Master’s Thesis (4FU42E)
CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS IN
CAMEROON:
ASSESSING THE ROLE OF CSOs IN DEVELOPMENT
Author: Ntoko Benjamin Esone Supervisor: Prof. Jonas Ewald Examiner: Prof. Manuela Nilsson Peace & Development Work Date: 24thAugust 2020
ii
ABSTRACT
With the present level of poverty, growing inequality and the inability to provide public goods, some developing countries to an extent have turned to CSOs as an alternative solution for the much-needed sustenance. This study examines the contribution of CSOs in development and is carried out in Cameroon against the backdrop of inadequate infrastructures, low household income, generalized poverty and tense political atmosphere that could trigger inclusive policies and practices to enable peace and development prevail. In as much as the debate on the legitimacy, representativeness and the shrinking spaces of CSOs remains, this research addresses the role of CSOs in the development process of Cameroon and argues that within the context of poverty alleviation, climate change and democracy promotion CSOs can be active partners in development. For, when the state-centred approach to development fails or becomes inadequate, the acknowledgement that non-state actors can play a vital and indispensable role in the development dispensation of countries becomes an option for consideration.
In developing my argument, two theories inherent within the Civil society scholarship, political participation and participatory development were applied to demonstrate how CSOs participate, the kind of relationship existing between CSOs, the state and the private sector for meaningful development to prevail was explored and analysed. Findings indicate, CSOs to an extent, significantly participate in enhancing development despite some constraints. The study was carried out as a qualitative abductive case study using remote qualitative interviews. The raison d’etre for the use of remote interviews was as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and has been explained appropriately in the qualitative design method. However, other sources of data explored for the fulfilment of the thesis included documentation from secondary sources, grey literature, CSOs, government and international organisations documentations. Empirically this study draws from existing literature especially from Cameroon and Peace and development studies.
Keywords: CSO, Sustainable Development, Poverty Alleviation, Democracy promotion, Good
iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My warm appreciation goes to my supervisor Prof. Jonas Ewald for his consistent supervision of my work. He devotedly read through my thesis, made pertinent comments and provided me with constructive feedbacks.
My gratitude equally goes to the course instructors for their teaching and advise and which have enriched my ability and directed me in the writing of this thesis.
To the peace and development students batch of 2019/2020, your constant calls and hand of friendship demonstrated throughout the programme gave me a lot of confidence. I say thank you. My special thanks also go to all the local organisations who through their availability helped me in the realisation of this study.
To my wife Eunice and our lovely kids, Winnie, Marylyn, Benita and Bennie, I say thank you for all the sacrifices and love you showed me throughout my stay in Sweden and in the accomplishment of this work.
iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AfDB African Development Bank AU African Union
CSO Civil Society Organisation
DFID Department for International Development ECOSOC United Nations Economic and Social Council GDI German Development Institute
GTZ German Technical Cooperation Agency HDI Human Development Index
HRW Human Rights Watch
IDP Internally Displaced Persons
UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNO United Nations Organisation
USAID United States Agency for International Development USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
PPR Participatory Poverty Assessment SAP Structural Adjustment Programmes SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
SDG Sustainable Development Goals WEF World Economic Forum
v TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract……….II Acknowledgment………....III List of Abbreviations………IV I. Introduction………1 1.1. Background………3 1.2. Research Problem………..11
1.3. Relevance of the study………...12
1.4. Research Objectives………...13
1.5. Research Questions………14
1.6. Thesis Structure………..14
1.7. Conclusion. 2. Literature Review & Theoretical Frameworks 2.1. Literature review……….15
2.2. Theoretical, Conceptual and Analytical Framework 2.3. Conceptual Framework………...20
2.4. Overview of Political Participation……….21
2.5. Participatory Development………..23
2.6. Analytical Framework……….25
2.7. Conclusion. 3. Research Methodology 3.1. Introduction……….27
3.2. Case study design………28
3.3. Research Method……… 28
3.4. Data Analysis………...31
3.5. Ethical Considerations……….32
3.6. Limitation & Delimitation………...33
4. Presentations of Research Findings 4.1. Introduction & Identification of Respondents……….34
4.2. Data related to the Objectives………..35
5. Discussion of Research Findings 5.1. Objective One………...47
5.2. Objective Two………..48
5.3. Objective Three………51
5.4. Objective Four………..53
5.5. Conclusion and Recommendations………..55
BIBLIOGRAPHY………58 APPENDIX………65/70
vi
“ No fundamental social change occurs merely because government acts. It’s because Civil society, the conscience of a
country, begins to rise up and demand – demand- demand change.”
Joe Biden.
“ Business, labour and Civil society organisations have skills and resources that are vital in helping to build a more
robust global community.”
Kofi Annan.
A local organisation distributing food items, school materials & Covid-19 sensitisation to IDPs from the South West (Courtesy, YAPCEC- Field Work 2020).
1
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.0. INTRODUCTION
Since the late 1970s Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) have played an increasingly salient role in the development sector, widely acclaimed for their participatory approach and grassroots driven development initiative in bringing about peaceful and substantial change in societies (Banks and Hulme, 2012). CSO in this context refers to the sphere of society outside the government and business and includes a multitude of groups, organisations and associations that participate in influencing public life (Cohen and Arato, 1994; Barber, 1995; Gellner, 1994; Alegre, 1996; Naidoo, 1999). The context through which CSOs emerge are often varied, while, some emerge in conflict situations, others emerge in the context of societal grievances, basic needs and democracy promotion in the context of totalitarian or dictatorial regimes. Cheeseman notes that the engagement of CSOs in advocating for reforms is always in the hope that ‘they will realise a number of benefits, reducing local and national conflicts, alleviating poverty, creating greater efficiency in service delivery, enhancing public participation and more generally deepening democracy’ (Cheeseman, 2018:327). Although relegated to the background the importance and pertinence of CSOs to development remains as they serve as vehicles for ordinary citizens to voice their interests in public life through the collective action of their members. However, Burnell observes that CSOs exist even in industrialised countries and pose no problem but again can become very problematic when they become too strong within the context of a weak state (Burnell et al., 2017). This thesis is further espoused by Migdal who argues that CSOs networks can also turn into criminal organisations thereby obstructing state building and democratic forms of governance (Migdal, 1988: 24-41) cited in (Burnell et al., 2017:155). As such, the very essence of this study is to locate CSO both conceptually and operationally as a non-state public actor serving as a catalyst in promoting sustainable development through poverty alleviation and advocacy while also examining the constraints, they encounter within the CSOs sphere.
