It has become fashionable these days for certain partisan voices to direct their angst at civil society.
The emerging narrative is interesting to read, if I may put it politely.
As one who is active in civil society, I have engaged some of these partisan voices privately to get a better understanding of their angst.
The engagements are always extremely spirited and while I disagree with the basis of their angst and eschew the overt hostility with which it is sometimes expressed publicly, this moment offers an opportunity for some reflection.
Who is civil society?
Civil society covers a broad array of actors – religious organisations, charitable groups, community-based associations, advocacy groups, research and policy think tanks, media, etc.
Civil society groups are voluntary in nature and most importantly, the people who come together to form them have common interests that bind them.
It is important to point out which section of civil society is incurring the wrath of certain partisans because of the tendency to use the term very broadly.
They are the ones, I believe, in the good governance and democracy space, championing various causes on matters such as corruption, accountability, transparency, policy efficiency, among others.
In essence, the common interest that binds them is good governance and socio-economic development.
To champion their causes, they draw on tools such as research, policy analysis, and media engagements.
They offer commentary on everyday happenings in the governance space, offering critique, acknowledging progress while at the same time providing recommendations on how best to address governance lapses.
On the face of it, this should not create a situation of us vs them.
Well, only if the world was perfect, but it isn’t.
The tension
If you engage partisans privately, you’ll quickly learn this about them.
In principle, they do not abhor civil society actors.
They recognise the important role of civil society actors in our governance and civic spaces.
In fact, some have built strong relationships with civil society actors and regularly seek their input on issues.
There is something I have observed though over the years.
There is a tendency to describe partisan views as primarily tainted by political preferences.
And in fairness, the world over, some partisans give validation to this view.
As a result, civil society actors have come to occupy a privileged status as fair and independent voices in governance and civic spaces.
In addition, this perception of partisans also means that the legitimacy of the views of civil society actors tends to be elevated above the views of partisans.
This is not to suggest that the views of partisans are not legitimate.
It is simply that, because civil society actors do not typically carry the burden of partisan hats, their views get “special” treatment above that of their partisan but fellow citizens.
In such an environment, the work of civil society is treated as a source of “joy” if it aligns with the position of partisans and a source of “irritation” when it does not.
Whether it is a source of “joy” or “irritation” is sometimes a reflection of whether the partisan in question is in government or opposition.
The work of civil society, though, is not intended to serve either purpose – “joy” or “irritation” to the partisan causes of their fellow citizens.
Dealing with political realities
Civil society actors, in my opinion, carry a special burden because of the privileged status I described previously.
This means that they must regularly find ways to navigate the challenging contours of our partisan political environment.
Being able to do this well protects something I strongly believe is needed in our politics – fair and impartial arbiters of our public discourse which can sometimes be very polarising.
That is what some partisans regularly watch for – those moments they can seize upon to raise questions about the independence and fairness of civil society actors.
Of course, the potential angst of partisans should not be what constrains the work of civil society actors.
In pointing out the burden on civil society actors does not in any way absolve some of the partisan narratives that are designed, in my opinion, to delegitimise civil society actors and voices.
Partisans must also find ways to navigate the challenging contours of the work of civil society.
How long can partisans go through these repeated cycles of “joy” and “irritation” in response to the work of civil society?
I believe strongly that positive engagement, even amid strong disagreements, serves a greater purpose than open hostility.
This is something I have constantly expressed privately to some of my partisan friends.
At the end of the day, the positive dividends of good governance do not discriminate among citizens.
Ordinary citizens, whether in civil society or a partisan, are not insulated against the consequences of poor governance outcomes.
The writer is Project Director, Democracy Project
Source:
www.graphic.com.gh