John
Samuel
Civil Society - a contested concept.
The concept of Civil Society’ is a contested terrain. It is one of the
most commonly used and misused fluid concepts in the socio-political discourse ,
development and the international aid sectors
today. Over the last fifteen years the term has been used to denote everything from
citizens’ groups and activist formations to highly institutionalized
non-governmental organisations and foundations.
One of the key predicaments of the ongoing social and political
transition in the world today is the subversion of language and ideas to create
political smoke screen or delusion or to give a semblance of social and
political legitimacy for the hegemonic discourse. Often progressive-sounding
words and phrases are used to conceal the reality on the ground or to create a
virtual or projected sense of select images and discourse. The reshuffling of
meanings and the subversion of political semantics has become the order of the
day. This has become a part of process of creating the new pornography of
politics. As a result, the terms like rights-based approach, participation,
civil society, micro-finance, empowerment, gender-sensitivity, governance,
democracy and justice are often used to mean entirely opposite things or to
confuse the reality. The validity of a term or an idea in political or social discourse is less based on the
term itself, but more on who is using it when, where and how and for what. The
intentions, context and the agency often help us to derive a sense of a new
word or phrase. So when John Rawls talks
about Justice or George Bush talk about Justice, they mean entirely different
things: as different as chalk and cheese. When a grassroots group or social
movement talks about human rights based approach to politics or development,
they often mean exactly opposite to what the mandarins in the World Bank or the
multilateral organisation mean. The very term Civil Society is a major
protagonist in the post-modern politics of delusive power-plays and elusive
semantics. They together often create political and policy mirages.
There is another dimension to this process of subversive politics
of words from the point of view of the history ideas and the political economy
of knowledge.
Historically we seem to have crossed the twilight zone of the last
rays of the Enlightenment. We are in the transitory phase of a new epoch. The
notions of nation-state, market, civil society, reason and progress that
emerged during the Enlightenment are beginning to get transformed. However, we
are yet to discover a new language or politics in this flux of transition and
the withering away of the old hegemony. The political economy of knowledge
production, transmission and legitimation is often a reflection of the unequal
and unjust power relations in the world. That is why hegemonic institutions
like the World Bank are increasingly in the business of
knowledge-enterprise. Most of the new
terms are constructed, recycled, legitimized and marketed by the Universities,
think tanks, publishing industry and media empires based in the hegemonic
North- a new dimension to the old art of the colonialisation of the mind and
knowledge- a relationship based on extraction, appropriation and legitimation.
There are political, historical and social reasons for the
increasing use and misuse of the concept of the civil society:
1)The term has reemerged in the public discourse in the wake of solidarity movement in Poland
2) There is a correlation between the rise of neo-liberal policy
paradigm and that of the civil society discourse in the development and social
discourse
3)The changing role and the nature of the state in the context of
globalisation, unleashed new social and political process that gave credence to
the political project of civil society
4)Saturation of the welfare state and increasing deficit of democracy necessitated the need for associations and organisations in
intervening and participating in service delivery, public management and policy
and political process.
5)Counter movements to economic globalisation also unleashed a new
wave of grassroots democratization, citizens resistance, social mobilsation and
social movements to protect the social-cultural and economic spaces and to
challenge the invasion of the market as wall as the hegemonic tendencies of the
powerful governments in the North. This too gave rise to new forms of
organisations committed to justice, human rights, and people’s participation.
6) The political parties all over the world have increasingly become
electoral networks or mechanism to capture state power and governments.
Political parties also began to be dependent on media (for poll surveys, profile
building, brand making) and business corporations. As a result people have
been forced to find new, ways and means to engage with state through
intermediary association and organisations.
7)The rise of identity politics and the new political contestations
at the national and global level created a political environment of new forms of
identity-based mobilization and organisation across the world.
8) The revolution in the area Information,communication and technology(ICT) provided new spaces for digital
mobilization, creating digital or virtual communities, and transnational as
well as global action. The availability of information and access to internet
and the new forms of communications have transformed the nature of social and
political process in many of the countries. In many of the countries, citizens
are less and less participating in formal electoral process (due to various
factors including the legitimacy deficit of political parties and media driven
and corporate funded electoral process) and more and more challenging and
engaging with the state through digital mobilization and consequent action.
Millions of people mobilized against the war( US invasion of Iraq) primarily through digital
mobilization and through organisations and networks outside the conventional
political parties. Many young people got mobilized in many of the countries in Arab Region and other parts of the world to demand democratic governance, transparency and accountability.
