Focus on Poverty, SIDA-UNDP, Stockholm, November 2000

Democracy is more than Free Elections

The Role of Civil Society

Presentation by Bjørn Førde

02. October 2005

Experiences from the Field

Raj Kumar is 24 years old and lives with his family in Kailali district in far-western Nepal. They had rushed to district headquarters in mid-July as soon as they heard that the government had declared all the Kamaiyas, the bonded laborers, free. Raj Kumar was astonished to know that he would not have to pay his debt of nearly 20,000 rupees that he inherited from his grandfather. But he did not know what to do next. Within a couple of days, his landlord approached him and ordered him to vacate his mud-thatched hut immediately. "Otherwise the police will put you behind bars," said his master. He even abused the government for waiving the debt that his ‘Kamaiya’ owed to him, and he forced Raj Kumar to pay a couple of hundred rupees that he had with him at the moment.

Ray Kumar and his family are among the 300-350.000 people in Nepal who live as bonded labourers, of whom 50-100.000 are part of the oppressive Kamaiya-system. This system means – or meant - that these people can be bought and sold amond landlords, without any say whatsoever of the people themselves. Most of them belong to the 1,2 million Tharu-people, who are being strongly discriminated.

"Backward Society Education" [BASE] is an NGO that has worked to strengthen and conscientize the tharus and the kamaiyas in this part of Nepal. BASE is probably the largest democratic membership organisation in Nepal, with more than 30.000 paying members. Since 1993 MS has had several Danish development workers posted with BASE, and since 1997 we have had a partnership agreement defining what the objective of our co-operations should be and what specific areas of work the DW’s should be involved in. One such area is working with information dissemination, networking and campaigning. It should be mentioned that Danida is also supporting the work of BASE, like many other donors.

The MS programme in Nepal has participated in the Kamaiya Concern Group, which has brought together several nepali and international organisations around the common objective of developing a campaign that could force the government to bring an end to the oppressive and dehumanising system of bonded labour. It was a well planned and effectively implemented campaign, in which BASE played an important role. And it was a successful campaign in the sense that the government finally had to give in to the demands.

You will of course know that although the kamaiya-system has been abolished, poverty and powerlessness is still very much a fact of life for these people, as for millions of other people in Nepal. These people need land, because agriculture is the only way of survival in this part of the country. It has therefore been necessary to start a new campaign to force the government to provide the people freed from bondage with land, and to enforce minimum wages and other regulations that can protect the landless against the landowners.

I have presented this example at some lenght because I feel it illustrates a number of issues of principle importance. Let me just mention:

• The fact that today Nepal formally speaking is a democracy does not change the equally important fact that the livelihoods of the majority of the population are characterised by poverty as well as powerlessness, marginalisation, oppression and discrimination.  
• Unless the formal political system is constantly put under pressure by organisations within civil society, it is highly unlikely that formal democracy will be able to deliver fundamental changes in the livelihoods of poor people.  
• Northern NGO’s working in the South must realize that while activities involving the delivery of certain social goods are important, at times indeed vital, it is equally and increasingly important that advocacy is an integrated part of these activities.

I am happy to state that this is also recognized in the new strategy of Danida called Partnership 2000, which has recently been adopted by Parliament. The new strategy clearly states that the role of civil society must be recognized as part and parcel of all the official activities, to the extent that civil society is seen as a legitimate partner in official co-operation. And it is stated that NGO activities increasingly should focus on advocacy rather than on social delivery.

To me this means that we have entered a period of development co-operation being re-politisized. We must recognise that development co-operation is more than a technical fix! It is a deliberate intervention intended to change the distribution of power, resources, opportunities, etc. between various groups in a society.

This should not come as a surprise to anyone in this room. This is after all what the Human Development Report has been advocating for many years – the way I read it. And it is also what the recent World Development Report 2000/2001 called Attacking Poverty is advocating – the way I read the report.

