| |
Back to Index
Zimbabwe's
civil society, and diminishing political space
Dr
Alex Magaisa
August 09, 2005
http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/magaisa3.12956.html
Read Khanyisela
Moyo's response to this article
THE publication
of two articles on New Zimbabwe.com last week attracted an avalanche
of responses. A key and one of the more tantalising challenges that
came my way, could be crystallised in a famous line attributed to
Lenin, "What’s to be done?" which in this context, this
must be read in the context of Zimbabwe.
A mere mortal
that I am, I do not claim a monopoly of ideas nor do I hold the
single key to the resolution of the Zimbabwe problem. No single
person does. But I also have faith in the power of ideas and believe
that critical thought provides the invaluable therapy against the
ills of complacency and taking things for granted. The experience
of the last 5 years has taught us that the resolution of the problems
is not and will not be accomplished in one event. Rather, it is
a process and like all processes, there are going to be phases through
which the country must pass and we all need to generate ideas.
In this article,
I attempt an examination of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs),
more commonly known as Non-governmental organisations (NGOs), in
the process of transformation in much the same way I did in relation
to the MDC in a previous article. The principal aim is to demonstrate
that instead of constructing a unified force designed to pursue
the common theme of democratisation and protection of human rights,
the CSOs may have, albeit unwittingly, disabled the opposition political
organisations, in particular the MDC. I am particularly concerned
with the competition for political space between the MDC and the
CSOs, that claim to be apolitical, and the resultant shrinkage of
space for the opposition, among other consequences.
There are some
who will choose to interpret this as an attack on CSOs. It is not.
At the basic level, it is a call on CSOs to take a critical self-assessment
of their role and purpose in the political process within the Zimbabwean
context. Like the MDC, they too need to redefine their perspectives,
strategies and purpose in light of past experience. Let me hasten
to add that there are many people within the CSOs who have done
great work at very high risk and whose work deserves commendation.
But too much commendation and less critical assessment explains
why Zimbabwe is in the state it is today so the better to leave
praises to a late stage and to others and concentrate on possibilities
for reform.
Firstly, a closer
assessment of the political landscape in Zimbabwe reveals wider
and more complex dynamics than mere appearances sometimes suggest.
In particular, there is a tendency to reduce everything to the dialectical
relationship between ZANU PF and the MDC – to portray and understand
the Zimbabwe problem from two dominant angles represented by each
of those political parties. The successes or failures of the MDC
are therefore often measured against the position of ZANU PF. This,
I fear, is incorrect. This is a simplistic picture that obscures
the myriad of actors and forces on the Zimbabwean political landscape.
These actors and forces must be subjected to greater scrutiny as
regards their role in the processes of change and march towards
democratisation obtaining in the country. As I have indicated, of
particular concern is the phenomenon of the Non Governmental Organisation,
more fashionably referred to as Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)
often presented as necessary vehicles in Africa’s march towards
democracy and human rights protection.
It is unfortunate
that there is that view that people can participate and make an
impact on the political process through vehicles that do not actually
seek political power and that have no mandate to make laws but at
best, appeal to moral conscience, pressure, goodwill and support
mostly from external forces. Instead of strengthening the political
process, the proliferation of CSOs on the political landscape, has
simply highlighted the problem but not mobilised enough to effect
change. In fact, while providing people with a convenient forum
for debate, it may also turn them away from the political organisations,
which are the key to political change and transformation. There
is no shortage of opposition forces. The problem is that there is
division within the opposition forces between those who participate
within the realm of the political party and another large group
that calls itself CSOs whose individuals prefer to be known as "activists",
at the same time proclaiming to be apolitical. For whatever reason,
they do not want to be called politicians. Unlike the ruling party,
those who are in the opposition are thus divided into the "political"
for MDC and the "apolitical" mainly in CSOs. As I see
it, Africa and in this case, Zimbabwe cannot afford people who claim
to be apolitical.