The neoliberal reforms carried out in SSA in 1980s witnessed the roll back of the state in favour of private sector for development. However, the failure of the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP) anchored on achieving growth and the establishment of a market-oriented economy and criticised by some African scholars paved the way for the introduction of a new agenda (Ewald, 2011; Mkandawire & Olukoshi, 1995; Banks & Hulme, 2012; Burnell et al., 2017). With the emergence of the good
2
governance agenda (GGA), the state became a central focus again for development with a focus on poverty reduction and democracy. Since the introduction of the good governance agenda, the functions of governing institutions have witnessed profound changes with considerable power shifts. Naidoo illustrate that the trend shaping the power shifts and altering the relationship between CSOs and the government revolve around ‘democratisation, decentralisation, globalisation, governance, transnational activists networks and sustainable development’ (Naidoo, 1999:110). As such, the new international aid programmes recommend a broader CSO, public private partnership for development given the urgency and necessity to improve livelihoods, mitigate poverty, curtail global inequality and enhance democracy while also addressing the impact of climate change, as clearly elaborated in the Sustainable development goals (SDG) and agenda 2030 (UN report, 2015).
This study ‘entitled civil society organizations and development: ‘assessing the role of CSOs in development’ is carried out in Cameroon against the backdrop of inadequate infrastructures, low household income, generalized poverty and tense political atmosphere that could engender inclusive policies and practices to enable peace and development prevail. As the debate on the shrinking spaces of CSOs amplifies across the world, with restrictions on foreign funding, barriers to registration, intervention in CSOs internal affairs and harassment by some incumbent governments, presenting CSOs as agents of destabilisation and representatives of western imperialism (Civicus 2014; Open global rights, 2016). This study, however, argues that within the context of poverty alleviation, climate change and democracy promotion CSOs can be active partners in development. In the context, “ where states lack the capacity to provide sufficient public goods or enabling environments that help citizens in securing livelihoods or where disadvantaged groups are excluded from existing state institutions, alternative channels of service provision and advocacy and holding governments to account must be found” according to (Banks and Hulme, 2012:3). It is within this context that CSOs have been playing considerable roles to foster development and advance societies as a non-state, not-for-profit actor. In essence, this research was inspired by the developmental role of CSOs within the context of the shrinking spaces of CSOs around the world and Cameroon in particular. In this regard, Cameroon happens to be one of the sub-Sahara African countries where the concept of CSOs gained momentum and proliferated following the introduction of the neoliberal reforms of the 1990s (Yenshu, 2008; Forje, 1999). This period is relevant to this research since it offers perspectives for research on how CSOs participate in development and legitimize its space. Again, it gives the opportunity to attempt a discussion on the kind of collaboration existing between the state and CSOs within the good governance dispensation. Moreover, I do not intend to go into the broader
3
development debate but to focus essentially on how CSOs use their space to enhance development through service delivery and advocacy.
Therefore, the main aim of this research is to examine the extent to which CSOs participate in promoting development in Cameroon. Approaching this question demands that I look at the general trend and potential spheres of CSOs interventions in Cameroon and how significant these interventions are. To further understand how CSOs engage in promoting development in Cameroon, the specific questions target the kind of collaboration and challenges CSOs encounter, what are the visions of CSOs and how do CSOs view the SDGs and agenda 2030 vis-à-vis their potentials. These questions are strategic since they give an in-depth understanding how CSOs engage in development. In developing my argument, the research employs the theories of political participation and participatory development (PD) to demonstrate the role CSOs play as a non-profit sector different from the state and the market. Political participation is the involvement of citizens in such political activities which directly or indirectly influence the behaviour and actions of the decision makers (Norman & Palmer, 1976:57). Meanwhile Participatory model of development seeks to engage the local people in developmental projects using a participatory approach. Within the theories that underlie neoliberal reforms are liberalisation, good governance and political participation assumed to be mutually reinforcing (World Bank) cited in (Ewald & Mhamba, 2019:14). These reforms emphasis on good governance through accountability, transparency and inclusive development. In this light it examines how CSOs participate and engages with the state to enhance sustainable development knowing their capacities, grassroot mobilization capabilities and innovative potentials to drive change. As such, the study applies the qualitative research method using abductive inference. For this, data was collected through qualitative remote interviews and questionnaires, and documentation from secondary sources. Empirically this study draws from existing literature especially from Cameroon.
1.1 . Background and Justification
Despite the different visions of development involving the orthodox model rooted in economic liberalism and the alternative view that became more prominent in the 1980s and rooted in a more humanistic, community oriented and democratic participation, one central theme in both visions is poverty alleviation (Heywood, 2014). For close to two decades the global development policy debate has focused on poverty reduction, democracy and governance, economic growth and climate change (Burnell et al., 2017:256). This is widely reflected in the policy orientations of donor countries and major international governance institutions (Berger & Weber, 2011:18). This global agenda has raised
4
pertinent questions on what sought of developmental approach is suitable for nations to develop sustainably, how can development be conceived to lift people in poor countries out of poverty? and what role governments, private sector and CSOs can play to drive this agenda. While substantial progress has been recorded in reducing global poverty in recent years, findings reveal that some (900 million) people live in extreme and absolute poverty, living on less than 1.90US dollars a day with majority of these people living in developing countries (Burnell et al., 2017:145; Heywood, 2014). While Burnell et al., (2017:246) considers that progress has been made in East Asia with China, Taiwan, Vietnam and Singapore taking the lead with an unprecedented growth lifting millions of people out of poverty due to pro-poor state-led economic development policies. Heywood observes that “sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) emerged as the principal exception, becoming a kind of a fourth world” (Heywood, 2014:371) and demonstrates consistent evidence that hundreds of millions of people are trapped in extreme poverty. The continent is still lagging behind with malnutrition, low life expectancy, high mortality rate, food insecurity, violence and hunger still persist despite considerable efforts made at the global level to make this part of the world catch up with the rest of the world within the global development context (Burnell et al., 2017; Mkandawire, 2011; Berger & Weber, 2011; UNDP, 2009). Burnell illustrates that, for countries to overcome this dilemma attention must be geared towards enhancing the assets of the poor through access to education, basic healthcare, water and sanitation to raise the human development of the poor and enhance their productivity (Burnell et al., 2017). The African Union (AU) ‘Agenda 2063: The Africa we want’ articulates on good governance, democracy, respect for human rights, justice and the rule of law as a prerequisite for the political and economic transformation of Africa (AU, 2015). This outcome can only be achieved in a context of broader development partnership and with the implication of CSOs knowing their capacity in grassroot mobilisation. Thus, these extensive observations and its pertinence also motivated and guided the interest of this researcher in this research topic of ‘CSOs and its perceived role in development.’ Although controversies and contradictions still exist within the Civil society scholarship, it is plausible to indicate that the term CS and CSO will be used interchangeably in this research as the space for collective action around shared interests operating outside of the state and the market spheres (Howell & Pearce, 2002). The above statements, therefore, offers perspectives to ask the question, how then can the concept of civil society be explained?