Democracy and Civil Society

For some people, globalisation creates a feeling of optimism about the future. Others see globalisation as a threat. Many people are frightened by some of the visible signs of globalisation, such as private companies relocating their workforce; instability in financial markets far away spilling over into their own economies; cultural changes and/or harmonisation through effective marketing of cultural products globally.

Among other things, this fear is caused by the lack of faith in the possibility of ordinary citizens to influence and alter the course of globalisation. Far too many citizens are becoming increasingly isolated from the global political debate, because the international political elite has lost touch with the concerns and interests of ordinary people.

Moreover, in many countries in the South leadership for governance is seen as passing to outsiders and non-nationals, further weakening internally generated democratic responses. Policymaking becomes dominated by – sometimes determined by – Northern interests and stakeholders like transnational companies, international financial institutions, multilateral and bilateral donor agencies and Northern governments.

The role of national governments and civil societies is therefore reduced to merely legitimising and implementing decisions taken by outsiders. People of the South are concerned that globalisation does not provide room for self-respect, self-governance and self-control over their own resources.

To change this situation, we need to develop political structures and to establish a dialogue, which secure the citizen’s political participation and insight at all levels.

At local level, communities must be ensured even greater influence on the development and increased control over local economic resources. Local democracy, decentralisation and the subsidiarity principle should be driving forces for the political power sharing.

At the regional level, democratic structures and influence of the civil society should similarly be strengthened and improved by reflecting the interests of the citizens.

At the international level, the democratic control of all international negotiations must be increased. One way to ensure this could be to strengthen the democracy in regional democratic structures [such as EU, NAFTA, OAU, MERCOSUR, etc] that reflect the political and cultural distinction of each individual region, and then build the global process upon regional bodies. Another way would be to establish parliamentarian groups within all UN organisations and within organisations such as the World Trade Organisation and the World Bank.

Apart from this, civil society must be ensured influence and information at all levels in international negotiations. Today, several of the important bodies setting international standards [such as the FAO body, Codex Alimentarius, in the field of food], are dominated by powerful industrial interests, and are largely without representation from consumer, development and environmental organisations. This contributes to the undermining of the citizens’ confidence about the consequences of globalisation.

In general, a totally different focus on the involvement of civil society and dissemination of information is needed in order to foster a culture of transparency and openness. The Rio-process and the global climate negotiations following Rio have progressed further than most other negotiations when it comes to involvement and openness. Powerful organisations in the field of trade and finances – such as the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund - are among the most secretive.

However, opening up for participation is not enough. The weakest and most marginalised communities must be supported in their struggle for greater access to the resources and in establishing their own self-help systems and forms of organisations. Moreover, the ultimate purpose of the process of globalisation should be to support the weakest groups to link their local problems to the regional and international level, and in this way, influence the political agenda.Democratisation and establishment of a forceful civil society cannot be perceived without taking into consideration the power structure of society. The causes of the unequal distribution of resources between rich and poor, and between the North and the South, should be made visible through a dialogue between citizens in the rich and the poor world.

The call for a stronger involvement of civil society in the global political processes must be based on the understanding that the various initiatives coming from civil society are themselves democratic, transparent and legitimate expressions of the people. This is not necessarily always the case today.

It is equally important to recognise that it should not be the objective of a better organised and more mature civil society to replace formal political systems of governance, nor is it the role of civil society to compete with the important and necessary roles of the state. However, civic organisations can provide leadership towards new forms of governance that not only address democratic reform from a global perspective, but also take on board the challenges and experiences of local expressions of governance.

To respond to globalisation, self-governance models acceptable within the people’s own historical experiences must be understood and promoted. Grassroots democracy and capacity building methods must build on home-grown solutions tempered with current knowledge.

Global institutions and global decision-making can never fulfil the ideals of democracy and influence that individual citizens can experience at the local level. Nevertheless, there is no alternative to political globalisation in a world in which economic power is increasingly concentrated, and where the problems and actors are becoming increasingly global.

