Civil Society At Crossroads ?

Civil Society @ Crossroads ?
Home Civil Society At Crossroads ?
Civil Society @ Crossroads

CIVIL SOCIETY @ CROSSROADS was a joint initiative between CDRA (South Africa), EASUN (Tanzania), INTRAC (UK), PSO (The Netherlands), ICD (Uruguay) and PRIA (India) aimed at creating and sharing knowledge on and about civil society around the world that would be helpful to both practitioners and policy makers alike. A global synthesis document was published based on civil society stories from 16 countries.

The main findings of this report were:

  • Citizen protests reflect the disconnect between their expectations and the performance of public authorities.
  • New civil society actors are organised differently than NGOs, expressing alternative values of inclusion, participation and innovation.
  • Partnership of civil society with old and new media both expands and regulates outreach and impacts.
  • Contracting resource bases are reshaping civil society roles and relationships with government and business sectors.
  • Political space for civil society and its relations with political society are simultaneously contracting and expanding.
  • Blurring north-south boundaries calls for reassessing civil society roles and realigning their relationships within and outside their countries.
  • Measuring the impacts of civil society actions entails expanded definition of success over the longer term.

During 2012, when the Civil Society @Crossroads Project engaged us, the World Economic Forum hired KPMG International (an accounting firm) to also prepare a report on the future of civil society (http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_FutureRoleCivilSociety_Report_2013.pdf) (it was discussed at their recent meet in January 2013). Some of the findings about changing roles and resources are not very different. The WEF document has also reinforced the significance of citizen mobilisation and action at the grass-roots. It is interesting, however, that KPMG argues for a more networked approach to partnerships between civil society and private business. It bases its arguments on the prediction that private business will be the main driver of social development in 2030; social entrepreneurship and social investments will be the dominant patterns in civil society under this scenario.

It will be interesting to see what steps governments take based on the implications for policy makers from these two documents, and how civil society practitioners respond to these.

A number of other products were also published (you can see all of them at http://www.pria.org/civil-society-at-crossroads-/2451).
 

Comments 

 
0 #27 Coffre-fort agréé : Infosafe les pros coffre-fort — coffres-forts de qua 2013-04-23 18:54
Maintenant, investir dans un coffre fort n'est plus un luxe réservé aux millionaires et milliardaires!
Par contre il convient d'investir dans un coffre-fort agréé et certifié suivant les normes Européennes pour garantir la meilleure qualité d'un bon coffre fort ignifuge homologué
qui sera également un excellent barrage contre les incendies. les assureurs requièrent souvent un coffre-fort agréé classe 1. Un coffre-fort de dépôt sera plus utilisé par les commerçants qui souhaite sécuriser leur caisses temporisées.
Pour les garagistes qui n'ont pas de coffre-fort, un coffret à clés sera tres efficace
Quote
 
 
0 #26 civilization — KozLika 2013-04-14 06:44
This looks very interesting. It is a bit tangential to most of our work, but I think will have relevance to the climate dialogue work that we are developing. I’d like to be involved in some way if that is possible. I’m not sure how much I’ll be able to contribute as my work isn’t focusing on international civil society directly right now. But I’ll certainly follow discussion and would expect to contribute if I do have anything to draw on from what we are car insurance policy
car insurance policy
cheap car insurance
buy cheap car insurance
buy cheap car insurance
cheap car insurance quote
car insurance
car insurance
car insurance
car insurance
car insurance
cheap car insurance quote
cheap car insurance quote
get best car insurance
get best car insurance
car insurance
car insurance
car insurance
car insurance
top car insurance
car insurance comparison
car insurance comparisons
car insurance companies
vehicle insurance
Quote
 
 
0 #25 Debika Goswami (debika.goswami@pria.org) — Debika Goswami 2012-09-05 09:36
The Civil Society @ Crossroads core team spent four days 'sharing and listening' to stories and 'making sense collectively' in a write shop. The write shop produced a synthesis of all systematisation /documentation carried out in the past year and using evidence from around the world drafted emerging lessons/key findings under various themes and sub-themes.Read more at www.pria.org/.../2308
Quote
 