9)The resistance to transnational corporations and economic
globalisation and the consequent deficit in legitimacy/credibility forced many of transnational
corporations and their proponents like the World Economic Forum to derive new
forms of legitimacy through associational forms and public discourse, subverting the meaning of the term 'civil society' to give credence to vested interest-based pressure groups.
10)
The emergence and increasing independence of
trans-national development, human rights, charity and anti-poverty organisation
and their increasing role in the production and dissemination of knowledge and
global knowledge-action-advocacy networks created new spaces across the globe.
The use of new information technology, relatively cheap air travel, the opening
up global spaces through various UN summits and the “invited spaces” in the
multilateral organisation of governance created a sense of counter balance and
space for organisations outside the conventional arenas of the state and the
market. The series of citizens’ action and protests against WTO (in Seattle,
Cancun, and Hong Kong etc) and the emergence of spaces like World Social Forum
created a very fluid sense of Global Civil Society.
Hence, there are various streams of historical, social, political,
economic and technological underpinnings to the whole discourse on civil society. As a result, there is whole new academic industry working, researching
and theorizing on the civil society projects. On the one hand the resurrection
of such a concept signifies the profound flux in the midst of social and
political transition in the world and on the other hand the idea itself
signifies the new forms of political economy of knowledge generation,
validation and distribution. A concept
that has multiple streams of meanings, historical trajectories, political
constituencies and ideological undercurrents often ends up becoming an idea of
“instrumental value” as opposed to “intrinsic value”. In fact civil society can
also seen as a “transitional idea and formation’ that is a byproduct of the
social and political discourse in the midst of profound transitions. As an idea
it got discussed and used in the midst of the social and political transition
in the 18 nth centuries Europe and America
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the use or misuse of the
term, the fact of the matter is that the idea has become a part of the
mainstream social, political and developmental discourse
Whether one thinks that the prevalence of the idea or concept or
the term is due to the subversive character of the post modern politics or due
to the hegemony of the neo-liberal and globalization discourse, the fact of the
matter is that it has become a part of the common place political vocabulary
and development lexicon. Hence, we have only two options: either to live with
the term ( in spite of our likes or dislikes) or confront the idea to rethink
and redefine and revitalize a set of meanings, ideas and actions to make it
relevant to various struggles for social justice, human rights, democratization
and human development.
In the new paradigm shift, the key challenge before us is to whether
we become silent spectator or victims of the recycling of the old concepts for
the new power-play or we once again go back to the lived experiences of
communities and individuals to search for new ways of looking at the transition
of the world. We need a new language, a new set of insights and a fresh sense
of humility to look at our past, present and future. We need a new poetics of
imagination and politics of transformation. At present, we do not have adequate
theoretical categories or analytical framework to capture the complexities of
the ongoing transition. What we need a new renaissance is to rediscover ethical
communities within our societies and the world. We can still question injustice
or rights violations based on the whole range of humanizing ethical traditions.
However, at this juncture one of our
options is to understand the challenges of using a terms and simultaneously
transform the meanings of the dominant and dominating terms to create a new
politics and semantics of emancipation and freedom.
Hence, we have to make efforts to rethink the concept of civil society so
as to understand, challenge and change the meanings and validity of the terms
like civil society. Civil society is a very fluid concept. Its conceptual
underpinnings and operational validity are often problematic. So the first part
of the paper seeks to give a critique of the idea of civil society and the second
part of the paper seeks to explore some of the options to explore some sense of
operational validity for the idea of civil society and Civil Society
Organisation(CSO) by engaging with the concept by defining the terms from an ethical
and political premises.
Part II
Historical sketch of the idea of Civil Society
Civil society as a concept originated in 18th-century Western
Europe. It was a theoretical construct useful in analyzing and understanding
the emerging socio-political economy of the industrialized west in the 18th and
19th centuries. The concept was
resurrected in the late-'80s amidst the ruins of the authoritarian regimes of Eastern Europe . It was born-again in the manufacturing
shops of neo-liberal and neo-democratization ventures in the United States and
Western Europe. During the second coming of the concept, more stress was laid
on producing and marketing the civil society in different colours and shapes,
rather than on reflecting the very validity of the idea in relation to real-life situations and experiences. The
civil society is being paraded as the new panacea for issues such as poverty,
human rights, gender equity and `good governance'.