1.1.1. The concept and historical evolution of CSOs
The concept of civil society was first used between the 17th and early 18th centuries by two school of thoughts, the liberal and the Marxist. The liberals viewed civil society as the purest form for ordering social, economic and political life while the Marxists on their part viewed Civil society as the arena
5
for economic relations that determined the political order ‘represented in the state’ (Naidoo, 1999:87). However, it was only in the 19th century that Hegel gave a conceptually different and broad meaning to the term in his definition of civil society that generated some confusion and ‘booby political traps’ (Burnell et al., 2017:150). This was later picked up by De Tocqueville and the economist John Stuart Mill who focused the discussion on the role and relationship civil society should play in democracy. These newly introduced ideas bore the seal of a constant concern for ensuring individual freedom beyond the egalitarian trends brought by democracy and promoted by the state (Naidoo, 1999). Again, and as Burnell et al., puts it, ‘another controversial issue influenced by political and policy consideration is whether it is valid to draw a distinction between civil and political society’ as controversies over the term persist. But as the author clarifies by citing Gramsci (1923-30, in his prison notebooks) in defence of the distinction recognise that ‘both civil society and political society play a political role and seek to influence policy decisions’ (Burnell et al., 2017:151).
While differences exist between traditional and modern civil societies, one thing remains constant the changing dynamics and the notion of volunteerism. Young (2004) admits that the gradual emergence of a more broad and dense Civil society activism significantly gained momentum with the collapse of the Berlin wall and the end of the cold war era leading to collapse of the former (USSR). With the rise of a new world order in the 1990s favouring more liberal approach to state intervention, coupled with the growing interest in the US and Western Europe in promoting democracy, Civil society became an indispensable actor in this new global order (Young, 2004; Burnell et al., 2017; Ewald, 2012). The demise of the Soviet Union and the communist regimes in Eastern Europe triggered a wave of democratic change in these countries vying to transform themselves into acceptable regimes domestically and internationally (Burnell et al., 2017). As such, organisations such as ‘international alerts and safer world were increasing called in by governments and EU officials to provide training in more political approaches to conflict resolution’ (Young, 2004:145). Cheeseman further edifies that the 1990s ‘represented a critical juncture… and the decision of some western nations to push for democratisation’ (Cheeseman, 2018:360). Considering the dense background and historical concept, what are some of the advanced definitions of civil Society?
Some Definitions & Interpretations:
The term Civil society in its operationalization is still diverse and controversial as scholars, politicians and activists have different opinions on what should constitute CS or not (Tostensen et al., 2001:11). Yenshu (2008:10) observes that the principal bone of contention over the definition rest on whether the term should be normative or non-normative tool of social sciences on what should constitute civil society. In similar view Cohen and Arato, completely eliminate the economic aspect from their
6
definition. The authors limit Civil society to the sphere of ‘social interaction between the economy and the state composed above all of the intimate sphere (Family), the sphere of associations (voluntary associations), social movements and forms of public communications’ (1992:ix) cited in (Yenshu, 2008:10). The term can be best understood if we consider further definitions and perceptions of the concept as a means by which citizens advance and defend their interests in public life through collective actions. In this regard, I will focus more on the use of CSO to illustrate its role in development as an organised voluntary organisation operating out of the state and market sphere, with governance and direction coming from citizens or constituency members.
According to the (WB) CSO refers to a wide array of organisations: community based organisations (CBOs), Non-governmental organisations (NGOs), Labour unions, Indigenous groups, Charitable organisations, Faith-based organisations, professional associations and foundations. Civil society is considered as “third sector” of society, alongside the government and business (UN). This role of ‘third sector’ observes that, CSOs, given the adequate scope to develop, can complement the roles of the state and the market in national, social and economic development within the framework of dialogue and partnership (Kifle et al., 1997:59).
The African Development Bank (AfDB) sees CSO as the voluntary expression of the interests and aspirations of citizens organised and united by common interests, goals, values or traditions and mobilised into collective actions (AfDB, 2012:10). According to the World Economic Forum (WEF), CSO encompasses a spectrum of actors with a wide range of purposes, constituencies, structures, degrees of organisations, functions, sizes, resource levels, cultural contexts, ideologies, membership, geographical coverage, strategies and approaches (WEF, 2013:8). The AfDB further asserts that “CSOs occupy important positions in the development dialogue as it provides opportunities to bring communities together for collective actions, mobilising society to articulate demands and voice concerns at local, national, regional and international level” (AfDB, 2012:10).
Civicus, a Global Alliance of CSOs and activists dedicated to strengthening citizens actions and CS throughout the world broadly perceives CSO as “Non-governmental organisations, activists, civil society coalitions and networks, protest and social movements, voluntary bodies, campaigning organisations, charities, faith-based groups, trade unions and philanthropic foundations” (Civicus 2017:1). Hence, Naidoo (1999:6-7), defines CSO as “the network of autonomous associations that rights-bearing and responsibility-laden citizens voluntarily create to address common problems, advance shared interests, and promote collective aspirations”. In this regard and as legitimate formal and informal public actor, CSOs do not replace the state or the market actors but participate alongside in public policy decision making process and implementation aimed at resolving collective societal
7
problems and advance public goods (ibid). This definition demonstrates not only the qualities of CSOs but equally illustrate the dimensions and spheres. It also brings out the collaborative aspects CSOs must harness in order to play a role in development. However, Diamond (1999) illustrates in his definitions of Civil society by advancing the thirteen attributes (See appendix 6), of CSOs in democratic development that shares more light on the role of CSOs in development. As such, while the CS remains an indispensable actor in development and democratic promotion, it must exhibit certain qualities in order to influence state actions and promote development. It must be financially autonomous from the state and international organisations. Diamond further stipulates although Civil society aims to enhance accountability, responsiveness, inclusiveness, legitimacy and effectiveness of the state through its interventionist actions, CSOs must always find common ground in order to engage the state in constructive dialogue (Diamond, 1999:253).This perspective of collaboration indicated by Diamond could be of significance to both the State and CSOs in promoting inclusive development thereby reinforcing the CSOs sphere and good governance.
