The Sunday News
Micheal Mhlanga
Civil society as an institution is with no doubt a lifeline of any democracy in shaping national narratives.
When that institution is contaminated, democracy is certainly threatened, especially in Zimbabwe’s circumstances where our fortunes are hinged on our democratic culture and the shape of independent institutions.
No matter how clean the Government can be, reformed, tolerant our politics can be, if independent institutions are not as they should be, we have literally done nothing.
We live in a disruptive age where not only technology is defining our lives, but institutions are as well on our behalf.
Central of them all is the Civil Society whose role should always microscopically monitor Government to demand accountability, transparency, efficacy and legitimacy.
They, as well are not exempted from public accountability, transparency, efficacy and legitimacy.
The intention of this article is to highlight pitfalls of this democracy-integral institution, paying attention to its failure in being apolitical, lack of transparency, complicit in corruption, monopoly of the public sphere and unaccountability.
This week, the intention is of triggering an introspection on the topical subject of: A failed civil society in Zimbabwe — Democracy under threat; a discourse worth interrogating in rebuilding democracy and public cleansing.
Hear me well, there are still some who are genuine and fulfilling the mandate of CSOs and they are not the target of this lamentation. May they continue being good.
Of what is demanded from this auspicious institution is neutrality in all its operations. Society’s organisation is sustained by representative institutions that account to the masses post their actions.
This is exactly how Zimbabwe is structured where Civil Society’s existence is to champion social and political progress.
The very existence of CSOs aides a growing social organisation we call democracy today.
Through keeping the Government in check, it ensures public accountability, debunking of complex administrative phenomena; and in instances of bad governance, CSOs attempt to offer alternatives that improve livelihoods.
That has not been the case in Zimbabwe.
The turn of the millennium gave birth to CSOs emerging from failed parties like Zapu 2000, frustrated student leaders who could not make it in MDC leadership; MDC rejects, Zinasu rejects and industrially incompetent individuals who saw a gap in a “fat” budget dangled by Western sponsored global institutions.
The establishment and employment at a CSO did not take away the individuals investment and interest in the party politics.
Because of being off-springs of the party and inducted into party politics first before being CSO agents, many of the executives in CSOs strove for political relevance hence CSO becoming a mirror of certain opposition parties.
With an aggressive opposition approach to thinking, the State was viewed as an enemy instead of a complementary body hence that approach had a myriad of deficits — Opposition and CSOs shared the same script that has failed for close to two decades.
First, the intervention approaches to equipping people with governance and political skills was a recruitment strategy and a show of constituency capital to opposition political leaders; the very same people who would be inducted into opposition registers.
This was left unabated because for a long time the donors were interested in sponsoring regime change and not requiring a genuine CSO evaluation rubric.
The scourge manifested into CSO being a conduit of sponsoring regime change in the country with some CSOs being on record for campaigning for sanctions whose effects they bankrolled on.
The poor and idle youth CSOs referred to in their project proposals are victims of the very sanctions they helped opposition call for.
To them, a continued political instability was a continued financial stability; one that was an important resource to buying political relevance and respect in opposition parties.
Second, rhetoric in the civil society trainings was a dogma designed to graduate citizens who are specifically anti-Zanu PF instead of an objective approach where citizens are allowed to make a choice and are not victimised if they do not choose to be MDC.
It would be dangerous to assume that the similarity in rhetoric with opposition is coincidental because of identifiable traits of individuals whose organisations became agencies of opposition.
This has continued to the extent of rifts within the CSO spaces where anyone who supports Government programmes or position is regarded as a sell-out, operative and excluded from consortiums.
Legitimacy and genuineness within the CSOs is measured by how oppositional you are to the State. They are quick to disregard an institution if its position is similar to that of the Government.
The moment one agrees with the Government, their credibility is questioned, but when one aspires to be in MDC, pays off to be included into the primary elections or a list, they are celebrated.
Thirdly, CSOs became quasi militia spaces where recruited young men and women were enlisted to party youth associations with specific directives of voting for specific individuals in primary and national elections.
CSO became a suspicious space because opposition politicians would clandestinely transact with the directors; the project recruits in exchange for a political party post.
To this, CSOs were complicit in manipulating free choice, sovereignty and affecting democratic values that call for an impartial CSO.
This has continued to date, where CSO executives have been political party aspirants, some paying to be included in Provincial Council lists, sponsoring campaign fuel for prominent individuals, subsidising rural constituency campaigns through buying camping assortments, being campaign managers for opposition contestants and even financing opposition party activities using donor funds in some of the campaigns that have been regarded as well packaged campaigns even if they lost the elections.
Civil society is an industry in Zimbabwe where the products are people’s problems and misfortunes, some created by CSOs themselves; are exported to Western countries and paid off in donor funds.
One surprising thing is how wealthy CSO directors are and it leaves me surprised how a person dedicated to serving the public by volunteering suddenly becomes one of the revered businessman in the country.
They live in plush suburbs, drive posh cars, are chauffeured, own multiple properties and can afford numerous small houses (well, some of them abuse programme participants).
The tragedy of their involvement in all this speaks of two things, death of hygienic politics and a threat to social progress.
The lack of impartiality by CSOs subjects the public sphere to a monopoly of ideas fabricated and gate kept by a few in the CSOs.
When we clean public entities, let us not forget CSOs.
#LeaveNoThiefbehind
Phambili ngeZimbabwe