 
+2 #24 Debika.Goswami (debika.goswami@pria.org) Programme Officer, PRIA Global Partnership (PGP), PRIA — The Church at the Cross Road: Kenya 2012-01-03 13:39
The post-colonial history of Kenya was characterized by camaraderie between the Church and the civil society; the repressive regime of the Kenya African National Union (KANU), mostly under the president-ship of Moi (1978-2002) and the ruthless massacres that accompanied his hegemony acted as a catalyst in bringing them together. Hence, simultaneously with the civil society players, the Church in Kenya also vehemently disparaged the almost ‘autocratic’ one-party state throughout the 80’s and 90’s of the last century. In fact, the opportunity for the Church to engage in the process of democratization in Kenya increased in manifold not only because of its robust organizational resources but also due to the dwindling socio-economic scenario and the gradual weakening of the civil society actors in face of the terror unleashed by the oppressive state. However, throughout the last decade Kenya witnessed not only the decline of the anarchic KANU domination and Moisim in December 2002, but also ethnic violence in the post 2007 election period. At this juncture, the role of the civil society and the Church also experienced a metamorphosis. In fact, in 2010, the effort of the coalition government to set out a new constitution for Kenya was opposed by the Church. This demonstrated a major shift in the role of the Church as against its traditional stand in favor of the establishment of a non-violent state and constitution. The leadership split into ethnic constituencies leading to the Church corroding its legitimacy as a neutral arbiter and rational voice in society. Rather, the face of the team that was fighting against the constitution was the Church led by the figures of impunity willing to maintain status quo and resisting change that would bring liberation to the citizens of Kenya. They clearly displayed the elite-driven, urban-based, power-motivated “Glasshouse” civil society of Kenya operating from the above; simultaneously there also emerged a second line described as the “Grassroot” civil society consisting of the citizens and operating from the below through peri-urban/ rural areas. Apart from this sharp division, Kenyan civil society was also challenged by the emergence of career and money motivated players who entered the sector for being bought to secure their silence over certain issues. Today, with the Church in Kenya at crossroads, the voice of the Kenyan citizens including women groups, farmer groups, and people living or affected by HIV and AIDs, trade unions, cultural leaders is heard once again; the media is also emerging as a whistle blower and works closely in association with the civil society. Hence, a study on the Church at cross-roads is relevant and worth-researching.
Quote
 
 
+2 #23 Kaustuv Bandyopadhyay (Kaustuv.bandyopadhyay@p ria.org ) Director, PRIA Global Partnership (PGP) , PRIA — Round Table Discussion on “Civil Society in Changing Philippines: Emerging Roles, Strategies and Relationships” 2012-01-03 12:39
PRIA and PRRM organised a round table discussion on 15 November 2011 in Manila. The challenge for civil society in the Philippines is to identify where it will position itself in the whole scheme of things. Civil society also has to locate itself considering that in this country, CSOs are very broad, ranging from the traditional left to the ones funded by global agencies. It may not be an issue of which is better, but we should be able to locate where CSOs are in the whole society. Perhaps an interesting first step is to find out the tagalog translation of the term “civil society” (“Kalipunan ng Kapwa tao - ?”). A summary of the discussion can be viewed at pria.org/.../...
Quote
 
 
+1 #22 Kaustuv Bandyopadhyay (Kaustuv.bandyopadhyay@p ria.org ) Director, PRIA Global Partnership (PGP), PRIA — Civil Society in Changing Bangladesh: Emerging Roles, Relationships and Strategies 2012-01-03 07:57
PRIA and Wave Foundation organised a half a day workshop in Dhaka on 21 November 2011, taking advantage of the South Asia Social Forum that took place in Dhaka. 20 civil society organisations participated in the discussion. The following is the summary of the discussion. As a follow-up it was decided to organise a series of workshops both in Dhaka and in other locations of Bangladesh to take forward the debate and discourse on the emerging scenario of the civil society which could shape the collective action in Bangladesh.