Apparently and despite the definitions and concepts advanced, the term civil society still appears to be complex in some spheres. However, by civil society this study refers to voluntary, non-state, not-for-profit organisations formed by people in the social sphere with commonly held values, views, beliefs and or community, or still national and global causes. Recognising the diversity among CSOs, a global view of this concept will be necessary to portray their characteristics and importance within the international development discourse since most of these CSOs are sustained by donors through funding and technical assistance projects.
1.1.2 Global development perspective of CSOs
However, the term civil society became widely used and accepted within international development discourse by development thinkers, practitioners following an impasse on the developmental role of the state in the 1980s. Howell and Pearce indicate that “the state as it had taken shape in many parts of the south came to be seen as part of the problem, not part of the solution, to the process of development” (2002:14). State criticism spanned from lack of accountability and representativeness, authoritarianism, prebendalism and wasteful investment. For this reason, states in the South and Eastern Europe came under attack from workers union, intellectuals, clergy, women and youths who protested by rejecting corrupt and extractive governments (Howell & Pearce, 2002). It was within this context that civil society was reinvented as a conceptual weapon to challenge but also to serve as a voice and watchdog of societies and incorporated by donor organisations to refer to as the sphere distinct from the state and the market (Howell and Pearce, 2002; Naidoo, 1999).
8
Although, the concept still remains contested within the international spheres, multilateral and international financial organisations such as the, UNDP, USAID, DFID and the WB, just to name a few, have incorporated CSOs within their working frameworks to acknowledge their pertinence and importance as catalyst of development (Howell & Pearce, 2002). As such, CSOs have become veritable actors of development through their involvement in service delivery and national- international advocacy roles with assistance from these actors. They provide opportunities to foster community relations for collective action, mobilise society to articulate demands and voice concerns at the local, national, regional and international levels (UNDP, 2001; Burnell et al., 2017; Stiles, 2002; Bebbington et al., 2008).
For the UNDP, the success of development and participatory governance depends on both a robust state and an active Civil society. The UNDP recognises the diverse functions these organisations engage in addressing the main challenges of poverty, conflict, HIV/Aids and governance from the local to the global. As a multilateral development agency, it incorporated the concept within its guideline on strengthening cooperation with NGOs (Non-governmental organisations) way back in 1975 (UNDP, 1995a 2-3 quoted in Howell and Pearce (2002:97) and reflected the CSO concept in its working documents and discourse in the 1990s. The partner in development programme was launched in 1988 to provide small-scale activities to NGOs and CBOs (Community based organisations) such as income generation projects conceived to mitigate poverty, institutional development and basic education. Howell and Pearce (2002) further indicate that this trend continued in the 1990s with similar projects aimed at enhancing CSO-Government-UNDP collaboration. The UNDP has even gone further to establish a CSO/UNDP toolkit for strengthening partnership (UNDP, 2006). Since the underlining term in this research is CSOs and development, permit me situate the concept of development as conceived in this study for comprehension.
Development as conceptualised in this study
Development as defined by Sen (1999:3) is “…a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy”. According to the human development theorist, Sen capitalises on five (5) freedoms, political freedom, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees and protective securities to ignite and generate development. The absence of these basic freedoms implicitly or explicitly denied in some developing countries creates frustrations and opens spaces for people to seek them by militating in organisations that offers opportunities for them. Although this study does not intend to hold CSOs responsible in the implementation of this framework, rather it aims to examine and analyse the perceived actions adopted by CSOs to make governments conform to these basic freedoms. Hence, rather than delve into the broader perspective of
9
development, I limit this study to the role of CSOs in the provision of basic needs of citizens through their service delivery capacity and advocacy role aimed at holding governments to account in terms of accountability, participatory decision-making and civic education programmes. Civic education is the training for political activism, scrutinize actions of politicians, lobby them to enact reforms aimed at satisfying members or community aspirations (Burnell et al., 2017). (See overview of organisations- table 4).
A key aspect worth stressing on, is why then is CSOs sphere under constant attack? To overcome this dilemma, “governments must realise that CSO is a political concept because it is concerned with exercising power to advance and defend the economic, social, cultural and political interest of citizens” (Naidoo, 1999:8). Based on these global perspectives and perceived developmental role of CSOs, a succinct background knowledge on Cameroon will be indispensable in order to situate its relevance.
1.1.3. Cameroon within its development context (case-study)
Cameroon is an SSA country and positioned between west and central Africa (see figure 1). It is a lower middle-income country with a population of approximately 25.2 million (WB, 2018). Cameroon until the mid-1980s was heralded by many as a stable country in a region dominated by post-independence conflicts, political agitations, underdevelopment and endemic poverty. The institutions inherited from colonialism that is from Britain and France respectively, enabled the country to hinge its development on policies designed by its colonial masters on primary agricultural exports of cocoa, coffee and cotton (Yenshu, 2008). This phase of its development was seconded by the state-centred development in the early 1970s centred on five-year development plans. Yenshu (2008:38) notes that a key feature in this phase was the increased governments intervention in the economy and centralisation of decision-making with the establishment of state owned agro-industries, rural corporations and settlements and various peasant support. The successful implementation of government’s economic policies made the country to experience relative economic growth rate and stability based on agricultural exports (Forje, 1999).
10
Figure 1: Map of Cameroon & Africa
(Source: Africa research institute)
With the economic crisis of the 1980s cracks on social cohesion became visible, thus having profound consequence on socio-political and economic development, thereby causing the country to seek financial and economic assistance from the Bretton-wood institutions that led to the introduction of SAP reforms in Cameroon in mid 1980s (Koning, 2003; Yenshu, 2008). Although the SAP reforms gave a new impetus on governance it also generated several economic, political and social consequences. Yenshu (2008:42) argues that “one area in which the SAP gravely affected Cameroon was the aggravation of the ‘poverty burden’ and observes that “there are more poor people in Cameroon today than in 1985”. The reforms necessitated the retrenchment of workers, the removal of state subsidies in sectors such as education and healthcare and the devaluation of the Franc CFA and two salary cuts amounting to 70% between 1993 and 1994 leading to a general drop in the standard of living (Yenshu, 2008:42). In same light, several scholars postulate that the SAP reforms retarded the development of the countries where they were implemented since the intended trickledown of income to lower income groups, instead led to a trickle up effect benefiting the rich and promoting corruption and inequality. Ayittey argues that to take Africa out of its dismal economic development problem requires a bottom-up rather than the traditional top-down approach (Ayittey, 2005:25), as this was not the case with the SAP.