The new avatar of civil society discourse raises more questions than
answers. There are four broad reasons that compel us to question the new-found
enthusiasm for the civil society: a) As
a concept, it conceals reality and confuses people; b) It tends to idealize the
civil society while glossing over the internal contradictions in society; c) It
tends to relieve the State of its social responsibilities and seeks to legitimize
free-market, neo-liberal regimes; d) It is basically an Euro-centric concept
with universal claims that tends to strait-jacket alternative discourse to north-centric development
models.
What is this civil society all about? Whose civil society are we
talking about? There is no one answer or even set of answers. The colour and
smell of the term will change according to the convenience of the various proponents.
As a result of such ambivalence, the second coming of the civil society
conceals more than it reveals. Civil
society, we are told, is synchronous with democracy, freedom of speech, freedom
of choice, good governance and opportunity for economic growth. But what do all
these goodies entail? Whose democracy? Whose freedom of expression and choice
are we talking about?
The new holy trinity of the State, Market and Civil Society conceals
structural inequalities, marginalization and patriarchy, and reduces complex
reality into neat spaces. There is an underlying tendency to homogenize the
world according to an idealized notion of governance that skips the entire
historical process of marginalization and unequal distribution of power in the
socio-economic and political arena. The problem with such an ahistorical theorization
is that anything and everything outside the market and the State can be
considered civil society. So the Islamic Taliban, Sangh Parivar and all such
fundamentalist formations as well as small self-help groups, neighborhood
associations or professional groups can be considered part of civil society. A
mega-million non-profit organisation such as the Rockefeller Foundation and
Asia Foundation is as much part of civil society as a small NGO. This is an
interesting logic wherein sharks, sardines and shrimps all say we are fish,
though the sharks would like the freedom to swallow sardines and other small
fish.
When both donor agencies and recipient NGOs say they are the dynamos
of civil society formations, it is a bit confusing. The difference between the earlier NGO
discourse and the new civil society discourse is that the blanket term `NGOs'
had limited scope for homogenizing and concealing; the notion of civil society
in one sweep conceals every unequal power relation and socio-economic
contradiction in society and at the same time manages to confuse people
further.
The concept also conceals the different histories of marginalized
communities outside the western world. Another aspect of such diagrammatic
rather than ethical theorization is the prevailing management approach to the
issues of poverty, rights and marginalization. Such a management approach boils
down to rolling back the State and the privatization of every social security
provision. When the global western or northern elites prescribe the idealized
civil society as the answer to all ills, whose civil society are they referring
to? That of the urban, educated middle
class or that of the large majority of people in villages, forest areas and
slums? Is it the civil society of the oriental `savages' or African
`barbarians' or that of the privileged ‘global citizens’ in a virtual world?
Who is civil and who is uncivil? Who defines it? These are some of the uncomfortable
questions.
There is a need to understand the history of the idea of civil
society. This nebulous concept had its origin in western political theory. The
pre-18th century concept emerged in the tradition of Aristotle, Cicero and
modern natural law. Till the 18th century, civil society was considered "a
type of political association which placed its members under the influence of
laws and ensured peaceful order and good government". The discourse on
civil society took a critical turn in the 18th century, as a corollary to the
discourse on emerging capitalism as well as liberal democratic movements. The
ambivalence of this concept is partly because it was an analytical tool used by
both the proponents and critics of modern capitalism. On the one hand it served
as a convenient tool to legitimize the market outside the sphere of an
authoritarian and mercantile State and on the other; it was a tool to rationalize
the sphere of individuals and associations to assert their freedom and rights.
One can see three broad varieties of definitions and interpretations
of this term. There is a tradition that can be traced back to John Locke,
Thomas Paine and De Tocqueville -- the liberal tradition. Though there are
differing nuances within this tradition, one of the significant aspects is that
civil society is considered a `natural condition' for freedom, and a legitimate
area of association, individual action and human rights. Thus the notion of
civil society came to be seen in opposition to the State: it allowed space for
democracy and the growth of markets.
