By Udo Jude Ilo
Civil society groups have played a fundamental role in the development and promotion of democracy in Africa. In Nigeria their role in the fight against military dictatorship stands out as a universal lesson on patriotism, resilience and courage. Their effort led to the collapse of military dictatorship and laid the initial foundation for democracy in our country. With all of its inadequacies, civil society still maintains a role as the conscience of this nation.
Currently, we have a government that speaks a common language with civil society groups; a government that rode into office on promises of upholding cherished values of democracy and advancing the reform CSOs have been pushing for. This is a seismic departure from the PDP-led government which not only was in constant conflict with civil society but established impunity as the norm.
Yet the dilemma of finding the right tone of engagement with this government without necessarily sacrificing objectivity or civility is one that presents a huge challenge to civil society. Civil society groups are currently being accused of keeping silent on issues of concern, due to its alleged ‘cohabitation’ with the current government. Though this accusation may not necessarily be fair, civil society groups must understand that their fidelity should be to citizens and their role of amplifiers of citizens’ concern can never be compromised. Finding that delicate balance of maintaining collaboration with government while objectively protecting citizens’ interest is difficult but it must be done.
Throughout Africa, CSOs have often found common cause with opposition parties, especially in periods of outrageous governance, impunity and discrimination. Redefining the content of such ‘convenient’ partnerships once common interests are achieved is often difficult and presents a need for careful balancing that ensures objectivity and promotes progressive collaboration.
Following the abolition of apartheid in South Africa, the ANC had accumulated huge credibility that made it easy for CSOs to trust the new rulers, giving them more time to learn the ropes of governance and roll out its ambitious program for a new South Africa. Indeed, the United Democratic Front agreed to the ANC’s demand that it should demobilize its powerful citizen-trade union alliance and close down its activism.
That trust was costly, and South Africa is paying for it today. In attempt of not being seen as antagonizing to the ‘new’ regime, CSOs allowed the ANC an unfettered space that encouraged complacency and opened the door to bad governance. As a young and newly militant activist movement rallies to confront government, they realize that their predecessors became too close to government and lost the credibility to mobilize citizens. Excessive trust in a political party resulted to a major tactical error and robbed civil society of the power to hold government’s feet to fire from day one.
The story is not different in Kenya. In 2002 the National Rainbow Coalition removed the Kenya Africa Nationalist Union (KANU) which had been in power for nearly 40 years. Before this election, the massive organizing by civil society had led to the introduction of multi-party democracy and some level of constitutional and legal reform allowing a higher level of engagement by citizens. The push for multi-party democracy and electoral and legal reform united civil society, trade union and the opposition parties. It was a union apparently based on principles and shared values and many activists were ready either to serve in the newly elected government, or support it from outside.
However, following the electoral victory of the Rainbow Coalition, the quality of governance was not reflective of the values shared by the partnership. Corruption and impunity continued to rise, yet few in civil society were ready to criticize. They found it difficult to strike the right tone to tactfully confront government on its record, while trying to retain the partnership with their erstwhile allies. Though they eventually found their voice, but perhaps if CSOs collectively held the Rainbow Coalition to account from day one, the story of Kenya would be a different one today.
After Nigeria’s 1999 election and the return to civilian democracy, many civil society groups took a long time to find their relevance and niche in working within a democracy. The language of attacking the military, which they had gotten used to, was no longer suited for engaging with a democracy. For some, the cost of this change was relevance, because their approach was deemed inappropriately aggressive. For others, being too close to government made them less objective, costing them their credibility. However, other groups did find a way forward by focusing on how to improve the quality of governance. They identified gaps in the existing structures, built issue-specific partnerships and continued to push for those issues that affected Nigerians for which the capacity or willingness to address was lacking within the government.
There are huge lessons to derive from the history of CSOs both in Nigeria and Africa. The primary function of CSOs is not to get access to policymakers and rulers in power but to work for the interest of citizens they claim to represent. The determinant factor for CSO action is the implication of government policies and practices on the lives of the people.
To that extent, what government does, not its rhetoric, however uplifting, should be the defining factor. In our current context, the Buhari government will need to be confronted with the reality of its leadership over the past six months. This is not just about confrontation. We need to hear an objective assessment and informed analysis of the missed opportunities and critical areas of urgent intervention. Policies will have to be critically interrogated and where necessary government will have to be called out on its inadequacies.
It is important to recognize and appreciate the willingness of this government to engage with CSOs and to listen to them. However the fruit of such engagement must be a practical change in the lives of the people. CSOs can share its views and understanding of government intentions to citizens but it is not their duty to defend the government or its policies
The danger of being the mouthpiece of government is that when government fails to deliver on its promises, CSOs lose their credibility.
Partnership with government means that we understand that the dynamics that influence government policies may not necessarily be visible to the public. It is the government’s duty to present such information to the public if they calculate that it is helpful. It is understandable when we are privy to legitimate explanations by government that we don’t criticize.
However when CSOs are skeptical, they need to speak up and condemn the actions of the government publicly. When government institutions disobey court orders, when government tries to deny its campaign promises, when government appears insensitive and unresponsive to the loss of citizens’ lives, the voices of CSOs must be heard far and wide. We cannot by our silence condone acts and offenses that generated massive public opprobrium when committed by past administrations. We cannot excuse fuel crisis, or opacity of any kind. As CSOs look for ways to help government solve the massive problems challenging Nigeria, they must, together with citizens, continue to call government out when they don’t ‘walk their talk’.
Most times in history, governments do not intentionally set out to become self-serving or disconnected from reality. It is however the inability of those who know better and ought to speak up but choose silence; the cowardly aversion for objective confrontation by ‘friends’ of government and the high threshold for tolerance of impunity by the citizens that allow for this kind of unfortunate mutation. The duty and fidelity of CSOs are to the country and its citizens. Any act that does not further the interest of these two must be resisted vehemently. With civil society there are no permanent friends but permanent interests - which is the wellbeing of all Nigerians.
Udo writes from the Open Society Initiative for West Africa OSIWA- @udoilo
First published on Premium Times, Nigeria
(C) Politico 13/01/16
