Presentation Summary by Nancy Thede
Université du Québec à Montréal
On Civil Society in Canada’s Democracy Promotion
Dialogue on Canada’s Approach to Democratic Development
Ottawa, 15 February 2007
What is civil society and why is it important?
A centuries’-old concept with multiple meanings, civil society has since the 1980s become a leitmotiv of the democratic transitions of the third wave. Generally considered now to refer to a broad range of associational forms that exist outside the State and the market, certain sectors of civil society played a key role in generating those very democratic transitions. But that is not the only reason the concept is seen as central to democratisation: perhaps more importantly, civil society is considered by virtually all contemporary theorists of democracy to be an indispensable actor in maintaining and deepening democracy. It acts – in all the variety of its organisational shapes and positions – as a school of citizenship for members of society, as a channel for voicing concerns and proposals from society to government, and occasionally as a conduit for social opposition to government excess. Without a vibrant civil society, there can be no active public sphere or even a real democratic culture.
New democracies in the developing world face a major problem of social exclusion and have thus been labelled ‘uncivil’, ‘illiberal’, ‘truncated’, etc. The problem is analysed by Guillermo O’Donnell and others as having to do with the inadequate implementation of civil, social and economic rights, thus limiting the capacity of many sectors of the population to effectively exercise their newly acquired democratic (i.e.: political) rights. Civil society, and hence, support to civil society organisations, can play a major role in overcoming this problem – although it is equally clear that it is not one that can be resolved in the short term. One of the principal means of countering exclusion – developing active citizenship, in other words – is through the process of the excluded organising themselves as part of civil society, formulating their demands to society as a whole and to government, and thus claiming their due as full-fledged citizens. This long and often conflictive process has been successfully undertaken in many new democracies, from the former Soviet Union to Latin America, Asia, some parts of Africa, as well as in Canada and other developed democracies (to wit: the women’s and indigenous peoples’ movements…).
What Civil Society Needs…
Democratisation and the availability of funding from international donors have led to an exponential increase in the number of civil society organisations in developing countries. But donor trends tend to hone in on a very limited set of activities (highly visible one-off events, capacity-building in the form of training seminars, publications) with a limited range of types of civil society organisations (mainly NGOs or media organisations). The long-term impact of such trends can be counter-productive in that the shape of civil society and the thrust of its activities in a given country may be skewed by the resources provided from external sources. Two ingredients are essential in order to avoid this, but they are not easily obtained from donors who are looking for quick results and a bang for their buck.
The first is the ability, and the willingness, to listen. ‘Civil society’ is a broad label, and it covers a huge variety of forms of association, some of which look nothing like the civil society we know and love in our own country. Listening therefore means taking the time to discover what civil society is in a particular context, and what the specific challenges are that it faces. It is very difficult to generalise from one developing democracy to another. Going into a country with a fixed plan and set of priorities may blind a well-intentioned donor to local priorities. This is often, however, a popular approach because mistakenly perceived by donors as cost effective.
The second, related ingredient is patience – or the willingness to get involved for the long haul. This often conflicts with donor desire to be visible, innovative, to make a splash and move on. But, as anyone who has reflected on democracy promotion will recognise, democratisation is a long process, as is strengthening civil society. It takes a long time to develop workable partnerships and the mutual confidence that can allow for creative and constructive exchange. Only a commitment to sticking with an issue and struggling through the prickly problems it raises can generate the credibility a donor must have with its partners in order to contribute to strengthening civil society.
… and how they can get it
Having worked with civil society organisations in various new democracies in Latin America, Asia and Africa, I have been a party to some of their own reflections on what they do and don’t need from donors, and what they see as being priorities in their own work of strengthening democracy. A few across-the-board observations emerge.
Institution-building, not capacity-building. Capacities cannot be approached as strictly technical problems, particularly as concerns democracy promotion: they must be seen within the broader political context and evolving concerns. Too often, capacity-building translates into a series of short-term, relatively unrelated but neatly packaged seminars or training courses or technical transfers. In fact, though, in many countries civil society organisations have comparable, if not better, capacity than the democracy promoters themselves! The problem is not so much strengthening capacities, as building the institutions, both formal and informal, of civil society. This is often tedious, unrewarding, low-profile and highly resource-consuming work – but it is essential, and any sincere engagement with democracy promotion must address this.
Let them do it. Maximum autonomy in its choices and actions is important for civil society to be able to play its strategic role in democratisation. Donors who usurp the role of civil society organisations, or who box them into pre-defined programmes and inflexible constraints, are not helpful.
Thinking takes resources. One of the central requirements for civil society to be able to generate democratic voice within society is that organisations be able to think strategically, to analyse, to debate and to carry out research. Again, these activities have a long incubation period, and require resources. Democracy promotion programmes should build analytical resources into every initiative they support. In addition, creative thinking also takes place through networking, both locally and internationally, and such activities should be considered an integral part of the democratisation process.
We don’t want your money! Sound incredible? It is often true that what civil society organisations need most, even more than money, is political support. An international partner (government or not) who is willing to back them, to lend them legitimacy when facing their own government, is a highly valued resource. Newly democratic regimes are in many cases loathe to open public policy to debate with civil society: one of the most important things democracy programmes can do is to put their credibility on the line with their partners, whether publicly or in closed-door discussions with government representatives.
Civil society knows civil society best. Canada has a vast number of civil society organisations with significant expertise in specific areas of democratic development, and support to civil society is generally most effective and strategic when delivered by them. To do that, though, they need sufficient resources from government (support to civil society is not an optional add-on to democracy promotion, it is essential) and the political and administrative autonomy to be able to put them to the best use in a given context. Official agencies must face the challenge of delegating significant resources to organisations that are critical of government (unanimity is the death-knell of democracy).
Canada’s Comparative Advantage
Democracy promotion has become a densely populated field over the past 15 years and every donor understandably wants to be assured that its contribution is unique and valuable. Canadian efforts can make a distinctive mark in the field of civil society support for democracy on the basis of the strengths and originality of our own institutions – while at the same time avoiding the pitfall of attempting to ‘export’ our own institutional model.
- Civil society is a non-partisan arena for democracy support. A strong emphasis on this field distinguishes Canada from the majority of other governments working principally through and towards the formal institutions of democracy.
- Canada has traditionally been sensitive to the fact that democratic institutions must reflect the unique character of a society, and it has therefore not attempted to impose a single model or specific institutions of democracy elsewhere. This attitude lends itself particularly well to working with civil society in multiple contexts.
- The dynamism and variety of organisations, approaches and issues in Canadian civil society provide a wealth of experience which, although it can’t be directly transferred to other societies, can serve as the basis for a constructive relationship with civil society in developing democracies.