International Conference: Whatever Happened to Civil Society?

3-5 December 2008 KDK Conference Centre, the Netherlands Executive summary: Civil society and aid in theory and practice
Over the past 30 years, the idea of civil society has come to occupy a central position in development discourse. Most aid agencies share a similar abstract understanding of what civil society is: a sphere of social interaction between the economy and state, composed of actors and organisations that self-organise to advance collective goals.1 Donors generally identify with civil society organisations as sympathetic and like-minded actors; they are assumed to represent the ideals of citizenship, participation, and political accountability to which democratic societies aspire. Where political institutions are run by elites and influenced by corruption, civil society is believed to serve as a more authentic representation of the interests of the people. Working with civil society is seen by donors as a means to a desirable end: development, democratisation, human rights promotion, poverty reduction, etc. However donors have defined their objectives civil society has often been deployed as a means of achieving them, and as the development discourse has changed so has the desired role of civil society.2 After almost three decades of working with civil society, two facts are worth noting: there has been a dramatic increase in the number of formally registered civil society organisations around the world, but civil society has not delivered on all that its advocates once promised. Civil society actors are increasingly aid-dependent, lack broad social roots, are often perceived locally to be self-interested, and many donors are reallocating funds to building state capacity. The relatively disappointing achievements of the civil society agenda have, in part, provoked recent donor demands for aid effectiveness and harmonisation which threaten to limit the scope for civil society action.3 Where did we go wrong? What have been the shortcomings of the aid industry? How has the political environment changed since civil society first entered development discourse? Even if we still struggle to define and deploy the concept of civil society accurately and consistently, it has lost little of its original appeal. The theoretical roots of civil society continue to resonate with contemporary problems, and its multiple meanings clarify the ways in which the concept is used and abused in practice. By looking at the history of the concept in political theory and reflecting upon what has been learnt through practice, we can identify ways forward.

In theory, why is civil society important?

1. It generates the social basis for a democratic state For both Cicero and Locke, to participate in civil society is to deliberate about matters of public interest and the way in which people ought to be governed. They saw civil society as the social matrix of the democratic state. The mere existence of multiple organisations is not what strengthens democracy, it is the way in which these organisations promote active participation that really matters.4
Jean Cohen and Andrew Arato. 1992. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press. Alan Thomas. 2008. Whatever Happened to Reciprocity? Implications of Donor Emphasis on Voice and Impact as Rationales for Working with NGOs in Development, in Anthony J Bebbington, Samuel Hickey, and Diana C Mitlin (eds), Can NGOs Make a Difference? The Challenge of Development Alternatives. London: Zed Books, pp.90-110. 3 Real Lavergne and Jacqueline Wood. 2006. Aid effectiveness and Non-state partnerships: Analytical considerations, Working Paper (6 December 2006). Ottawa: Canadian International Development Agency. 4 Cohen and Arato, 1992.
2 1

2. It promotes political accountability Civil associations, de Tocqueville argued, provide a bulwark against majority rule by advancing marginal issues and the diverse causes of minority groups.5 The strength of civil society is its vast number of grassroots associations that operate as social mechanisms to hold government accountable for policies that may only affect a minority of the population. 3. It can produce social trust, reciprocity, and networks Civic community constitutes one element of civil society: those horizontally structured organisations that are more or less mutual, cooperative, symmetrical, and trusting.6 Such organisations (which include everything from extended families and bowling clubs to religious communities and interest groups) generate social capital, which consists of trust, reciprocity and networks that enable people to more easily solve collective action problems. 4. It is the public battleground of ideas While the emphasis is usually placed on the role of civil society in promoting liberal values, it more closely resembles a public battleground of ideas (of which some are more liberal than others). Academics are increasingly returning to Gramscis ambivalent characterisation of civil society as constituting an arena in which hegemonic ideas concerning the organisation of social and economic life are both established and contested.7 Civil society constitutes the space in which democratic alternatives are promoted, but it is also where unsavoury ideologies compete for public legitimacy. 5. It fights the state for rights and citizenship Civil society actors may organise and mobilise grievances against the state. Within civil society, social movements and organisations may develop alliances with other groups to forge collective struggles featuring the language of rights.8 Civil society actors demand that the state protect particular rights through guarantees of citizenship and these demands may proceed through legal channels or though civil (or uncivil) disobedience of the law.