Contrary to
common posturing, the numerous CSOs are in fact political vehicles
and to the extent that they are, they are political actors, which
compete for political space against genuine political parties. For
most opposition forces in Africa political space is limited, dominated
as it is by the ruling liberation parties. The opposition forces
have to fight for that space under very difficult conditions. Now,
considering that in most cases both the main opposition party on
the one hand and CSOs on the other are engaged in battles for space
against the same ruling party, it is easy to see that how they too
become competitors against each other for the limited space that
they are able to get. The ruling party never sees the main opposition
party and the CSOs as different in character or goals that they
pursue. Anything that challenges the position of the ruling party
is identified under the large and all-encompassing banner of "the
opposition". Whatever the protestations to the contrary, that
is the reality of our situation. The tragedy here is that instead
of pursuing the similar goals that ought to unite them, the opposition
party and the CSOs become embroiled in a fight amongst themselves,
for the limited political space.
This pretence
that "we are civil society" and not political organisations
is based on a fallacious distinction, which fails to take into account
the context within which they operate. To be sure, to most of the
population in Zimbabwe, there is no distinction between the MDC
and CSOs that have been fighting for human rights, etc. To the extent
that the CSOs attempt to portray themselves as apolitical and impartial
advocates for rights, they only serve to confuse a population that
is already mentally harassed by the conflict between the two main
protagonists. The "No" Vote against the proposed 2000
Constitution is the clearest demonstration that the distinction
is known only to those who lead and run CSOs but not the masses.
It seems widely accepted that the No Vote was more an _expression
of protest against the ruling party rather than the Constitution
itself, although of course those in the CSOs that led the "NO
Campaign" would have us believe otherwise.
We understand
them – in order to get more donor-funds, they need "claim"
certain victories. So the "No Vote" is used to state the
case for CSOs relevance rather than the MDC, which incidentally
rose from within the realm of the so-called apolitical CSOs.
In addition,
it is inconceivable, within the context of African politics, that
CSOs can purport to be fighting for human rights without at the
same time being engaged in politics. In all of Europe, America,
Asia, the first and most important fight was the struggle at the
political level. What is it that makes people believe that they
can simply change the opinion of ruling parties in Africa, from
self-appointed positions in CSOs without first engaging in the struggle
for political power? Arguably, it is necessary to change the political
system in order to achieve the human rights goals. In other words,
the achievement of human rights is largely dependent on whether
one can transform the political system.
This is what
the liberation movements had to do against the colonial forces –
human rights did not just come through campaigns run by "apolitical"
CSOs – the goals had to be achieved through political means and
political parties were constructed regardless of how often forms
of political organisation were banned. It is simply a pity that
after getting political power, the liberation movements cared less
about human rights. To the extent that there is a crop of CSOs that
purport to be apolitical, they are wasting energy and resources
by failing to take a politically bold approach. They are competing
for limited space with political parties, which are better positioned
and oriented towards political transformation. The same youths who
should be running with and for the political parties are instead
lured by the donor handouts that come through CSOs.
It is easy to
see why people are easily tempted into believing that CSOs are key
to change of fortunes on the continent. That may be so only to the
extent that they conscientise the masses with regards their rights
and mobilise people to be more vigilant. Others indeed play crucial
social functions. But let us pause for a moment. Do CSOs contest
elections? How does political power change? No – CSOs do not contest
elections and they do not form governments. Yet that is exactly
what Africa needs today – an active political culture in which every
person realises that they are political and have a role to play
in politics. Yet this phenomenon of CSOs appears to be breeding
the norm of being apolitical. As I have stated, Africa cannot afford
to have millions of apolitical people at this stage.
Another problem
with CSOs, which also has negative consequences for the opposition
movement is that despite preaching accountability and good practice
to the politicians some of their leaders adopt the behaviour and
lifestyle of politicians. The public cannot distinguish between
the leaders of political parties and the leaders of CSOs and this
causes the masses to despair about the whole political process.
The behaviour of some CSO leaders is probably unsurprising because
as I have argued, they are politicians operating under camouflage.
Ironically, it is never clear to whom they are accountable. There
is something incorrect about an organisation that is funded by one
group of foreigners and yet claims to act in the best interests
of another mass of people, especially in matters of self-determination.
In whose interests do those who get funds really act? They can close
the organisation the next day and not have to face accountability
to the local masses. I had occasion to witness the unfortunate relationship
between some donors and some CSO leaders at one conference in London.
It was sad to see whole men and women almost crawling like toddlers
at the feet of donors – all to satisfy the donors! Instead of engaging
on matters of substance with the Zimbabwens that had gathered at
the event many of the leaders were too busy chatting up donors in
anticipation of another pay-day. It’s simple really: They tell them
all they want to hear.
