Civil Society and Private Sector : Engagement for Sustainable Development.

John Samuel

                              

Context

The engagement with civil society organisations and private sector business enterprises, based on a shared sense of values, can be an important lever for positive social change by promoting sustainable environment, inclusive economic growth, human development and peace. While the primary motive of private sector enterprises is to create profit and wealth, the primary motivation of civil society organisations are non-profit initiatives for larger common good and public interest. In spite of such fundamental differences in terms of the core motives, there are many areas where private sector and civil society organisations can engage to make a lasting impact within the society.

 Civil society signifies an arena of voluntary collective actions of people around shared values, common purpose and larger collective or public interests distinct from that of family, state or profit-seeking institutions. Civil society exemplifies a set of ‘civic action’ in formal or informal ‘associational forms’ to promote the core civil values of human rights, diversity, voluntary collective action, public interest and the larger common good. The private sector signifies organisation and institutions that operate in an economic arena of market for providing goods and services for profit.  Broadly speaking the civil society represent the socio-cultural and political sphere of human action and private represent economic exchanges and activities. There is indeed a wide range of diversity both in the case of civil society organisations and private sector organisations, based on the context, size, and nature of business.

In spite of distinct set of arena, interests and normative frameworks, there   is an increasing awareness that achieving sustainable human development   will require stronger and new forms of engagement, collaboration and partnership between the civil society organisations and private sector institutions, around explicit shared values.  Identifying these shared values and the mutual accountability mechanisms for ensuring that the contribution of both set of actors advances rather than undermines these shared values is the foundation for building trust between citizens and private sector enterprises and for starting new dialogue between civil society and private sector.

 

Civil society has now become an arena of praxis- wherein theory is continually negotiated and re-negotiated based on the evolving practice in multiple social, economic and cultural contexts. This dynamism, pluralism and diversity to a large extent shape the emerging civil society discourse across the world. The civil society discourse in the twenty first century is qualitatively different from that of the twentieth century or that of the post-cold war politics. Civil society is increasingly a coalescence of the local and global, real and virtual and south and north. There is a new sense of global solidarity movement for justice- though such an interconnected process is highly dispersed, poly-centric, and multi-locational. There is a new civil society discourse facilitated by the radical shifts in information and communication technology, social networks as well as the emergence of the new media. The Internet, global e-lists, social networking sites, you-tube and digital mobilization across the world would have been unimaginable twenty years ago. Today information and campaign process can reach out to millions of people with the single click of a browser.  Hence, capacity of civil society organisation to communicate and organise across countries and continents have dramatically increased in the last ten years, with significant influence in shaping global public perception as well as public policy priorities.

 

 

The on-going revolution in communication technology and the effectiveness of knowledge-based economies have created a new model of business and corporate governance. A growing awareness about the need for ecological sustainability and the “New Economy’ framework with an unprecedented stress on communication and image merchandising has paved the way for a new generation of business leaders concerned about the responses of the community and the sustainability of the environment. It is in this context that we need to understand the new trends of ‘shared value’ framework that tend to go beyond the traditional corporate philanthropy and corporate social responsibility.  There is an increasing stress on ethical business practices and good corporate governance.

 

 

.

Civil Society and Private Sector

 

 

Civil society signifies an arena of voluntary collective actions of people around shared sense of shared values, common purpose and larger collective or public interests distinct from that of family, state or profit-seeking institutions.  Civil Society may include formal and informal organisations, associations and network based on a set of shared values and interests. While associational aspects of civil society, beyond family, state and market, is an important characteristics of civil society organisations, the defining character of civil society is the ‘civil’ values of human rights, diversity, pluralism and freedom of association and expression. In this sense, civil society is also an arena for collective action and voices of people for accountability of the government, larger common good, particularly in relation to human development and sustainability of the environment. Hence, civil society is also an arena for civic engagement, democratisation of society and sustainable human development

The nature and character of the civil society may depend up on the political and social history of a society or country and also the character of the nation-state in which a range of civil society initiatives operate

 

Private Sector may include small and medium business enterprises to powerful global conglomerates with more revenue and assets than the Gross Domestic Products of many countries. Hence, the nature, character, size, and the political economy of private sector would significantly vary across the world. At one end of the spectrum there will be small and medium level business enterprises and at the other end of the spectrum there will be huge multi-national corporations with hundred thousand or millions of employees with operations across the world. So the wide range of diversity within the private sector and wide range of diversity within the civil society organisation would be an important factor that need be considered in the context of engagement between civil society organisations and private sector companies.