Civil society and the aid architecture

The incorporation of civil society into international development discourse and donor policy agendas began during the 1980s, influenced by three related trends. First, development theory and practice was drifting away from the state and toward the market and more participatory approaches. The second trend was the emergence of a new human rights, good governance, and democracy policy agenda, characterised by new political conditionalities on aid.9 Finally, the role of civil society in many Eastern European post-Communist transitions highlighted its unique potential for promoting indigenous social and political change.10 It was assumed that this progressive trend could be replicated in developing countries around the world. The large-scale policy shifts within development agencies placed civil society on the agenda, but they didnt always prescribe what it was expected to do. Generally speaking, civil society was meant to do three things for development: increase local participation, enhance the efficiency of aid delivery, and promote democratisation. The way in which civil society would do these things
Alexis de Tocqueville. 2000 [1835/40]. Democracy in America, Harvey C Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (trans and eds). Chicago: University of Chicago. 6 Larry Diamond. 1999. Developing Democracy: Towards Consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. 7 Anthony J Bebbington, Samuel Hickey, and Diana C Mitlin, eds 2008. Can NGOs Make a Difference? The Challenge of Development Alternatives. London: Zed Books. 8 Joe Foweraker and Todd Landman. 2000. Citizenship Rights and Social Movements: A Comparative and Statistical Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press 9 Peter Oakley. 2003. Strengthening Civil Society: Concepts and Approaches, in Brian Pratt (ed), Changing Expectations? The Concept and Practice of Civil Society in International Development. Oxford: INTRAC, pp.31-42. Mark Robinson. 1996. The Role of Aid Donors in Strengthening Civil Society, in Andrew Clayton (eds), NGOs, Civil Society and the State: Building Democratic Societies. Oxford: INTRAC, pp.204-218. 10 Mark Robinson and Steven Friedman. 2005. Civil Society, Democratization and Foreign Aid in Africa, IDS Discussion Paper 383. Brighton: IDS.
5

was described with reference to new academic theorising and the accumulation of experience by development practitioners. These expectations of civil society were not all shared by all actors, but the position of civil society in development policy was usually justified with reference to at least one of these functions. Different models of partnership and collaboration emerge according to what civil society is presumed to do for development, but they are all influenced by the same fundamental tension between civil society as a relatively autonomous sphere of social mobilisation, and civil society as a vehicle for development assistance. The civil society agenda has succeeded in some respects and achieved very little in many others. The most obvious success is in the explosive growth of non-governmental organisations around the world in the past two decades. CIVICUS has called this an associational revolution characterised by the emergence of new forms of civic engagement on an unprecedented scale.11 The quality of these associations is found to be relatively low, however, making the phenomenon of civil society not unlike the dramatic increase in the number of democracies in the world that lack many of the political virtues of liberalism and good government.12 A recent global study by CIVICUS noted a handful of common themes across their survey of civil society: there is general weakness in accountability and transparency; citizen engagement and organised civil society do not always go hand in hand; many civil society organisations are aiddependent; and they generally focus more on service delivery than on advocacy.13 These themes appear frequently in other studies of the state of civil society, and they reflect shortcomings of the aid industry and a changing political environment. Many critics have traced the limited successes of civil society to the way in which donors have worked with each other and with civil society organisations. These shortcomings can be summarised as follows: donor activities are not coordinated, they have unreasonable expectations of civil society, and donors tend to homogenise civil society. These criticisms revolve around the widespread instrumentalisation of civil society by donors. Donor policy agendas are shaped by a set of expectations of what civil society is expected to do for development and the organisations populating the public sphere are considered vehicles for the achievement of these goals. Of course, civil society is not a uniform sphere of activity and donors often fail to effectively differentiate between facade organisations and those whose activities contribute to social and economic development. These shortcomings, critics argue, are responsible for a global proliferation of civil society organisations that make very limited substantive contributions to development. They have promoted more critical inquiry into how civil society organisations are internally structured (with particular concerns about legitimacy, transparency and accountability), how to measure their impact, and who should count as members of civil society.14 The political environment in which civil societies function has changed in several important ways over the past thirty years, and these changes suggest that the space for civil society may be shrinking. Two broad changes have altered the context, tools, and orientation of the aid industry in many developing countries: the expansion of democratisation and globalisation. Two more recent changes are more directly related to civil society itself: the new security agenda and the Paris Declarations aid effectiveness approach. While the political environment has undoubtedly changed in innumerable ways, these four specific changes are frequently highlighted by scholars as presenting particular challenges to civil societies. Together they suggest that the space for an autonomous and pluralist civil society may be under threat.

