CIVIL SOCIETY: It’s Better to Act, But Good to Talk

By Sanjay Suri Reprint | | Print |

Sanjay Suri

GLASGOW, May 26 2007 (IPS) - On the face of it, nothing really ‘happened’ at the Civicus world assembly, other than the announcement that secretary-general Kumi Naidoo would quit. But that announcement did not need a world assembly. Perhaps the symbolic locking up in a cage to draw attention to civil society activists was something supplied by way of a ‘happening’. The rest was, and was expected to be, no more than talk.

And who could highlight anything said and proclaim it new. Yes, the accent on accountability is new, but which of the non-governmental organisations represented at the Glasgow assembly this week will return home and proceed promptly to do a better job of holding others accountable – or make themselves more accountable.

The cynical view is possible, if that view seeks to judge the outcome of the world assembly only by what is visible and measurable. What is still valid is not often so.

“Civicus is a dialogical space, its significance is for that,” John Samuels, international director of ActionAid told IPS. “It provides a congenial atmosphere to engage with multiple sectors, such as representatives of political parties, of media, of multilateral and United Nations and government institutions, and civil society groups.”

Because confrontation is not the only stance for civil society to take. “There has to be healthy challenge of each other, but also spaces of engagement, both dialogical and critical.” Good enough, but not enough. “The Civicus world assembly is a space that needs much more strengthening; it needs to get more grassroots voices, apart from elite voices.”

But to have called this meeting a world assembly was not overstating it. Representatives from 135 countries joined meetings to talk about themselves in relation to their environment and context, and to look at their place in civil society itself.

And they sat down to look at themselves, at ways of making civil society itself more accountable. Because in that talk of accountability that would be right. Also, as Civicus secretary-general Naidoo said, to “pre-empt” certain criticism to follow if civil society was to point fingers at others without first putting its own house in order.

An extraordinary number of sessions at the world assembly were introspective. This began alongside the process of registration itself, by way of a meeting of the Affinity Group of National Associations for some “collective reflection.” And while much followed on corporate accountability, media accountability, and inevitably, that of governments and multilateral agencies like the World Bank and the United Nations, very many more meetings focused on the accountability of civil society itself than on any other subject.

This mattered, notwithstanding the fact that two other events inevitably drew packed houses and closed doors. One, the day BBC television arrived. The other, a meeting called by the Department for International Development (DfID) of the British government, among the more progressive aid-giving institutions. Some self-interest in turning up here did not negate the self-reflection elsewhere.

These were not seminars as soliloquies. And this was not talk on the sidelines. A confidence and zest informed the meetings this year, a sense that civil society is moving in from the margins.

Three trends have become increasingly apparent over the last few years, Samuels said. “One is the great and growing research and knowledge capacity within civil society. Civil society leaders are now becoming the credible reference point for research in all sorts of fields, they are taking over this role from governments and political parties.”

An Oxfam report on poverty, an ActionAid report on aid, an Amnesty report on human rights and a Transparency International report on corruption are now prime research in these fields, he said. Correspondingly, government credibility and the abilities of political parties to carry out such work have declined.

“Over the next ten to 15 years, top positions in politics and in multilateral agencies will be taken by people from civil society,” Samuels said.

Secondly, he said, “digital mobilisation and a continuing democracy are an increasing trend. People with access to information can mobilise globally, as the Global Call for Action Against Poverty did, through digital action.” This kind of capacity has given new power to civil society, he said.

Finally, civil society has been helped by the “legitimacy deficit” of states, who have therefore been “forced to engage with civil society for damage control and to get innovative ideas.” Working without the constraints of an establishment role, civil society has found the freedom to be creative.

Evidently, civil society has now shown it can do things that count. And say things that must be listened to. “Civil society still lacks bite,” Samuels said, “but it can keep barking, the barking wakes up citizens and media ? and the political establishment.”