11
However, this period witnessed the rise of CSOs in SSA and Cameroon in particular (Howell & Pearce 2002; Yenshu, 2008). As international actors devised democracy promotion strategies, they focused much effort on promoting citizen participation and activism, what quickly came to be known as ‘vibrant civil society’ (Burnell et al., 2017:149; Heywood, 2014:154). The (SAP) was a boost to the liberalization laws, especially as the conditionalities set by the Bretton Wood institutions was the roll back of the state in order to promote the private sector and development (Heywood, 2014:377; Ewald, 2011:108). More so, donor governments began explicitly to place governance issues on the development agenda, making human rights, democracy and accountability conditions for aid while also emphasizing on the importance of CSOs as a check to the state (Howell & Pearce, 2002:4-40). Cameroon’s political landscape has witnessed profound changes and reforms since the liberalization laws were passed in the 1990s. The tripartite talks of 1993 laid the foundation for a new constitution adopted in 1996 which witnessed the engagement of CSOs working alongside the public authorities and the private sector to design key reforms. Yenshu (2008:23) clarifies that the implication of the CSOs in the transition to democratic rule was to give the impression of ‘enlarging the spectrum of political debate and action’. However, decentralisation was one of the key outcomes of the conference and enshrined to enhance regional development through the transfer of resources and competence to the local councils (Forje 1999; Cheka, 2007). Decentralisation constitutes part of the framework of national policy on democratisation and good governance process that began in the early 1990s (Cheka, 2007). According to (Midgley, 1986), decentralisation furthers popular participation. It should be noted that states embark on decentralisation with the objective of bringing the government closer to the people and thereby involve them more actively in the process of development (Cheka, 2007). However, (Totte el al., 2003) doubt that decentralisation per se enhances participation of the masses in the development process of a country. Nevertheless, international donors and some theorists in the likes of (Wunch et al., 1990; Cheema et al., 1983) consider the process of decentralisation as a means to enhance good governance and democracy and poverty alleviation. Furthermore, this process provides opportunities for participatory management and the appropriate use of available resources for development eventhough the implementation of decentralisation in Cameroon is stalled (Cheka 2007). Since the passing of law N.90/053 of 19th December 1990 to define freedom of associations in Cameroon, many organisations that constitute the CSOs have been created and in this regard operate diversely in the country (Yenshu, 2008). This background knowledge now brings us to the problematic.
12
Across the globe and specifically from developing countries, the trend of clampdown on the activities of CSOs continue to widen with restriction on foreign funding, barriers to registration, intervention in CSOs internal affairs and repression by some incumbent governments. CSOs are presented as agents of destabilisation and representatives of western imperialism (Civicus, 2014; Open global rights, 2016). As CSOs continue to push back against these restrictions, the question this study examines is how do CSOs use their space to participate in promoting development and how significant their contribution is within the perceived sectors they operate to enhance development in Cameroon. This study seeks to use selective examples without bias from progressive ones to demonstrate their catalytic and transformative potentials for promoting development. This question will constitute the central theme in this study to find answers to the problem statement.
1.3. Relevance of the study:
Acknowledging the fact that development constitutes a solid base for the study of peace and development, this study is structured in a manner that reflects the core components of the courses that makeup the programme and the literature around it. Therefore, the contribution this study brings to the field of peace and development work are many.
Firstly, it intends to highlight the importance of CSOs from its normative dimension and as an actor distinct from the state and the market and its role in promoting development. Its role in combatting poverty through initiatives that improves social capital and prosperity. On the threshold, women often described within the African context as bread winners, how do CSOs contribute towards women empowerment will be investigated from a programme and agenda perspective of the local organisations. Thus, understanding this aspect is highly relevant to the study of peace and development.
From a global perspective youth empowerment has always been on the front line of many international conferences, what place do the youths occupy within civil society based on the global trends of CSOs will be investigated in line with the implication of the youths in the affairs of these local organisations. Kofi Annan once highlighted in a world conference of ministers responsible for youths, ‘…Young people must be included from birth. A society that cuts itself off from its youths severs its lifeline; it is condemned to bleed to death’ (Naidoo, 1999:69). Hence, the relevance is situated on the inclusive nature of local organisations vis-à-vis the youths and also their engagement in driving development in order to preserve peace and stability.
It also seeks to elaborate on sectors of importance for which development can be done in line with the sustainable development goals (SDGs-agenda 2030). Based on the importance of the SDGs, this
13
study equally aims to investigate the understanding CSOs operating in Cameroon have of the Goals and in what ways they perceive its implementation. The kind of relationship they entertain with the state and donor agencies to enhance their capacities in order to play a key role in creating a sense of local or community ownership for the goals is also relevant. The WEF notes that ‘across the world there are examples of CSOs exhibiting an energetic voice in promoting the principles of fair and equitable economic development, gender equality and human rights even though faces several restrictions in many countries’ (WEF, 2013:7). Hence, understanding the environment and working conditions of CSOs in Cameroon will help to identify the level of awareness and the perceptions grassroot organisations have in realising this. This aspect of the research profits future students of peace and development with interest on working with CSOs engaged in the implementation of the SDGs on programme basis on how they use their institutional pluralism in processes that concerns the goals for peace and development to prevail.
1.4 . Research Objectives:
The objective of this explorative and qualitative study is based on the role of CSOs in Cameroon within the general context of development. To guide this study the main research question asked is to what extent CSOs are perceived to contribute in promoting development in Cameroon and how significant their perceived participation enhances development. While development still constitute a major challenge in the country mostly with the failure of the SAP in the 1990s (Yenshu 2008), the motivation for this objective is based on the trend driving the global development agenda with the considerations that CSOs can considerable play a role in development (Naidoo, 1999:1; Kasfir, 1998:1; Howell & Pearce, 2002:1; WEF, 2013:7).
However, CSOs-State relations in most developing countries still represent a major concern mostly with those involve in advocacy roles (Burnell et al., 2017; WEF, 2013; Howell & Pearce, 2002). Likewise, this study equally aims to explore the kind of collaboration and or conflict existing between this entity in the quest to fulfil their mission. More specifically, what kind of visions do the organisations have concerning their own aims, working methods, conditions and working
environment?Finally, what knowledge CSOs operating in Cameroon have the UNSDGs and agenda
2030 considering that the goals offer opportunities for partnership. Data from the findings will help establish concrete openings for recommendations.
