can reformers evolve to be in political power or should they stay in civil society?

Concurrently, the Constitutional reform has been a process of rebirth. Civil society in Kenya has moved on, advocating issues of human rights, HIV/AIDS and good governance. However, the government is not delivering on the Constitution: structural flaws are ignored, with little regard for the rule of law, corruption and high unemployment. In response, coalition member organisation CCCC has become a driving force behind the Constitutional reform process, attempting to pressure the government to follow through on its promises.

All in all, civil society did not move from confrontation to collaboration in Kenya in quite the harmonious way that was anticipated. Moreover, overt repression during the Moi era has become subtle repression today. Confronting or engaging the state is now a cursory interest with neither strategy having been effective so far. Civil society actors are unsure whether they should go back to the streets or engage with government through the halls of power. Either way it seems that the concentration of executive power in Kenya today can be devolved only through a new Constitution whose realisation and implementation should be monitored closely by civil society.

[back to top]

Mobilising for policy change: networking and advocacy at national level
Dorotea Wilson, Red de Mujeres, Nicaragua
Elva Terceros, Centre for Legal Studies and Social Research (CEJIS), Bolivia

Nicaragua is plagued by chronic insecurity resulting from ongoing economic and social poverty. Augmented by domestic and community violence, family structures have been worn away, further destabilizing the nation and disproportionately burdening women.

In the face of this adversity, women activists in Nicaragua have a long history of participating in national struggles against the oppression they are subjected to, both nationally and in the household. Their main challenge is to identify viable alternatives to the choices that are predominantly determined by national political forces, whilst operating within an economic paradigm harbouring inequality and the disenfranchisement of women.

Bolstered by organisations like the national Red de Mujeres, the Women’s Network seeks to build capacity amongst civil society organisations, so that projects can sustain themselves, which, in the long term, can help to achieve permanent economic and social changes.

Similarly, Bolivia’s economy embodies inequality and disenfranchisement. A major factor contributing to the economic crisis is the majority stake of transnational companies in the country’s natural resources (especially gas and hydrocarbons), whose profits go largely unnoticed by the country’s poor.

The Bolivian context is politically sensitive and has provoked attention by donors through their Embassies. In times of crisis this has resulted in direct interventions of donor governments in the strategies harnessed by co-financing agencies. Certainly such external influences directly impact on social action by movements in civil society.

An alternative strategy to such direct intervention is the establishment of a ‘social pact’ between donors, governments and local partners. This entails the fair representation of women, youth, unions and other civil society groups, and engages different stakeholders in direct dialogue with governments, avoiding disturbance of the public space by bureaucratic forces. Rather than getting stuck in old patterns and in the history of the ‘developing state’, seeking innovation and new concepts provides more potential for the development of a country, harnessing its strengths – in this case, a strong civil society.

[back to top]

Our lives, our voices: advocacy and mobilisation at the local level
Alex Ruhunda, Kabarole Research Centre (KRC), Uganda

Uganda poses very particular development challenges. Its devastating land division issues, HIV/AIDS, increased inequality and intensified ethnic tension are daily realities. Convincing communities to value each other’s abilities and view them as beneficial and potential sources of support is particularly difficult for an NGO in this context.

KRC, an NGO operating from western Uganda, aims to catalyse more effective functioning, increased accountability and stronger ownership of human rights within government, ultimately leading to economic recovery and social justice.KRC’s strategy is to develop dialogue between all stakeholders in a community, including local and national government actors. It seeks to place empowerment at a grassroots level at the forefront of development practice.

This approach has not been without challenges. International donors do not spend enough time understanding local contexts and needs and subsequently their demands do not always match those of local constituents. Further, advocacy efforts can follow fads, with elite NGOs championing issues that diverge from local needs. Government officials can in turn manipulate this divergence to their benefit, leaving the civil society base fragmented and conditions for advocacy weak.

In response, KRC uses local structures rather than NGOs for advocacy, because community pressure for advocacy has proven more effective than lodging individual complaints through formal district networks. The organisation focuses its efforts on attracting people to the ideas identified in the community itself, to achieve the changes from within.

Whilst donors and NGOs alike need to maintain a cautious balance in their ownership of and responsibility for a cause, civil society should be weary of understating the role of the state and then taking on too much of its role.

[back to top]

Joining hands in the region
Arjun Karki, South Asia Alliance for Poverty Eradication (SAAPE), Nepal

In 2000 a meeting was convened in Manesar, India, bringing together 200 civil society organisations to discuss various common issues which they encountered in their fight against poverty and injustice in the South Asia region. Despite the great variety of organisations, cultures and principal objectives, they agreed to form an alliance and a year later, SAAPE was formally created. The alliance focuses on poverty in its relationship to marginalisation, political disempowerment, and its link to socio-political tensions, armed insurgencies, gender discrimination and violence, child labour and the appalling inequality between the rich and the poor.

A key factor within the alliance has been the ability to foster diversity, both amongst South Asian countries and cultures, as well as amongst civil society organisations themselves. SAAPE has specifically sought to engage a broad range of civil society organisations and marginalised groups (such as Dalit) in its work. Even more so, it addresses a vast range of stakeholders in its advocacy efforts, beyond its direct constituents. This has contributed to a broader understanding of poverty alleviation, within countries beyond the SAAPE regional focus as well as amongst other actors that contribute to a vibrant associational space, such as trade unions, journalists, religious groups, and multilateral agencies and bodies.

An alliance – even when advocating for a specific region or specific topic – can no longer afford to adopt a ‘tunnel vision’ in addressing its needs. Rather, it needs to expand its borders, harnessing a broad vision and scope to achieve its objectives.

Go to:
Next chapter...
Back to main article...





print  ::  mail