The classical political economy tradition of civil society emanated
from the works of Adam Fergusen, Adam Smith and J S Mill. This stream of thinking
perceived civil society as a sphere for the satisfaction of individual
interests and private wants. This perspective stressed the primacy of
individualism, property and the market. The third stream of civil society
discourse can be traced back to Hegel, Marx, Gramsci and Habermass. This stream
can be seen as a critique of the liberal and classical political economy
tradition. This perspective interpreted civil society as a
historically-produced sphere of life rather than the natural condition of
freedom. This tradition questioned the notion of an idealised civil society and
recognised the internal contradictions and conflict of interests within civil
society. For Hegel, civil society was
sandwiched between a patriarchal family and the universal State. Though Hegel
questioned the idealised notion of civil society, he tended to idealise a
universal State. By challenging the idealisation of both State and civil
society, Marx argued that the contradictions within civil society are
reproduced within the State. For Marx, the State is not merely an external
force that confronts civil society, but the reflection of it, wherein different
interest groups penetrate the State to rule. Both Hegel and Marx pointed out
the role of the elite in defining the character of civil society. Gramsci emphasized
civil society as the realm of public opinion and culture. It is the public
sphere where hegemony is created through consent and coercion.
The new civil society discourse is also a symptom of the crisis in
social theorization. Instead of looking for fresh theories to address the profound
socio-political and economic transition, the tendency is to resurrect concepts
and theoretical frameworks from the residue of the Enlightenment in the 18th
century. The civil society discourse smacks of the Euro-centric tradition where
the `other' was the savage or barbarian who had to be `civilized'. Adam
Fergusen (An Essay on the History of Civil Society -- 1767) explained
the evolution of civil society based on the criteria of reason, material
advancement and moral progress. Thus the notion of civil society became the
measuring scale of progress and accomplishment. The West European societies
were the ideal to be pursued by the `savages' and `barbarians' of the East or
South. The universalistic claim of the idealised north-centric conception of
civil society is due to the economic and political hegemony of the few rich
countries and the international institutional discourse controlled by them.
Such a Euro-centric conception of the world is still based on a uni-linear
notion of progress and a world-view based on `binary opposition'. Such a
tradition sees the world as `civil' and `uncivil', `developed' and
`underdeveloped', `north' and `south' and `black and white'. The problem with
such a conception is that in the enthusiasm to paint everything black and
white, all the grey shades in between are taken for granted. It's little wonder
then that the UN-World Bank prescriptions and the WTO regime put forward the
model of good governance, civil society and human rights based on Euro-centric
ideals. Such idealization and valorization of the term is not only far from
reality but also incompetent to address the complexity of the issues of marginalization,
conflicts and poverty.
In the second coming of the civil society in the late-'80s and through the '90s, the predominant trend has been a resurrection of
the tradition of Adam Fergusen and Adam Smith, with a doze of De Tocqueville's liberalism. Thus the
ongoing civil society discourse has a strong neo-liberal undercurrent. The
dominant steam in the civil society discourse seems to be a plea for the
supremacy of the free market, rolling back of the State, and the
individualistic notion of human rights. Civil society has emerged as a poaching
ground for the New Right to rationalize and legitimize the privatization of the public services through the so-called
CSOs (read privatized NGOs), to reduce the State as a support mechanism to the
market and to conceal the contradictions of globalisation. But this is only one
part of the story.
The other part of the story is the Civil Society is also being used
to denote new democratization, grassroots politics and new way for citizens’
participation and engagement in the process of governance and affairs of the
state. So the term is being used by both
new Right and new Left and also the proponents of the third way. The New Right tends
to idealise and valorize the term in favour of a Big and “Free” Market and the
“little” and “market driven State”. The
proponents of the “third way” try
to valorize the term to as “fall back” mechanism to meet the deficit of democracy
and the excess of market and as a means
for delivering social services through public-private partnership The New Left
seems to use the term to denote process of grassroots democratization, new
social movements and people-centred advocacy.
All the above three political and knowledge traditions co-exits with
each other and often intermingle to create new sense and meaning to the term
civil society. This often makes the concept fluid and ambivalent.
There seems to be three components to the whole project of civil
society discourse. This includes the “associational’ (Structural aspect) character
of the term, the ethical-political premises (normative aspect) and thirdly the
citizens-dimension (political aspect) of the term. It is often the
‘associational aspect’ of the term that are being used to homegenise and
unversalise the whole range of associational spectrum or what is being called the new “associational
revolution” or institutional explosion. Often the ‘associational’ aspect of the
civil society is privileged over the ethical-political premises or the
citizen-dimension of the idea. The privileged “associational” stress on Civil
Society often tends to equate the Civil Society with Non-governmental Organisations
(NGOs). This is very problematic as the very term Non-Governmental is negative
definition in relation to the governments and express a wide range of
institutional formation with entirely different sets of ideological inclination , ranging from Community
Based Organisations to muti-million dollar institutions to grant-making
foundations and World Economic Forum. Some of such institutions may locate
themselves within the civil Society or play a role in civil society. Many of
such institutions are either the extension of the State, or Corporations or
institutional means to serve the interest of the market or the state. As civil society itself could be a site of unequal power relationship within a given
political context, NGOs also can reflect the social and political
contradictions and tension within in a given geo-political context or in the
world. Like all institutions within a given society, whether political parties,
academic institutions or social enterprises, NGOs too can reflect, maintain or
even reproduce the status-quo and dominant power relations based patriarchy, race,
cast, ethnicity, identity or class.