Since the research problems points towards liberal theories, the theoretical framework employed to analyse the various components raised in the objectives are political participation and participatory development respectively. In this context, how do CSOs act to increase the voice of citizens to
14
understand various state policies and agenda will be explored. As Burnell et al. illustrates, ‘when the state is capable of performing its functions, but the government is repressive and unresponsive, CSOs are more likely to take an antagonistic position’ (2017:158). The position of CSOs vis-à-vis the state in matters of participatory governance falls within the scope of this study.
1.5 . Research Questions
1.5.1. Main Research Question:
1. To what extent CSOs are perceived to promote development in Cameroon?
1.5.2. Specific sub-research questions:
1. What is the state of CSOs/State collaboration within the framework of promoting development?
2. What kind of visions do the organisations have concerning their own aims, working methods, conditions and working environment?
3. How do CSOs view the SDGs and agenda-2030 vis-à-vis their potentials?
1.6 . Thesis Structure
This part will introduce the various components of the thesis including chapter one:
1.6.1. Chapter One
This chapter handles the introductory part of the thesis; thus, it brings out the introduction, background/justification, the research problem, the research objectives and research questions.
1.6.2. Chapter Two
This chapter grapples with the theoretical, analytical and conceptual framework.
1.6.3. Chapter Three
Chapter three explains the Methodology including the tools used to collect data
1.6.4. Chapter Four
Chapter four handles the presentation of research findings.
1.6.5. Chapter Five
Chapter five brings out the discussion of research findings, conclusion and recommendations.
1.7. Conclusion
In a nutshell, the introductory part of this research as structured has captured not only the background and the research: problem, relevance, objectives but has also elaborated on the international dimension of CSOs including an explanation on the term development as conceived in this study. Also, a background knowledge on Cameroon to situate the context for the research has also been clarified. However, this study will be more grounded in content and argument if we explore some existing literature and theories in chapter two.
15
CHAPTER TWO
Literature review, Theoretical, Conceptual and Analytical Framework
The engagement and role of CSOs in development can best be understood if we consider the literature around the concept and some key theories. Thus, this chapter grapples with the literature review and the theoretical, conceptual and analytical framework of the study.
2.1. Introduction to literature review:
Literature review is indispensable to any academic work as it guides in understanding what others have written before in a particular field. As Bryman asserts, literature review alerts us to understand what concepts researchers have used so far and how successful these concepts were in unravelling the main issues (Bryman, 2016:52). This assertion is further buttressed by Hart reiterating that “in order to know the implications of a development, you need to know the intellectual context in which that development took place” (Hart, 2018:31). Hence, within the relevance of this study, some foundational, primary and secondary works that ponder about the necessity of CSOs in the global development discourse have been reviewed to situate the context of this study.
2.1.1. The general trends of CSOs
While Robert (1997), examines the origin of the term Civil society by invoking both the liberal and Marxist concept of civil society popular between the seventeenth, eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries. The author however, established the dynamics that have taken place within the different school of thoughts i.e. the Liberal, Marxist and the political dimension of civil society school of thoughts. Burnell et al., observes that “the expression civil society has metamorphosed during the 1990s from a relatively obscure concept familiar mostly to scholars of Marxism to become a mainstream term…” (Burnell et al., 2017:149). The point of departure of the term civil society was captured to make the study relevant within the scholarship and important within its context. The works of the above-mentioned authors enriched this work as far as CSO concept and theoretical framework is concerned.
Hearn (2007) postulates that the Civil society is dominated by comprador elites and western agents in Africa. This critical view demonstrates that most CSOs operating in Africa have drifted from their initial purpose of community driven socio-economic and political development to that of western driven influence on African states and acting as agents of destabilisation. Hearn acknowledges that the socio-economic dilemma of some African states in the 1980s and 90s, contributed in transforming the CSOs sector into profitmaking, wealth accumulation and rent seeking institutions, thus earning
16
them the name of ‘brief case or comprador NGOs’. This view is shared by (Fowler, 1995; Dicklitch 1998; Yen, 2000; Hearn, 2001). The works of these authors enriched this study from a critical standpoint in the collection and verification of data, since despite the perceived role CSOs play in service delivery and advocacy, there are still loopholes existing within their operations.
Konings (2011), however, recounts the evolution and impact of neoliberal reforms in Africa and the rise of CSOs. Koning illustrates the contribution of the neoliberal doctrine of economic policies, macro-economic stability to far reaching institutional and political reforms aim at transforming Africa that influenced the growth of CSOs. Similarly, Monga (1995) also observes the context and environment under which CSOs were created and the motivations that came later. These observations contributed in situating this study within a historical context in understanding how CSOs came to the limelight in Cameroon and gave perspectives for examining the legal frames and functioning of CSOs within the political, economic and social aspects of the country.
While Rankin and Goonewardene (2004) argue that civil society simply serves the Washington consensus in the development of capitalism and equally provides dubious support for radical or insurgent planning. Ayittey (2011) however, reviews the case of Ghana, where CSOs played a determinant role in restoring and consolidating democracy thus sharing more light on the importance of CSO as far as the implementation of democracy is concerned. Ewald also observes that in democratic theory, the civil society plays a fundamental role in the democratisation process. The author indicates that the role of the CSOs can be indispensable in raining issues of transparency and accountability (Ewald, 2011:195). The works of these authors gives us a fundamental idea on the role CSOs play especially in the area of instituting democracy which is one of the elements that determine development in Cameroon and Africa in general. Thus, the works of these authors contributed in structuring the research guides to capture data on the role CSOs play in encouraging political participation and on the nature of the organisations.
According to Blagescu and Young (2006) CSOs constitute a strong force in development and most especially in poverty eradication. The authors acknowledge that, capacity building and socially embedded policies can play a key role in strengthening their capacities to contribute towards meaningful development. While Acemoglu and Robinson (2019:456) observe that, South Korea entered the corridor of liberty and progress due to the active role of CSOs. The assertions of the above authors is very much in line with the aim of this work which was to examine the role CSOs play as far as development is concerned in Cameroon since, it brings to limelight the theoretical proposition of the study which revolves on the societal transformative role of CSOs, especially in service and welfare provision.