Thereafter they
retire to the hotel and hop onto another plane to Washington and
the routine goes on … Then they return home with US dollars and
arrange a meeting at one of the Harare hotels, where an invited
"distinguished" guest speaks and this and that … and so
on and so on. All too often a few months after taking a position
a leader of a CSO relocates from Glen View to Avondale. He trades
his battered Datsun Pulsar for a Toyota Land Cruiser – which more
often, is ferrying relatives to a funeral or a wedding, and o, yes,
they also get fuel coupons because they are "working for the
good of the people", they may not paid "salaries"
but get "allowances", etc. Yes, his lifestyle changes.
Sometimes the chairperson, is also the chief executive and he is
also a consultant … and so on. And you tell me politicians do not
do the same?
It is a sad
state of affairs when the CSO sector is seen as an employment creator.
When that happens, you suspect the cause is only of secondary importance.
In Europe, they leave lucrative City jobs to volunteer or earn considerably
reduced wages in charities. In Africa, people leave the private
sector to join CSOs for the salary quoted in foreign currency, for
the vehicle and other perks. Few do so for the cause. People look
after each other, just as the politicians do. Unlike directors of
companies, issues of conflict of interest, duties and powers are
not properly regulated. Like their political party counterparts,
the CSO leaders become entrenched in the organisation or in the
sector. Perhaps worse, as soon as he loses his position, he goes
on to set up another one. They hop from one CSO to another and it
is as if their very lives depend on the persistence of the crisis.
The result is a vast collection of CSOs led by different individuals
some with egos the size of Zimbabwe, fighting for donors among themselves
and fighting for space against political parties. So today you hear
of a "coalition", tomorrow there is a "forum"
and the next day there is an "alliance", etc. There are
forums, coalitions and alliances all representing the same smaller
CSOs. What is the sense of purpose? Is there really any justification
for these different layers? If only they were political organisations
designed to seek political power and therefore control change. But
they are not and at best can only highlight.
Unsurprisingly
great talents and resources that would otherwise accrue to political
parties are instead diverted to the numerous CSOs. There are many
strong and active members participating within the realm of CSOs
who could make a huge difference if they could be bold enough to
declare their political aspirations and take on the challenge. Many
of us, especially the intellectuals, prefer to stand behind the
cover of CSOs and proudly proclaim our "apolitical" credentials.
But there is also another argument which might explain the existence
of CSOs – that the opposition parties themselves do not offer sufficient
space to others, in particular ambitious ones who may not have been
around at the time of formation of the party. So for example it
is not unusual to hear young cadres arguing that the MDC has been
"privatised" by a certain clique and we are therefore
not able to participate in its structures at the appropriate levels.
Could it be that the opposition is losing talent by closing its
doors? Could it be that the same people eventually end up forming
CSOs to play a role in the political process and to gain visibility
within the context? It may confirm the argument that some of the
people in CSOs may in fact be politicians who have not managed to
find space or have been rebuffed by the main opposition party. That
is something to seriously think about.
What then is
the point of all this? It is this that even though Zimbabwe appears
to have one dominant opposition party, there is in fact a potentially
powerful force represented at present by so-called apolitical CSOs.
There are too many opposition forces fighting each other for the
same space, same resources, same limelight and for the same goal
yet some are not bold enough to stand in the clear. There is unnecessary
and unhelpful division. The scenario is therefore akin to where
you have different opposition parties contesting against the ruling
party, which wins not because it is more popular, but because of
split votes in the opposition. The key is to unite as political
force from a common political platform.
So for example,
the MDC leadership must desist if it has such tendencies, from the
"privatisation of internal space" and open up avenues
for other actors that could be powerful partners – both individuals
and organisations. If such an opening were available, there is really
no need for a new political animal on the scene but that people
now talk of such an animal should however warn the MDC and other
opposition parties of the need to open up and consolidate. As for
CSOs, I reiterate the point that this business of being impartial
and apolitical is not necessary. It is not to disparage the many
good men and women out there, but to suggest that there is need
for redefinition of purpose and strategy. What we see and hear from
them has become all too predictable.
*Dr Magaisa
is a Zimbabwean lawyer formerly Lecturer in Law at the University
of Nottingham. He is also a writes a legal and business column for
the Zimbabwe Independent. He can be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk
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
|
