|
Back to Index
Civil
society: Strategies for Emancipation - 'Progress' in Zimbabwe Conference
Amanda
Atwood, Kubatana.net
November 08, 2010
'Progress' in
Zimbabwe Conference index
page
View audio file details
Speaker:
Kirk Helliker
Discussants: Erin McCandless, Mike Davies
Key Participants: Rose Marie Depp, Booker Maguire, Mary Ndlovu,
David Sanders, Frances Lovemore, Elinor Sisulu
Kirk Helliker opened
the session by stating that the liberal position does not problematise
civil society. Rather, it views civil society as having universalistic
logic, and as the driving force behind progress towards the democratic.
It is viewed as progressive where state is regressive, and seems
to have no apparent legitimate existence outside of arguing with
state. He also described a social movement based understanding of
civil society, but stated that he found this problematic as well,
as it again defined itself in relation to the state.
Helliker argued that
much of the conflict in contemporary Zimbabwean society is a discourse
around state politics. The struggle is a struggle for state power.
This, he said, marginalises more democratic radical popular movements
- like the land movement - captured by state and delegitimisesd
by liberals.
He agreed with
the earlier discussion
which had stated that just because trade unions develop a position
towards the state, and international capital develops the same position,
this doesn't necessarily that there is some sort of alliance,
or that the trade unions are in the in pocket of international capital.
However, he cautioned, there is a similar risk of reductionist thinking
if you argue that the land movement was just an election ploy. This
reduces the agency of rural people and war veterans to being simply
pawns of Zanu PF.
Listen
Responding to Helliker,
Erin McCandless stated that she thought his paper did not go far
enough to explain how a radical society based notion of civil society
- that was defined separately from the state - would
address problems in Zimbabwe. These problems, she argued, fall largely
within state control and are related to its institutions. The state
has been a key source of Zimbabwe's ills, she said, and so
it needs to be transformed.
McCandless argued that
some alternatives can be found in peace and conflict studies. The
liberal peace agenda, she said, has been pursued and promoted but
has not produced results. This sometimes exacerbates conflict, particularly
in terms of liberal economic policy. Ignoring the need for a strong
healthy state is not the answer, McCandless argued. Accountable,
legitimate institutions are needed to manage transitions.
McCandless described
two strategy dilemmas facing civil society organisations working
for change in Zimbabwe. The first is rights and redistribution.
There was an agreement that political and economic governance and
rights are important, and that the liberation war was for both.
There is also the question of participation and resistance -
How can and should civic actors engage with state, donors, and one
another. How confrontational can and should civil society be. Confrontation
is important, said McCandless, but it can also fuel polarisation.
Speaking from
the floor, John Saul said that whilst the precise struggles that
different civil society groupings work for are important, they also
hang together more systematically than that. They add up to a vision
of an alternative society; they are counter hegemony in the making.
But how can that proceed in the view of scepticism about both major
political parties. Either the MDC needs a kick in the ass from civil
society, or civil society needs to think of counter hegemonic alternatives
to the MDC.
Listen
Also speaking
from the floor, Charity Manyeruke questioned the independence of
civil society when it comes to alignments with political parties.
She argued that the GNU is a case in point, where you find that
civil society is almost silent because now they are baffled: "Our
party is in some power of some sort." It is important that
civil society in Zimbabwe remain independent. Yes, there can be
convergence on some points, but for civil society it shouldn't
be about getting into power - it needs to remain a critical voice
of government.
Listen
Responding to
the discussion, Erin McCandless said that if civil society works
outside the state framework, it concedes to the state a power it
shouldn't have. The state is meant to be a servant of the
society. Civil society needs to engage in policy debates. She agreed
that change can happen from the bottom up - but said that
it can also happen from the top down, so it is important not to
cut the state out. She also noted that peace research has looked
at trying to "add up" the effects of different peace
activities in conflict situations, and what they've found
is that different activities don't add up to more peace; having
a collective strategy is vital. So it is important to work together,
even when there are different opinions and priorities.
Listen
Visit the Kubatana.net
fact
sheet
Audio File
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
