The concept of civil society plays an important role in contemporary political analysis. A significant body of academic literature has been developed around the concept, and the key role it can play in consolidating democracy. The contributions of civil society in the democratization processes in recent years have led experts to consider it a crucial element in helping limit authoritarian government, strengthen political participation of people, mediate between different interests, enhance public participation and apply pressure for political accountability.
A robust and vibrant civil society is believed to improve the quality of governance through greater public participation. Civil society has come to play an instrumental part in promoting peace and democracy. Further, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the erstwhile government and the Maoists has explicitly called upon civil society to play its part in the making of a New Nepal. In spite of such importance accorded to the civil society, why is its legitimacy contested so often and the rationality behind its existence dismissed by the political class? This article discusses some probable reasons.
First, Nepal´s civil society organizations suffer from ´trust-deficit´. Disappearance of traditional indigenous forms of civil society organizations like Gram Parishad (Village Council), Pancha-Bhaladami (five elderly gentlemen), Panchali system (public place for meeting and adjudicating disputes), Amal Kot-Kachahari (the Village Court consisting of elites of various factions), Chumlung (an assembly to discuss and decide local issues), Guthis, and Syangtan (village assembly) that used to settle disputes between conflicting parties coupled with the massive growth of donor produced ´new civil society´ have been instrumental in this state of affairs.
Donor funded civil society organizations, basically a reflection of donors´ own ´image´, virtually dismantled the indigenous civil society organizations (CSOs), thus replacing indigenous values with their own. Merits of volunteerism and collectivism were questioned by the introduction of professionalism and consumerism. The paradigm shift in ´values´ led to both image and trust deficit of civil societies. In the words of Jude Howell of London School of Economics Centre for Civil Society, "From the mid-1990s onwards NGOs units metamorphozed into civil society departments and donor agencies sprouted civil society projects, civil society officers, civil society experts, and civil society challenge funds. Donor agencies began to draw up civil society strategies and develop indicators and methodologies for assessing the nature of civil society and the impact of their support initiatives."
Second, CSOs are more or less synonymous with NGOs in Nepal. To quote Celayne Shrestha, a researcher in Nepal’s civil society, "It is telling that a recent report on ‘best practices towards civil society’, commissioned by the association of INGOs in Nepal (AIN), takes NGOs as the focus of their study." Donors- NGOs link-ups, particularly after 1990, served the interest of both and helped each other sustain and thrive. To make the matter worse the majority of these well-known NGOs in Nepal is still urban-based, fairly corrupt and thriving on personal networks. Moreover, they have developed patron-clientele relations with political actors that serve the interest of these NGOs; the NGOs in turn provide economic resources to political parties.
It is about time civil society organizations got serious about addressing their trust deficit, especially the donor-funded agencies that have done more harm than good for the country.
According to researcher CD Bhatta, "Liberal policies have given generous space to NGOs to be active participant in democratization process and economic development of the nation states. And donors have channeled a large amount of money through them for this purpose. The result… was somewhat disturbing as this has produced Hobbesin nature of civil society in Third World countries, including Nepal, who kept themselves busy vying for power and profit and added a layer of new elites in society.”
Third, it is a widely known fact that not all civil society organizations and actors espouse civic values in Nepal. Some civil society groups are exclusionary and promote illiberal and undemocratic values to maintain their status-quo in the society. It has often been found that certain autonomous groups in transitional or developing states may have an interest in maintaining poor state capacities so that they can exploit and profit from the inability of the state to maintain control and public order within its territory.
And finally it is related with an understanding of what civil society is all about and what roles are expected of it. Conceptual differences revolve around whether civil society is separate from political society (political parties and other explicitly political actors) and from economic actors (business firms). Lack of consensus on the precise definition of civil society also results from the differing ideologies and agendas of various groups promoting civil society and its development. Some have been using the term ‘civil society’ to mean the general public. Others use it in a normative fashion, focusing on its capacity to impart ‘civic values’ and behavior, and its capacity to make states more accountable, such as through their capacity to monitor public bodies and private sector actors.
Another view considers civil society as a means of fostering social participation and providing alternative forms of governance. Yet another perspective conceives it as a locus of opposition to the state and a means of limiting state power. This conceptual ambiguity and the rise of ‘oppositional nature of civil society’ stand as major obstacles which could potentially lead the societies to more violence rather than peace.
Civil society organizations are essentially different from one another as they are different ´things´ to different people. Hence, there is a great deal of freedom to pursue any course and agenda that one thinks will contribute towards the making of a ´just´ society. And as people and organizations are entities with different capacities to think and reason, the two will often act in divergent fashions. One cannot expect a coherent and rigid set of ideas binding the sphere of civil society, which is so vibrant and expanding.
However, in spite of all their weaknesses, civil societies have their merits and have the potential to contribute to the overall development of society. Nevertheless, after more than two decades of experimentation, the time has come for civil society organizations in Nepal to do something about the worst criticism leveled against them: their trust deficit. According to German sociologist Ulrich Beck, ´trust is a fragile element of modern societies´. And if it’s broken, it will be hard for the civil society organizations to justify their existence.
Of course one can debate whether Dr. Bhattarai, who has been charged with institutionalizing corruption and who heads the cabinet often dubbed the ´most corrupt´ in Nepal’s history has the moral ground to criticize corruption in Nepal´s civil society, nevertheless, it does provide some fodder for serious contemplation.
sharmasumit77@gmail.com
Related story
Pak embassy organizes poetry symposium — Aalmi Mushaira: Urdu,...