The growing exclusion and marginalisation of large segments of the population from the global political debate must be reversed. If political globalisation is to succeed, it must be achieved through participation and openness from the bottom to the top.Good Governance: Enhancing People’s Opportunities

 

Consolidation of democratic practices requires national integration, social consensus, dialogue, transparency, information flow, and impartial and predictable application of the rule of law. It is also about direct and unmediated participation of civil society and the private sector at all levels. The full participation of women is critical in this endeavour and we, therefore, recommend the following:

• Governments should invest in and support initiatives geared towards the realisation of participatory democracy based on popular ownership of decision making at all levels.  
• Current IMF and World Bank conditionalities on anti-corruption initiatives and good governance should be developed in consultation with national governments and civil society.  
• It is in the interest of both government and business to strengthen civil society institutions in order to promote democratic governance.  
• Stakeholder-specific civic education institutions will be necessary for deepening and institutionalising a culture of democracy.

Democratization and Civil Society

An important point of departure is the common practice of equating constitutional arrangements based on free elections and different forms of multi-party systems with genuine democracy. This is certainly a much too narrow approach to the issue.

While it is true that significant political changes have taken place in many countries throughout the world during the past dec-ade, it is not true that these changes have automatically resulted in societies operating in a democratic way at all levels. And it is particularly not true that the changes have ensured genuine participation for ordinary people in society. For this to happen, it is necessary to pay attention to democracy as a process, involving multiple actors at different levels. It is particularly important to recognize the contribution of civil society in the process of genuine democratization, in the form of values as well as structures.

Based on the experiences of MS in general and MS-partners in the South in particular, it is possible to point to a number of reasons why civil society groups should be trusted to play a significant role in the process of democratization:

• By giving a voice to people [women in particular] who are otherwise deprived of access to public institutions and decision-making fora, people-based organisations and groups can deepen and extend the reach of current demo-cratic reforms.  
• Civil society organisations can add vital local richness and diversity to what otherwise risk becoming one-sided processes flawed by excessive reliance on models developed in the North.  
• People’s organisations within civil society need to be given adequate space and conditions to develop. National governments, international organi-sations and donors need to guarantee the right to self-organisation and freedom of expression.  
• There is a need for legislative and con-stitutional arrangements to create en-abling environments for civic action and organization, and the acceptance at international level of the Right to Deve-lopment as a fundamental human right. 

But it is important to recognize the need for a balanced relationship between the state and civil society organisations/groups. One cannot live without the other! And civil society can never be a sub-stitute for the state. It is therefore important to remember that:

• Civil society organisations need to re-cognise the role of the state in bring-ing about an enabling environment for people’s associations to develop and grow.  
• Civil society organisations need to engage themselves in constant inter-action with the state. In certain situa-tions this means confronting state agents with demands for more accoun-tability and transparency, some-times challenging basic aspects of state legitimacy.  
• There should be an ethical code applicable to all development stake-holders - government, donors, NGO’s and other civil society organizations. This will lead to a national culture of openness, accountability and equity in resource distribution. 

Democratization at local and national levels cannot be seperated from what is taking place at the global level. Globalization in its competitive form has had a major negative impact on peoples’ livelihoods. It has not promoted democracy in the South:

• Therefore, the perspective of "coopeative" globalization must be pursued at all levels - from the local to the national and further on to the global agendas. Combining activist roles of an informed citizenry with the presence of capable, accountable and responsive states and international organisations is the major challenge faced by civil society organisations.  
• Democracy must be strengthened in all international negotiations and organisations by increasing parliamentary influence and ensuring participation and insight for NGO’s.  
• Individual citizen’s understanding of global political necessity is increased by greater amounts of information and openness in all international negotiations and organisations.  
• Governments must be challenged to establish decentralised structures that ensure that the poor and marginalized majority of the population, and women in particular, have influence on and access to the social, economic and political resources.  
• The weakest groups should be supported in their struggle for access to resources and in their efforts to organise themselves and participate in national and local political processes.