• There is growing mistrust and discontent among the citizens on the failures of the political parties to represent people and their interest. The political class in Bangladesh has developed a patronising culture. Many party workers are also disillusioned with the political parties. In this context, civil society has been acting as the pressure groups – collecting and mobilising public opinion and channelling them to governance institutions.

• There is also mistrust, discontent and disappointment among the citizens on the failure of NGOs. Historically, NGOs have been playing important roles in development, however, their ability and willingness to safeguard and support the citizens’ interest is increasingly coming under scrutiny and interrogation.

• These situations has also alienated the youth in the society to get involved in the ‘social transformation’ discourses and action. How to influence the young minds?

• NGOs are adversely affecting the vitality and sustainability of civil society. Over the years, as NGOs have been implementing ‘projects’ through the creation of project based committees at the community level, they destroyed the traditional forms of civil society like youth groups, cultural associations, etc. There have been multiplicities of project based committees, as every project will create new committees.

• Although, after decades of ‘military’ regimes democratic governance have been in place in Bangladesh, however, some form of ‘Parliamentary Dictatorship’ has been established. The practice of deliberations, tolerance of dissents, and inclusivity of ideas are not welcomed. There are now more ‘ex-military’ personnel in the parliament and occupying important state authorities.

• The dominant face of NGOs is that of service delivery agents. The watch dog functions have been either abandoned or diminishing in worrying pace.

• The NGO community in Bangladesh is divided along the partisan line. There is also division among NGOs along the line of ‘right based’ versus ‘service delivery’. The networking and partnership is only limited to project delivery, if there is any inter-organisational collaboration at all. The value of solidarity is fading or already faded away. As a result, the bargaining and negotiating ability of the NGOs with government has decreased manifold.

• There was a feeling that the atmosphere among the NGO community is that of suffocating. Organisations individually are engaged in implementing projects and have very little time to protect the political space for the ‘sector’. However, there was also a realisation that it’s still possible to come together and do ‘something’ which will encourage to come out of ‘project and organisational silos’ and search for a broader perspective and protection of the ‘civic space’.

• ‘Civil society’ terminology assumed a strategic advantage over terminologies like ‘not-state’ or ‘non-governmental’. However, over the years, the discourses on civil society have undermined the discourses of ‘oppressed-oppressor’ and ‘poor-non-poor’ and other such dichotomies in the society. We are far from the desired and required balance between ‘civil society-market-state’ trinity. Using the concept of ‘civil society’ in a class ridden society is becoming an obstacle for mobilisation and organising the voice less.

• Along with this ‘development’ as ‘transformation al agenda’ has been taken over by the ‘liberal governance reforms’. Good governance, corporate social responsibility and such other concepts are providing legitimacy to the ‘neo-liberalism’ and directly or indirectly supporting the local elites. In such a situation, the ‘people’s organisations’ are taking a back seat. The existence of solidarity economy is being challenged by the global capitalism like never before.

• Civil society in the country has also adapted to ‘market syndrome’ – ‘branding’, ‘competition’, ‘use and throw’, ‘new products’ and so on. All these have adversely impacted on the values of civil society like sharing, information dissemination, networking, solidarity etc. Civil society is now being part of the marketization. There is enormous fear among the NGOs of losing resources and therefore their brand in this development ‘market’. On the other hand, civil society is less engaged with the market and less critical about the transparency and accountability of the latter.

• Capacity in civil society is also changing – from the capacity for activism, to service delivery to academic knowledge production to consulting and advising. Nevertheless, the ability to take risk is diminishing.

• The earlier ‘spiritual’ orientation of civil society is now being replaced by narrow and parochial ‘religious’ orientation.

• There was question whether it is possible to organise civil society and even if they are organised whether they will remain as civil society. This is particularly in the context of social movements. How far such social movement could be organised?

• The mainstream media is either not interested at all in civil society actions or generally more critical about the NGOs. Whatever media space is occupied by the civil society, it is divided between the ‘elite’ and ‘non-elite’ civil societies.

• There is still hope that civil society in Bangladesh could come together and make efforts to re-occupy the political space that have been lost over the years. There was also hope that people will be talking about alternative economic model. Civil society needs to guide and support this discourse. However, in order for this to happen, civil society needs to come out of the ‘state-market’ connivance in which civil society is also a part of it today.
Quote
 
 
+1 #21 The Roots of the NGO Crises : A look beyond the surface — Frank Julie 2011-11-24 06:30
I have been active in the NGO sector in South Africa for about 27 years starting out as volunteer, field worker, organiser, programmes manager and later as director. I have also served on various NGO boards, act as advisor to many and now practice as a development practitioner within the sector.

During my years of involvement I have tried to develop a sensitive understanding of the challenges that NGO type organisations (or organisations with a social purpose) face. A few years ago I authored a book that captured those experiences to make it available to a broader audience. The central focus of the book is the role of leadership in building sustainable organisations for permanent social change. The response to this book was overwhelmingly positive and this prompted me to develop questions around leadership and learning within the sector, especially in relation to the current crisis facing NGOs in South Africa.

Although this crisis is manifesting itself as a funding crisis, lack of resources and lack of capacity, my view is that this is simply the outward manifestations or symptomatic of a deeper crisis – a crisis of leadership. Empirical evidence suggests that this crisis of leadership does not of course only relate to the NGO sector but to all sectors of society. But my focus with this paper is on the NGO sector. I would argue that this leadership crisis is a result of a leadership discontinuity that took place within the sector over a period of about 30 years.

It is my view is that we have experienced a leadership discontinuity further exacerbated by a disruption of learning processes with serious implications for transfer of knowledge, skills, experience and a subtle or at times deliberate undermining of a body of knowledge produced in the process of struggle for a true developmental practice in the interest of the poor and marginalised. My view is that this process of discontinuity, coupled by a lack of clear articulation of a development theory and practice, created the ideological space for sections of the NGO leadership to be co-opted to a neo-liberal discourse that is diametrically opposed to the fundamental purpose of social and economic transformation.

The entire study is available at www.nonprofitconsultant.org.za

Also available on this site is my book "The Art of Leadership and Management on the Ground" a practical guide for NGO leaders to build sustainable organisations for permanent social change.

Thank You
Frank Julie
Quote
 
 
+1 #20 Director, Transnational NGO Initiative — Tosca Bruno 2011-10-31 17:59
Having attended the CSO at a Crossroads brainstorm meeting at CIVICUS, I offer some observations on the Occupy Wallstreet movement here in the US as an example of less-structured civic agency and activism. While I am not a member of Occupy Wallstreet and while I purposively don't tend to 'romanticize' people's/social movements, there are a couple of observations to make that might be useful in the context of the worthwhile CS at a Crossroads project. What strikes me about this example is the following: 1) the citizens involved first and foremost see it as creating a civic space, and as a way to overcome the "political apathy" by citizens of the past few decades. This refers to Michael Edwards' frame of civil society as the public sphere. Second, they wish to begin a conversation between politicians and citizens about the role of government in people's lives (where they take a different view than the US TeaParty movements), about the role of money and concurrent corruption in politics, about the lack of regulation of the financial industry, about not feeling represented by mainstream politics, and about what they consider unacceptable levels of inequality in the States. Third, unlike the TeaParty, the Occupy Wallstreet movement so far chooses not to engage with specific political candidates or politicians, or with lobbying for specific laws or policy initiatives. Fourth, the composition of the movement seems to have the beginnings of some cross-sectoral, cross-class and cross-generational elements, but whether those characteristics will strengthen or weaken to me is a big litmus test for future strength.
Happy to engage in future discussions about this important project!
Quote
 