17
2.1.2. The Synergic collaboration and challenges between State and CSOs
Bratton (1989) observes that with the decline of the state in Africa in driving economic and political development, associational life must now gain control to offer social transformation that the state could not offer. The author reviews state society relations in Africa with an emphasis on strong civil society. Bratton’s write up on the relation between state and civil society falls in line with one of the objective of this study which is investigating the kind of synergy that exist between the state and civil society, why he focuses on the African continent as a whole, this research is narrowed to Cameroon to understand the synergy that exist and the impact it has on the functioning of CSOs.
Lewis (1998), purports that; prevailing institutional understanding guides the creation and proliferation of these organisations, arguing that; every country’s sector is different. While this author uses a descriptive approach to demonstrate that CSOs acts according to the prevailing institutional structures, this study uses explorative/descriptive method to verify the type of synergy that exists between the government and the CSOs before drawing conclusions on whether CSOs respond to various country’s institutional structures.
However, Mohan (2002), argues that while CSOs emerged as the prime political force in the policy agenda of the major lenders and development agencies, its performance has been disappointing, advancing the identity and objectives of CSOs, aimed at enabling choices, scrutinise errant governments and promote democracy. The author asserts that as a result, some political scientists working on Africa dismiss civil society as a useful analytical category. Mohan’s observation brings out a key factor contributing to the shrinking spaces of CSOs in the world and ties with one of the objectives of this research, to investigate how CSOs use their space to sustainably enhance development.
O’Mahony and Hutter (2004) illustrate the role of the civil society in regulation and in enhancing political, economic and social development. They reason by citing (Grabosky, 1995), that ‘the co-option of CSOs to government policy making, may empower citizens, give them a voice and help to build political support and legitimacy for the resulting state regulations’ (2004:8). The above authors have examined the collaboration between the state and CSOs and concluded that they can be very supportive to enhance the work of CSOs. This assertion glaringly illustrates that while CSOs exist as non-state actors, they can however collaborate with the state through genuine dialogue as (Diamond, 1999) suggest, to enhance inclusive development. Even though the work is not carried in the same geographic setup as this study, this work draws inspiration from the use of their theories and concepts.
18
Dupuy et al., (2015) clarifies that because contemporary CSOs and especially sub-Saharan Africa CSOs advocate by embracing more liberal ideas like human rights, democracy and gender equality, this affects the political status quo in most developing countries. Most governments exploit this to their favour by undertaking regulations that tend to shape the composition of these CSOs that rely mostly on foreign funding. Again, they posit that as a result of this, most countries encourage the proliferation of pro-government sham ‘brief case CSOs’ in the global south to tap from this funding. They elaborate more on the case of Ethiopia to justify the reason why some governments embark by placing restriction which is not simply to put the organisations under control but to create organisations that favour their policies covering up their misdeeds. The argument raised in this paper ties with Hearn’s (2007) observations and remarks and justifies the fact that CSOs are constraint in the pursuit of their duties and offers possibilities for analysis.
2.1.3. The vision and mission of CSOs
Based on the work of Nkwi (1990), only civil societies that demonstrate clear social transformative qualities and identifies with the daily and legitimate struggles of ordinary citizens can serve as a signpost pointing towards meaningful quantitative and qualitative development in Cameroon. However, Naidoo (1990) notes that CSOs can only play a meaningful role if the environment is enabling for them and if they understand their aims and mission. This paper is not only written within the research area of this study, but it equally handles the concept of civil societies that this work is interested in. However, while Nkwi uses a rapid assessment procedure to gather information, this study adopts qualitative and abductive method to collect data and analyse the visions of these organisations.
Mcilwaine (1998), presents the case of CSOs in El Salvador, arguing that the recent embrace of Civil society within the development discourse gives room for reflection as these organisations are not panaceas to development and warns against its glorification. In illustrating the arguments, this author observes that CSOs in El Salvador are politically, socially and geographically fragmented and does not constitute a unified force working towards common goals. Moreover, they are made of diverse range of competing groups. Contrary to what this research is out to demonstrate concerning the perceived role of CSOs in Cameroon, this author is critical about their contribution to societal development. While this study is out to bring out the extent to which CSOs have contributed to development in Cameroon, this author has instead demonstrated how CSOs in El Salvador are fragmented and do not bring about any meaningful development. However, McIlwaine’s work enriches some of the objectives of this study which are set to demonstrate the mission of CSOs; conditions and working environment.
19
While Kasfir (1998), acknowledges the contribution of CSOs to democracy and development, but however, argues that, the robust meaning and importance given to CSOs does not seem to reflect their results. Kasfir posits that despite huge resources invested into CSOs for democratic promotion, ‘there is much less confidence that African states are becoming democracies’ and argues that ‘even those that replaced their rulers by election, have entered an uncertain limbo in which their regimes reflect a contradictory combination of characteristics of democracy, authoritarianism and inherited practices of neopatrimonialism’(1998:124). Kasfir’s observation raises the question of what kind of rules these organisations set for themselves and their members. It also points out on the organisational capacities of these organisations to monitor their actions and programs.
2.1.4. Innovative potentials of CSOs vis-à-vis the SDGs
Fisher and Green (2006) argued that despite the importance of climate change and the role these actors play in the global governance agenda for sustainable development, CSOs in the developing world are limited in their engagement in participation due to obstacles. The authors observe that these actors are being disenfranchised to explain the condition of being marginalised within the global policy-making arena. For the SDGs and agenda 2030 to be achieved as the slogan states ‘leave no one behind’, CSOs operating at the community level must be empowered to play the role expected of them. The work of these authors reveals and illustrate the capacities that community-based organisations vis-à-vis development partners must play to make them useful in implementation of the SDGs.
While Smith et al. (2016) observed that the SDGs remain ambitious specifically citing goal three (3) but acknowledged that achieving it will require doing global health differently. The authors contend that a progressive civil society is essential to fulfilling the eight functions that will be decisive in the quest to achieve the health-related targets in the global agenda. While recognising the importance of CSOs in the global Agenda, the authors argue that CSOs will need to be recognised and supported as vital partners in achieving the necessary transformation. By illustrating this, we can assert that CSOs can be veritable actors in accompanying the state and the global partners in accelerating the implementation of the SDGs through building coalitions beyond the health sector, introducing novel policy alternatives, enhancing accountability systems and ensuring right based approaches.
According to Carley et al., (2001) the quality of our cities has a profound effect on national development. As countries continue to develop exponentially, the fallouts of these development are visible in our cities already with pollution, congestion and urban traffic, exacerbated by rural exodus. However, they argue that the long-term strategic needs of the city for sustainable development and
20
economic prosperity cannot be separated from the need to involve citizens at all levels of society in innovative ways of conceiving designing and participating in urban development processes. As SDG (17) indicates, this can only be achieved through building partnership and involving the CSOs in the decision-making process.
