‘Civil society can do better’

Civil society organisations, especially those involved in governance issues, are expected to be watchdogs on good governance. But the recent cashgate at Capital Hill, where billions of kwacha were looted by public officers, has left the public wondering whether Malawi has a strong civil society. How could billions get lost under the watchful eye of the civil society? Political Index sought views of Blessing Chinsinga, associate professor of political studies at Chancellor College.

Q: Billions have been lost through cashgate. How do we position the civil society in all this?

A:

Civil society is a critical component of a properly functioning democratic State. While the definition of civil society is highly contested, there is no doubt that a vibrant civil society contributes to promotion of democratic culture, norms and traditions either through providing robust checks and balances or actually propping them up through concerted civic education efforts.

There are actually several notable civil society organisations that specialise in monitoring and tracking government expenditure either holistically or with particular focus on specific sectors.

Q: From your explanation, one would argue that the civil society could have noted the anomalies. Why then, did it take the shooting of the former budget director for these issues to come to the public domain?

A:

It could as well be that civil society organisations were raising some red flags but nobody cared to listen or, just like everyone else regardless of the expenditure tracking and monitoring projects, they had no clue about what was going on. If the latter is true, then civil society organisations have failed us big time. This leads me to speculate why civil society organisations often get less than a glowing review every time they are brought under scrutiny.

Q:

What is your general assessment of the country’s civil society?

A:

While civil society organisations have played a critical role in sustaining our democracy, they have not done enough to push the project to new and greater frontiers so as to ensure fundamental and sustainable structural transformation for Malawi to turn the corner.

Just like most stakeholders, civil society organisations have almost always been tentative in their engagement with the State. This is the case because often civil society organisations tend to be reactionary instead of being proactive, yet fundamental and sustainable structural transformation requires continuous engagement. When things seem to be going on well, most civil society organisations go to sleep on duty only to wake up when conditions have deteriorated beyond redemption.

Q: Are you suggesting they should always be confrontational?

A:

When we say sustained engagement, it does not necessarily mean that it has to be confrontational but rather simply walking through the processes of desired changes with the State while, of course, raising red flags when there are possibilities of getting off the rails. This is essentially what it means for civil society organisations to play a watchdog role.

There is confusion among some civil society organisations that are very keen to project themselves as exclusively engaged in the domain of service delivery. This is fundamentally wrong. In fact, service delivery raises serious governance challenges that are better handled simultaneously in the course of providing services. The tendency to defer to governance-orientated civil society organisations completely misses the point.

Q: Some argue that CSOs in the country are aligned to political parties. What’s your take?

A:

Civil society organisations are not immune to internal divisions mainly along political lines. As such, different segments of civil society have fallen prey to behaving in politically correct ways which basically means being sympathetic with the regime in power. Some civil society activists have even gone on to accept positions [political appointments] arguing that they will engage government from within but as we all know this is next to impossible.

Q: In terms of skills, knowledge and expertise, how do you look at the country’s CSOs?

A:

Most civil society organisations have not invested in skills, knowledge and expertise. While they may identify the right issues and are committed to and prepared for sustained engagement over a long haul, they simply lack the analytical and conceptual wherewithal to do so meaningfully. They often lose steam almost immediately.

There are still others who have ventured into the sector not primarily to serve but rather to earn a livelihood. Commitment to sustained engagement is, therefore, secondary because they are not deeply wedded to the causes that they claim to fight for. They simply do it because they have nothing else to do.

Q:

Given the scale and magnitude of the cash gate, does it make sense for us to claim that we have watchdogs? Where were the watch dogs when all this was happening?

A:

Just as there are calls for a serious relook at the civil service, it would not be asking for too much for civil society organisations in the country to do the same. We are capable of creating a better society but it all depends on the choices we make individually and collectively as a nation.