 
+2 #19 Contribution to Civil Societies at Crossroads? Peter Konijn, August 24, 2011 peterkonijn@eme rgingpowers.org; — peter konijn 2011-10-07 14:53
With this small contribution to the collective process I would like to reflect on questions 7, 8 and 10. The questions are about the changing roles of civil society in OECD countries (no. 7), emerging countries (no. 8) and globally (no. 10). These questions are related to some of the trends that are mentioned earlier: rise of Asia, financial meltdown in OECD countries and global assertions of emerging economies (G-20). The global power shift has propelled new developments that are also signalled: emerging powers have expanded their aid without reference to civil society and ODA and OECD limit the role of civil society as subordinate to state-led development.

I will focus on aid funded international development organisations. This is not because I believe they are the mainstay of civil society, but because I am familiar with these organisations and the discussions about their changing position and roles.

The global power shift has led to changes in thinking about development, aid and role of civil society. These changes originate from a certain perspective on the rise of Asia. A consensus in OECD policy cycles is emerging on the reasons why Asia has grown, become rich and powerful. This is not the place to discuss in detail what the emerging consensus looks like. The core of the consensus is that a particular combination of state and market lies at the heart of Asia’s economic success. A strong developmental state creates the right institutions and conditions for markets to operate in. The state also guides and protects some strategic areas outside the market place. The economic strategy is based on investment in infrastructure, modernising agriculture and creating a manufacturing sector.

In this view civil society played no significant role in the rise of Asia. In essence it was a top-down process of development led by an enlightened political and economic elite. This elite sought to legitimatise their position of power on the basis of economic growth.
The growth in Asia was characterised by a lack of investment in social services, lack of respect for human rights and environmental degradation. The sole focus was on economic growth, not on distribution of wealth or social improvements. That would follow later. Governments will be able to finance social service because of increased tax revenues that result from increased profits and wages.

In this perspective, the historical experiences of Asia show that democracy, respect for human rights and a vibrant civil society are not necessary ingredients of a successful development process. They are seen as by-products of economic growth.

As a consequence of these Asian lessons civil society has lost its attractiveness with the OECD policymakers. It is not seen as an essential feature of development. Civil society is seen to be busy with the right things but at the wrong time. Investment in health and education do not lead to economic growth, but again are made possible by economic growth.

Furthermore promoting good governance is not a good development strategy. It seen as a consequence rather than a condition for economic development. The way Western donors have conditioned their aid on progress on good governance criteria is seen as unproductive.

The global power shift has also led to ‘new’ practices of international development. Well actually they are not so new. The first decade of the third millennium saw an unprecedented increase of economic and political presence of China, India and to a lesser extend Brazil on the African continent. Especially for China this increase took place through large package deals in which investment, trade and aid are closely connected. The best-know example is the China – Congo deal whereby concessions to mine copper and cobalt are traded for infrastructure. Chinese companies invest in setting up the mine. Chinese construction companies build the infrastructure, railways, roads and buildings. These investments are financed by a loan from the Chinese EXIM bank. The revenues of the mine are used to repay the loan.

The Chinese business-like approach to development has no or little room for engagement with civil society. Deals are negotiated between high level government officials and CEO’s of large businesses. These deals are usually shrouded in secrecy. No transparency.

Although India and Brazil are very different from China, to state the obvious, their recent engagement with Africa is remarkably similar. They too have a business approach to development. Their engagement is dominated by trade and investment supported by small aid budgets.

As is well known India and Brazil do have vibrant civil societies at home. They play no role however in the intensifying relations with Africa. The governments of India and Brazil do not make a point of involving civil society in the relationship (or discussing human rights issues, for that matter). Civil society organisations in India and Brazil generally are focussed on domestic problems of poverty and injustice. They have little interest or capacity to look at what their governments or companies are doing outside of the country.
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

linkedin facebook google plus youtube