It is further problematic when all NGOs,
irrespective of their shape, coloure or locations are paraded as Civil Society
Organisations(CSO) . The moral and political assumptions behind such a description
and the politics of “representation” need to be revisited. The NGO world is increasingly looking like an
Orwellian Animal Farm, wherein everyone is supposed to be equal but some are
more equal than others. The civil society title for NGOs often becomes a moral
and political rationale for appropriating the experience of communities and the
deprivation of the marginalised. There
is nothing wrong with any committed organisation or group of people speaking
for the rights of others. The problem occurs when such groups or entities
develop a universalistic claim based on an imagined or assumed legitimacy.
Part III
Ethical and Political Role of Civil Society Organisations. |
It may be time now to arrive at an operational definition of the
term ‘Civil Society Organisation’ or CSO. Definitions have so far been based
on either the typology or location of such formations outside the
conventional arenas of the State and market. I propose a definition based on
ethical and political positioning and perspective.
Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) are those informal,
semi-formal or formal organisational formations that protect, promote and
facilitate the principles and practice of democracy, participation,
pluralism, rights, equity, justice and peace among people locally, nationally
or internationally. Such Civil Society Organisations play an ethical and
political role within society, trying constantly to humanize an increasingly dehumanized
world. They function outside the conventional spaces of State power and
market forces, though they constantly negotiate, pressurize and persuade
institutions of the State as well as market to be more responsible and
responsive to the needs and rights of the people in general and the poor and marginalized
in particular.
CSOs have gradually acquired a significant role in influencing
the development agenda, public policies and international discourse on
rights, justice, gender, ecology and peace. In the international and national
political process, CSOs have a legitimate and crucial role to play.
What has led to this increasingly important role? The changing
contours of the State, processes of governance and market forces, definitely.
On the one hand, CSOs have become a legitimizing mechanism for powerful
global institutions and actors. On the other, CSOs are fast emerging as the
rallying point for resisting and challenging unequal and unjust power
relations in the private, public and political spheres. Such a paradoxical
positioning of CSOs often creates a sense of ambivalence about their real
politics and purpose. This ambivalence becomes particularly problematic when
different sets of actors and institutions use the same set of words and
phrases with entirely different meanings. For instance, words like ‘empowerment’,
‘participation’, ‘freedom’ and ‘justice’ are used by multinational
corporations, BrettonWoods institutions, and of course powerful countries.
Thus George Bush never tires of reminding us that the war on
When Satan begins to quote the scriptures and preach salvation,
salvation itself becomes questionable and often demonic. Therefore, one needs
to constantly validate the role and relevance of CSOs on the basis of what
they do on the ground, rather than what they say.
The disjuncture between words and their meaning, rhetoric and
reality, and talking and doing is one of the key predicaments of the
postmodern condition. Hence the role and relevance of CSOs needs to be seen
in relation to their functions, affiliations, actions and context in which
they operate. As the world and the international political order are
constantly in a state of flux, we are living within more and more grey zones
and less and less clearly demarcated black and white spaces. This makes the
task of locating the political and social affiliations of CSOs problematic,
as they seem to be partly responsible for and partly a response to and
product of the graying of politics (e.g. the new labour of Tony Blair) and
economy (MNCs are big on corporate social responsibility and ecology these
days) worldwide.
The changing context
The role of CSOs needs be seen in the light of changing
discourse on politics, development and governance. The emerging political
arenas and development discourse are marked by the following trends:
The role of civil society can be understood within the context
of these emerging trends. We will discuss each of these trends briefly and
then try to identify the role of CSOs in relation to them.