The existence of a civil society is certainly not a new phenomenon, neither in the North nor in the South. But in recent years, the concept of civil society has been used in-creasingly in the debate on development in general and democracy in particular. And the special role of this section of society has been given increased attention by scholars as well as politicians and the meadia.

Unfortunately there has been a tendency to equate civil society with NGO’s [Non-Governmental Organisations] engaged in implementing various pogrammes in the field of development.

This is neither helpful for an under-standing of the strengths and weaknesses of civil society, nor for an understanding of the role it can play in the process of democracy and development. It is, on the contrary, important to emphasize that civil society encompasses a myriad of different organisational forms.

Following this, emerging consensus is that civil society is made up of people-based organizations and structures outside the government. Thus, civil society is seen to be made up of the full range of citizen groups which fall outside the ambit of government and which are motivated by ethical, pro-people objectives and not by profit.

Such a definition easily leads to mistaken beliefs that civil society by definition is a strong, independent and positive force in the building of democracy. But emerging organisations and structures are a reflection of trends in the larger society:

• some are sub-contractors for research and service delivery to the state, defined and funded by the state;  
• others are small trader groups at local and regional levels, who organize principally for profit;  
• and civil society is also comprised of radical religious and other ideological groups intent on destabilizing govern-ments or other civil society groups in pursuit of their own objectives. 

Seen in the perspective of democratization, the decisive factor is to understand and appreciate the diversity of values and organisational forms brought forward by different people’s organisation.

Major Strengths of Civil Society

Civil society organisations and groups bring to the process of development - and to the process of democratization - a number of strengths that need to be built on. These include their capacity and experience in coalition building and networking to bring people together.

While this is true in any society at any time, it is particularly the case in countries where the failure of the more conventional associational forms such as trade unions and cooperative movements and the weakness of political parties are so manifest. Which is the case in many countries in the South.

They also promote research and advocacy on human rights and development, support and organise community action for local level policy change, provide a voice to the oppressed and marginalised. This is the case in the North as well as in the South.

Many people based organisations provide leadership in research and the development of "best practices", generating alternatives, monitoring and exposing corruption, promoting good governance and conflict prevention and resolution. They also provide platforms for inter-national networking and lobbying on issues like:

• the exploitation of the environment;  
• the damaging effects of debt;  
• unequal patterns and structures of trade;  
• economic and social empowerment of women;  
• the need for public education for all, girls and boys, women and men;  
• the need for basic health care facilities for all, including women and children;  
• awareness and training;  
• and recently in building the capacity of smaller civic organizations as well as governments and private sector. 

These roles and contributions of civil society organisations have been highlighted during the serious economic crisis facing countries in the South [caused by structural adjustment in Africa and financial collapse in Asia to mention two examples], and the related collapse of state institutions. Their role in service delivery and emergency relief also continues to provide support at times of extreme need. They have often proved more efficient and reliable than government structures.

Finally, it is important to emphasise that the notion of civil society goes beyond focussing on formal associational forms or structures. Hence, in many parts of the South, religious and cultural institutions play a crucial role. Such indigenous institutions add important dimensions to local processes of democratisation by bringing in values and cultures that are internalized by the people themselves.

Challenges facing Civil Society

The problems experienced with regard to top-down and donor-driven constitutional reforms have led many to believe that civil society organisations per definition offer the right and the only alternative. Because they embody the true spirit of people’s democracy! Because they promote principles of good governance. On top of this they are [at least in theory] characterized by being non-corrupt, democratic, non-discriminatory and pro-people.

This is true with many civil society organisations. But if generalized too broadly, it can easily result in covering up some important challenges and weaknesses, which are currently being faced by many local civil society organisations.

As indicated, organizations are not "good" ipso facto. Each one has to be judged on its own merits before it can be assessed how they can contribute to demo-cracy and development.