V. Finn Heinrich, ed 2007. CIVICUS: Global Survey of the State of Civil Society (Volume 1: Country Profiles). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, p.xxi. 12 Fareed Zakaria. 1997. The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, Foreign Affairs, November/December 1997. 13 Heinrich, 2007. The Global Survey on the State of Civil Society lists several other trends in civil society: the tremendous diversity of forms of civil society, civil society and the private sector often regard each other with suspicion, and the character of the state often determines what civil society can accomplish. 14 Thomas, 2008.

11

Where should we go?

Although civil society is encountering new pressures and challenges, it remains as relevant as ever to the way we think about development. The idea of civil society still embodies the democratic ideals of participation, equality, accountability and citizenship that initially made it an appealing concept. Development continues to be characterised by the tensions between the pressures of exploitative capitalism and government control, and the grassroots impulse for innovation, empowerment, and alternatives.15 Civil society remains central to handling this tension through solidarity and contestation. By reflecting on what has been learnt about the shortcomings of donor agencies and recent changes in the political environment, we can develop a more critical self-awareness about how to work constructively with civil society. In this respect, current research into civil society in development has identified several key areas for further investigation and analysis: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Create better analytical tools for understanding and disaggregating civil society Focus on the nexus between the state and civil society Develop new monitoring and evaluation modalities Determine how to engage with non-aid dependent civil society Assist civil society organisations to internally democratise

Conclusions
Civil society and the aid industry are not the same thing, yet they have become almost irreversibly intertwined in developing countries. The dramatic global expansion in the number of NGOs has been directly correlated with the incorporation of civil society into development discourse and the policy agendas of donors. While donors have seen civil society organisations as natural allies and partners, this relationship has become too intimate and overbearing in many countries. Civil society organisations are increasingly losing popular legitimacy because they are seen to be the agents of foreign governments, and successful and powerful social movements gain credibility by explicitly refusing development assistance. At the same time, current trends suggest that OECD governments are growing increasingly sceptical of what can be expected from civil society, choosing instead to focus aid on strengthening the social welfare functions of states. This provokes important questions for the role of civil society in development and democratisation. These questions are posed along four lines of inquiry: 1. In theory and practice, what do we mean by civil society? We need to revisit the theoretical roots of the concept of civil society to apply it more rigorously and critically in the light of experience. 2. How is civil society incorporated into the aid architecture? There is a need to analyse diverse relationships and approaches to funding, monitoring, and partnership with civil society organisations that exist within the aid industry. 3. How do states interact with civil society? Definitionally, civil society is autonomous from the state, but it engages with the state through multiple interfaces: as critic, threat, consultant, partner, and resource. These relationships and their implications need to be more carefully analysed in the light of the contemporary political environment. 4. What are the new challenges facing civil society? The social and economic forces of globalisation and political change are reshaping the terrain and composition of civil society. How do civil society organisations and actors create and preserve autonomous space in a rapidly changing environment?
15

Bebbington, Hickey and Mitlin, 2008.

INTRAC PO Box 563, Oxford, OX2 6RZ, UK Tel: +44 (0)1865 201851 Fax: +44 (0)1865 201852 4 Email: conferences@intrac.org www.intrac.org