1. Deficit of democracy and erosion of rights
Democracy is facing a crisis. The core of democracy and human
rights is the notion of Freedom: Freedom from fear, freedom from want,
freedom of association and freedom of belief. In a liberal democratic polity,
freedom is the defining sign of citizenship. Citizens are supposed to define
the boundaries of the State, and the State is expected to define the
boundaries of the market. Now these roles seem to have been reversed. Markets
increasingly determine the boundaries of the State (the WTO-led trade regime)
and the State is increasingly defining the boundaries of citizens by
undermining their freedom and eroding their rights. Citizens are increasingly
forced to become consumers of public service and governance. A deficit of
democracy results from the increasing trend of illiberal democracies which
use the rhetoric of democracy, nationalism and security to take away the
rights and freedom of citizens.
Political parties have become less and less legitimizing agents
of democracy and the State. They have become more and more the organisational
apparatus to contest elections and capture State power. Most political
parties have become closed spaces controlled by vested interest pressure
groups and career politicians in search of power.
In this situation, a key role of CSOs is the amplification of
the voice of the voiceless and the protection and promotion of the rights of
citizens and the marginalized. This is a non-partisan political role to
assert freedom and articulate rights so as to ensure that the core principles
and values of democracy are sustained. This role requires CSOs to promote and
adopt a rights-based approach to democracy and politics -- primarily
asserting the dignity and freedom of people and resisting all kinds of
discrimination based on gender, race, religion, caste, creed and ethnicity.
The advocacy role of CSOs becomes crucial in promoting and protecting
democracy and rights.
2. Saturation of State and crisis of governance
The notion of the welfare state is withering away. Almost all
the countries that became independent of colonial rule after the Second World
War adopted the welfare state approach. However, over a period of time, the
State apparatus began to be saturated by an indifferent, inefficient and
growing bureaucracy and controlled by vested interest groups and career
politicians. The apparatus of the State had become too fat to be functional.
The dysfunctional State sought control and legitimacy through coercive power
and militarization. Increasing militarization and conflict to sustain State
power by vested interest groups resulted in economic resources being
increasingly diverted from social and economic development to the purchase of
more and more arms from industrialized countries.
The powerful OECD countries not only sold arms but also provided
loans to the developing world to sustain their markets. As a result, most of
the countries in the developing world got into the debt trap. The debt trap,
aid dependency and increasing corruption, coupled with an entrenched
bureaucracy, led to the saturation of the State and a resulting crisis of
governance.
The role of CSOs in the area of social development and
governance needs to be seen in this context. CSOs must fill the gap and directly
intervene in development and delivery of services where the State either
lacks the capacity or the political will to deliver public services. CSOs
must put the issue of poverty eradication on the global development and
political agenda. CSOs must play a collaborative, cooperative, complementary,
competing and confrontational role in relation to the government and
processes of governance.
3) Marketisation of politics and development
The State is increasingly controlled by market forces and
multinational corporations. Most political parties and politicians around the
world are dependent on corporate funds (either as donations or bribes) for
electoral funding and sustenance of their power apparatus. This leads to a
situation where political priorities and agendas are controlled by powerful
corporations. In many countries, corporate leaders have captured State power
through the electoral process and run the government like corporate CEOs (e.g.
Taksin in Thailand, Berlusconi in Italy, George Bush, ex-CEO of an oil
company in the USA), without any respect for the rights and voice of
citizens.
The neoliberal policy regime and Washington Consensus promoted
by the BrettonWoods institutions (World Bank-International Monetary Fund) and
WTO actively seek to privatize public services and decrease public spending
on key areas such as health and education. This makes the poor poorer and
excludes them from the ambit of development.
Thus development is market-driven and citizens are merely
consumers.
In order to be self-reliant, CSOs need to raise independent
sources of income and not be dependent on official funds and corporate
donations. Otherwise, there is a real danger that CSOs will be used as
delivery boys for Development Cola, served up to the poor and marginalized
for a price. If this is not to happen, CSOs must develop new fundraising
strategies based on principles of solidarity, ethical philanthropy and
community mobilization. They must not run like ‘service-delivery machines’
that can be hired by anyone including the MNCs and World Bank.
The role of CSOs is thus crucial in humanizing development and
politics by building alliances of peoples and communities, facilitating
people’s participation, listening to and learning from the poor and marginalized
and acting in solidarity with the marginalized.
-- This article is based on
|
1 Hall John, A (end) 1995, Civil Society,
Theory, History, Comparison, Polity Press, Cambridge
2.
Colas Alejandro, 2002, International Civil Society, Polity, Cambridge
3) Elliott, Carolyn M (end), 2003. Civil
Society and Democracy: A Reader, Oxford
University Press, New Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment