Sections:
How to work with Civil Society
Why we need to understand civil society
It is essential that any engagement with civil society is based on an understanding of the local context. Donors need to recognise that civil society has social divisions and power imbalances. Without an in-depth understanding of civil society, engagement can result in harming the poor.
Strengthening "uncivil" society
Donors need to consider whether support for and/or co-operation with civil society may inadvertently strengthen "uncivil" groups . Not all groups in civil society have "civil" objectives or operate in "civil" ways. This includes criminal gangs like the Mafias and the Triads; racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and associations set on the destruction or harassment of other societal groups such as religious minorities, women and nomadic people. "Uncivil" activities include the use of violence, intimidation or harassment, defrauding the public and inciting hatred against particular social groups.
It is important to understand the social significance of these groups, their impact on local communities, their ties with elites and their connections with poor people. These groups can affect the broader functioning and composition of civil society. A government may introduce legislation or regulations aimed at prohibiting such "uncivil" groups which may also restrict "civil" society. If such "uncivil" organisations are relatively powerful, they can inhibit the development of more civil organisations through intimidation and harassment.
Weakening the state
Providing resources for civil society to strengthen and empower particular social groups and organisations, can contribute to the weakening of the state. Channelling resources into non-state welfare provision can lead to:
- poorly co-ordinated sectoral policy,
- parallel administrations,
- uneven provision of services,
- negative perceptions of government as inefficient and corrupt,
- the state not providing minimal public services, particularly in remote and marginalised areas.
Where political repression is taking place, this may be the appropriate strategy. However it may inhibit dialogue with the government about improving the legislative and regulatory framework
In formally democratic systems, funding partnerships between specialised civil society organisations and government can mitigate the potentially negative impact on the state. However, such relationships may restrict the ability of civil society organisations to act as independent monitors and advocates.
Donor support to civil society can also contribute to skills shortages in government departments. Higher salaries and opportunities for overseas travel with donor agencies and donor-funded projects can distort local labour markets and deter recruitment to government positions.
Existing power structures
Existing power structures and patronage systems are deeply embedded in societies. They permeate not only the institutions of the state but also civil society. They give legitimacy to the rule of particular elites and normalise the implicit inequities of power and wealth. Poor people may be extremely reluctant to disturb relations with patrons (who provide some benefits and security) even though they may be aware of the inequities in the distribution of wealth and power. Poor people may calculate that it is wiser for them not to organise, but to continue to resist power and inequalities in less risky ways.
As patron-client systems of governance have deep historical and social roots, they do not change overnight. Donors can inadvertently become associated with, involved in and subsequently reproduce patron-client networks simply by working with certain organisations. Sometimes, it will be difficult to avoid working in ways that reinforce existing power structures and even undemocratic regimes. Forging alliances with elites may be a necessary short-term step to place pro-poor issues onto the policy agenda to influence decision-making in favour of poor groups and to open up channels of access for organisations of poor people. However, it risks reinforcing social structures and patronage networks, which perpetuate poverty. It could also inhibit the emergence of leaders from within poor groups and limit their opportunities to gain vital skills in negotiating with the state and enhance their knowledge of policy processes. There is also the risk that the donor might be perceived as not having genuinely pro-poor goals, thereby inhibiting the attempts of local groups and movements to bring about structural change.
Working with civil society may end up benefiting disproportionately those who already have power. Donors tend to be in close contact with educated, urban elites whose links with poor people are tenuous . Because donors' understanding of the needs of poor people is often filtered through the lens of such elites, there is the risk that projects and programmes may not properly address the needs of poor people.
Neutralising radical voices
As donors work with civil society, there is a risk that donor priorities neutralise more radical agendas aimed at challenging existing power structures and patronage networks and civil society priorities the work with donors over other, locally defined priorities. Partnership arrangements can risk the state co-opting civil society, and so mute the promotion of pro-poor interests.
Distancing civil society from their clients
There is the risk that supporting civil society organisations can strain their capacity and lead to the bureaucratisation of the organisation . Though the latter may benefit the functioning of the organisation, the donor reporting processes may make the process of social change more technical and staff may spend more time attending to donor reporting than in being accountable to clients, members or constituents.
Transaction costs
Organisation has heavy transaction costs and risks for poor people. Organising takes time: a scarce resource for poor people. Time spent meeting and organising is time that could otherwise be spent generating income or attending to family affairs. Where organising requires travel outside the immediate area, it entails costs of transport and possibly accommodation, which can be beyond the means of poor people.
This is even more of an issue for women. In most societies women assume primary responsibility for raising children, preparing meals, caring for the sick and elderly, as well as performing many other waged and non-waged activities.
Conflict and violence
As the very act of organising by poor people can threaten powerful groups, there is the risk that it will lead to retaliation and conflict, threatening not only the lives and livelihoods of poor people, but also their self-confidence in organising again.
Differences in the perceptions of men and women of what is a public issue and who has the right to discuss these issues influence the opportunity for women to organise around their needs. Women participating in meetings which take place in public spaces can risk violating social norms. This could have negative consequences provoking physical or verbal abuse from husbands and relatives, the loss of social reputation and status or exclusion from other community activities.