Omede and Bakare (2014), while asserting the importance of CSOs in development in both the political and socio-economic spheres, reflect by assessing critically the space accorded to the sector in Nigeria. They observed that despite the transformative capacity of CSOs, the sector is bedevilled by a number of challenges in Nigeria ranging from political instability, disconnection from rural organisations, lack of unity, inadequate funding, government patronage, lack of internal democracy, corruption and most importantly lack of state support and skills. In this regard the paper adopts the challenges CSOs in this era of the SDGs confront in Nigeria and SSA in general.
2.2. Theoretical, Conceptual and Analytical Frameworks:
Over the last decade pro-poor growth has been at the core of the global development agenda and driven by international organisations and local grassroot CSOs to mobilise members and citizens for effective development. It is CSOs participation in political and public life in which societal decisions are made and carried out that provides the conditions for sustainable development and a healthy public life according to (Naidoo, 1999:8). Similarly, Putnam (1993) cited in (Howell and Pearce, 2002:26-27) further explains that the social capital embodied in norms and networks of civic engagement seems to be a precondition for economic development as well as for effective government, hence, situating CSOs within its conceptual framework is necessary.
2.3. Conceptual Framework
Attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, it has been debated whether and how participation in CSOs contributes to development albeit its indirect role. The political theorist long recognised the importance of citizen associations for the practice of democracy and illustrated that through participation in associations citizens receive education in public affairs and create centres of political power independent of the state. Essential to participation in an association is participation in a civic forum, a communication space that allows for many to many communications in which citizens can “treat of public affairs in public” (Tocqueville, 1945:109; Verba et al., 1995).
Tocqueville believed that associations operating outside the sphere of government and economic life widely referred to now as CSOs and as conceived in this study, were essential bulwarks against any incipient democratic decay and despotism (Naidoo, 1999). In his widely acclaimed book ‘Democracy in America’ he, gives an assessment of associational life in America and its importance to democracy.
21
The first role of these organisations centred on their ability to provide means of solving collective problems which could not be solved by individuals. But by joining forces in an association, individuals could solve the problems collectively. The second role mainly indirect, focused on drawing individuals out of their private concerns and enabling them to be part of something larger than the circumstances of their own existent and in this way learn to cooperate with one another and become better leaders (Teorell et al., 2007; Verba et al., 1995; Putnam, 1993, 2003).
Inspired by De Tocqueville, Robert Putnam and many political sociologists have in recent decades focused on expectations of positive effects of participation in voluntary associations on political involvement. Putnam argues that even non-political organisations in Civil society are vital for democracy and development. In his work ‘Making Democracy work’ (1993), he uses social capital to evaluate the institutional performance of twenty Italian regional governments using surveys, interviews and diverse set of policy indicators. With findings revealing that wide variations in the performance of these governments are closely related to the vibrancy of associational life in each region. Illustrating that where civic and associational life is active, governments tend to be accountable, transparent, efficient and effective (Putnam, 1993). Thus, the theories of political participation and participatory development guides the theoretical framework of this study.
2.4. Overview of Political participation
Political participation is one of the crucial aspects in understanding contemporary representative democracy in all its forms. Verba et al., (1995:1) cited in Teorell et al., (2007) precisely illustrate by stating that ‘citizen participation is at the heart of democracy. Indeed, democracy is unthinkable without the ability of citizens to participate freely in the government process’. This gives indications that when citizens participate, they make their voices, grievances and demands heard. Teorell et al. also assert that through participation citizens make governments accountable and politicians responsive, and equally admit that the venues open for political participation are many (Teorell et al., 2007). Van Deth even observes that the study of political participation has become the study of everything (Van Deth, 2014:1). However, while reasoning with these authors that political participation is broad but constitute a central focus in democracy and development, this work rather focuses on the conceptualisation of political participation on associational life as coined by Alexis de Tocqueville to answer the research problem of this study.
2.6.1. Nature of Political Participation:
While participation is acknowledged as an important aspect of human society and development, Norman and Palmer define Political participation as the involvement of citizens in such political activities which directly or indirectly influence the behaviour and actions of the decision makers
22
(Norman, 1976:57). This definition is further complemented by the International encyclopaedia of government and politics defining it as the “…the manner in which citizens interact with the government and through active participation in government, citizens attempt to convey their needs to public officials in the hope of having these needs” (Macgill, 2002:1019). Edward kluienko in his paper, ‘political participation: theory, methodology and measurement’, highlights that many researchers relate the real birth of the theory to the transformation of traditional society reported in the modernisation theories (Kluienko, 2007). The term participation is further emphasised by (Marilee, 1995:4-5) as the involvement of people in the economic, social, cultural and political processes that affects their lives clarifying that, participation can be direct or indirect. As such the essence of participating gives citizens constant access in decision making and power.
Brady for instance defines political participation as “action by ordinary citizens directed towards influencing some political outcomes” (Brady, 1999). In this definition Brady looks at three things firstly, as manifest and observable actions or activities that people voluntary take part in. Secondly, “people” means ordinary citizens, not political elites or civil servants. Thirdly, the concept refers to deliberate attempts to influence the people in power, to make a difference. However, and as (Ekman and Amna, 2012) argue by positing that Brady’s definition of political participation tends to put more emphasises on actions directed more at political elites than on actions of other elites. When people get engaged with the politics of their country, they will better understand governments policies and direction and understand the political, economic and social problems and how to engage the government to address them.
In development as freedom, the human development theorist, Amartya Sen state that the freedom to participate as a being is a key form of development. Sen views participation in making decisions that affect one’s life and the lives of others as fundamental to human well-being. ‘Participation can also be seen to have intrinsic value for the quality of life. Indeed, being able to do something through political action for oneself or for the others is one of the elementary freedoms that people have reason to value’ (Sen, 2002:359) cited in (Weitz-Shapiro & Winters, 2008). Development interventions are intended to drive societies from a weaker position to positions in which they can be better off. The main issue is that human beings are most happy and productive when they enjoy certain basic freedoms (Sen, 1999), guaranteed by stable and good government in an environment of good governance and democracy. The driving idea here is that, unless the poor and the marginalised can influence political action at local and national level, they are unlikely to get equitable access to jobs, education, healthcare, water, justice and electricity. It is in this context that CSOs are important to help citizens understand the basics of political participation.
