Confronting the state, engaging the state: executive summary

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

In December 2004, development agency Hivos and the Institute for Social Studies (ISS) launched a partnership to expand and share knowledge on civil society building in developing countries. A two-day seminar was convened to kick-off the knowledge network, exploring strategies employed by civil society organisations in various political contexts to influence and strengthen the performance and responsiveness of the state.

Though states’ histories and trajectories vary in each country context, eroding institutions raise questions of boundaries, belonging and identity in each failed state. How are these questions addressed by civil society? In Guatemala, for instance, civil society has seen a long and uneven history of engagement with the state. However, conflict and strife have challenged the state to such a degree, that it impedes basic governance. In this context of disarray, amplified by internal polarisation amongst the population, civil society is a marginal force. Comparably, in Colombia civil society has developed only in limited corners. Severely adverse conditions characterised by exceptional levels of violence and conflict have amplified civil hardship. Even so, social movements persist in their struggles for social change and spaces for public action continue to emerge. In post-colonial Africa the context is vastly different: the formal sphere has eroded in such a way that it is used to address informal needs. This is characterised by patrimonial rulers who derive their legitimacy from an ability to deliver resources and utilising disorder instrumentally, versus a dependence of everyone in need of these services as clients to a patron. Diminishing resources have led to the crumbling of the state, and as a result, administrative and technical functions are assumed by individuals serving only informal purposes. Civil society has come to be regarded as what is left over – but a vast percentage of the current generations of Africans have lost their expectations in modernisation and hope for progress. This tide will only turn where political will exists, and only then can better governments begin to re-emerge. In the Middle East, state power is in many cases overshadowed by secular power. Iran for instance is characterised by severely restricted associational space, and navigating this space is a careful balancing act for civil society organisations: by addressing non-controversial topics, working in concert with state actors, building trust and forging alliances, all within the delicate margins imposed by the state, associational space can be carefully explored and slowly expanded.

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. Five strategies illustrate how this is addressed in different contexts. Strategies of confronting or engaging the state have become a cursory interest in Kenya: neither seems to have been effective so far, after political change did not move civil society in a position to collaborate with the state in quite the harmonious way that was anticipated. As a result, civil society actors are unsure whether they should go back to the streets or engage with government through the halls of power. The strategy harnessed by Nicaraguan women’s network Red de Mujeres is to build capacity amongst civil society organisations, to help build permanent economic and social changes from within themselves. KRC, operating from west Uganda, adopts a similar strategy, developing dialogue between all stakeholders in a community, including local and national government actors. It seeks to place empowerment at a grassroots level, aiming to catalyse a more effective functioning, increased accountability and stronger ownership of human rights within government, ultimately leading to economic recovery and social justice. Similarly, the strategy harnessed by Bolivian organisation CEJIS is the establishment of a ‘social pact’ between donors, governments and local partners, engaging different stakeholders in direct dialogue and avoiding disturbance of public space by bureaucratic forces. In South Asia, the success of the NGO Alliance SAAPE builds on its strategy of embracing diversity, engaging civil society organisations and marginalised groups in its work, and addressing a range of stakeholders in its advocacy efforts. This has contributed to a vibrant associational space. An alliance, even when advocating for a specific region or topic, needs to harness a broad vision and scope to achieve its objectives.

Civil society building is as much about action as it is a process of learning and strengthening of initiatives: what makes civil society building work and how can we set conditions to foster successful initiatives? The Dutch co-financing agencies Cordaid, Hivos, Novib and Plan Nederland recently commissioned a study to examine these questions, to generate more understanding of the challenges encountered by civil society organisations and how support can be optimised. The study showed that there are three interacting spheres of influence on civil society participation under adverse political conditions: power, levels and space. Many of the points brought forward in the evaluation involve strengthening relationships and fostering linkages along these different dimensions, engendering more mutual involvement and participation in the issues stakeholders in civil society building are advocating. Strong alliances, both horizontally and vertically, will help both funding agencies and civil society organisations reach their goals more effectively, establishing a learning dynamic and reflective practice at the same time.

Whilst there is often a gap between the academic community and that of development practitioners, a lot can be learnt in terms of potential mutual benefit. Different dynamics and interests are balanced by common ideas and ideals. Ten points for research activities and policy innovation were identified, to be pursued by the Hivos-ISS Civil Society Building Knowledge Network. These points all relate to strategies in which donor, practitioner and research efforts are enhanced and include such topics as sharing spaces, engaging the state, social movements and NGOs, citizenship and participation, knowledge sharing and others.

In conclusion, it is important to pursue a disaggregated understanding of the levels of the state, shedding light on how power is distributed. The main qualification of civil society is the freedom to associate – and this must be salvaged to secure and develop associational space. A broad understanding of associational life, supported by an understanding of democracy that embraces context-relevant conditions and priorities is key to civil society claiming its influence to strengthen the performance and responsiveness of the state. However, social change and transformation are unlikely to occur in countries where NGOs do not benefit from social movements whose grassroots political and social agenda is fuelled by a pure desire for change. In terms of achieving impact, organisations need ‘staying power’ in one space, requiring flexible funding over time. They need strategic accompaniment, rather than technical fixes, supported by an understanding of local contexts and needs. To identify what this constitutes, external organisations cannot revert to linear forms of learning, but should encourage sharing of knowledge and lessons between policy makers, researchers and development practitioners.

[back]