Historical experience point to a number of weaknesses, which can impact on their role and credibility. This is true with civil society organisations in the North as well as in the South:

• some grow too big too quickly;  
• some support single issue agendas without any consideration of the importance of balancing this with other issues;  
• some display neglect or outright discrimination towards women;  
• some promote agendas of foreign states, governments and multinational corporations;  
• some excell in bureaucracy and waste;  
• some act as middlemen for other interests and consequently disempower local communities;  
• some create dependency relations with local partners;  
• some market poverty for institutional self interest. 

This can easily result in serious internal problems in organisations, making them prone to deviance, selfishness and outright control of constituencies and beneficiaries. Unless addressed in a very direct and consistent manner, this can lead to civil society organisations loosing importance and credibility as agents for change and models for democracy.

Non-Government versus Anti-Government

Another unfortunate tendency is to confuse the sense of being non-government with the principle of being outright anti-government at all times. This is often understandable. Many civil society organisations have developed in conflict with and in spite of government attempts to control and repress them. They will therefore necessarily distance them-selves from these regimes and their corrupt and ineffective state institutions.

But while it is true that it is impossible to develop democracy without the active and direct involvement of local organisations, it is equally true that democracy cannot survive without the government and the state playing a role. At least this is the experience of more than a 100 years of development in a country like Denmark.

The role of the state is important in providing an overall framework for citizen participation and interaction - and also in mediating between different societal groups, organisations and classes. It is important for civil society organisations to realise that a weak state, crumbling by the impact of economic crisis and distance to its citizens, cannot promote democracy. A capable and accountable state can, with the support of an empowered and informed civil society.

Rather than pursuing a free-market, privatisation and state-minimalist approach, this actually calls for enhancing state capacity to respond to citizen needs and demands as well as to involve local communities. Civil society organisations therefore need to engage themselves in constant interaction with the state at the different levels of operation.

In certain situations this will involve confrontations with state agents concerning demands for accountability and trans-parency, sometimes challenging basic aspects of state legitimacy. In other situations it will imply support for state positions on certains issues.

Dependency of Civil Society

Contrary to what is stated above, it is also a fact that many civil society organisations enjoy intimate relations with key state actors and institutions. Some would argue that this is the case even to the extent that they are sponsored by the State, and consequently also controlled by the State.

Public sentiment in the South is often that such associations [examples include academic and research institutions, women’s movements, trade unions, cooperative organizations and many NGO’s] do not qualify as genuine members of civil society. A similar debate can be observed in the North, with the public asking the question: Can development NGO’s almost fully fun-ded by the government maintain the ideolo-gical and political independence needed?

No doubt excessive reliance on external funding for core organisational functions can lead to division of power between organizations, and to suppression of internal democracy in the resource based relations.

Present arrangements where civil society becomes a contractor to donors in service provision, thus taking on private sector efficiency cum profit motivations is also undermining core values and increasing competition between organisations. This can also lead to favoritism by donors and the emergence of a competitive elite amongst the NGO’s, which further undermines the principle of people-led and managed democratization.

Lack of Democracy in Civil Society

In order to take up current challenges posed by uneven processes of democratisation, civil society organisations also need to address issues of governance and account-ability in their own field. Thus, in order to build democratic ethos in organizations, there should be an ethical code applicable to all development stakeholders - government, donors, NGO’s and other civil society organizations. This will lead to a culture of openness, account-ability and equity in resource distribution.

There is also a need for conscious policies for promotion of counter account-ability between partners and the develop-ment of local resource mobilization skills in the South for legitimacy of civil society organizations - particularly in its most vocal wing, the NGO sector.

This calls for closer partnerships between civil society organizations for better development planning, coalition building at national and regional levels and deepening partnerships between donors and civil society organisations around core agreements and democratic approaches.

A democratic culture can also be promoted by cross-fertilization of personnel from the various stakeholders within themselves through sharing expertise between sectors - government, civil society, business and donors.

Donors, lacking in adequate knowledge of local conditions, need sensitivity training and should engage more local experts.

In recent years, some progres has been achieved through the development of Codes of Conduct in many countries in the South - Uganda and South Africa are two examples. Such codes are guidelines for behavior to be followed by local organisations as well as donors.