There is a long history of engagement between civil society and private sector.  In the nineteen century itself, many of the business entrepreneurs like Robert Owen sought to combine the promotion of private sector as well as the civil society organisations and movements for change. And in the twentieth century, there are many examples of the leaders of private sector enterprises contributing to the strengthening of civil society initiatives and organisations. In the last century many top private sector entrepreneurial leaders like Rockefeller, Henry Ford, Jamshedji Tata and many others contributed a significant part of their wealth for strengthening and supporting civil society initiatives and organisations across the world. And even now a substantial amount of financial resources to support civil society process and initiative come from institutions and foundations established by private sector entrepreneurs, including George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffets and many others across the world. So there are many inspiring examples of many private sector companies and entrepreneurs making long term impact in terms of promoting and supporting civil society initiatives for human rights, justice, democratic governance and sustainable human development.

 

However, there is also a history of confrontation between civil society campaigns and big multi-national corporations. Many of such confrontations arise when big private corporations violate human rights or environmental safeguards or displace the local communities.

On the one hand private sector and civil society represent two important sides of the social and economic development of the society. Private sector helps to create employment opportunities and also contribute to the growth of economy. And civil society plays an important role to ensure the larger common good of the society, environment and planet as well as provides a civic and political space for channelling the voice of people and seeking accountability from the state as well as market. Apart from this, civil society organisations also play an important role of adopting innovative approaches and promoting creative options for addressing the governance as well as social issues. 

While the primary motive of private sector enterprises is to create profit and wealth, the primary motivation of civil society organisations are non-profit initiatives for larger common good and public interest. In spite of such fundamental differences in terms of the core motives, there are many areas where private sector and civil society organisations can engage to make a lasting impact within the society.

Traditional corporate philosophy is only one of the three broad areas in which private companies can discharge their social responsibility. These three areas are:

i. Traditional corporate philanthropy

ii. Corporate social responsibility, with a focus on sustainable development and attending to stakeholder priorities

iii. Ethical business

 

Traditional corporate philanthropy dates back to the 19th century and emerged out of a variety of factors, such as:

i. Concern for the welfare of the immediate members of the corporate body: the staff and employees, and their families.

ii. Innovative contributions by visionary business leaders in quest of personal satisfaction, who built up philanthropic institutions out of their individual shares,

iii. In part as a result of the desire to establish a strategic relationship with the State, or with society as such, some corporate bodies invest in the establishment of institutions that fulfil the specific requirements of the community,

iv. Through the establishment of trusts and foundations for tax benefits, which also support socially beneficial activities.

 

Corporate social responsibility is a qualitative metamorphosis of the traditional concept of corporate philanthropy. It acknowledges the debt that the corporation owes to the community within which it operates, as a stakeholder in corporate activity. It also defines the business corporation's partnership with social action groups in providing financial and other resources to support development plans, especially among disadvantaged communities.

 

In a traditional paradigm, most corporate bodies have come to view the concept of CSR as the extension of a financial input for a humanitarian cause.).

Ethical business is the more fundamental, emerging trend on the international scene. It focuses on three specific aspects of business: a) how a business is conceptualised, b) how a business is operated, and c) the notion of fair profit.

 

In an ethical business the essential thrust is on social values and business is conducted in consonance with broader social values and the stakeholders' long-term interests.

 

Apart from this, there is a growing perspective that shapes the new principles and practice of corporate social responsibility. This is a rights-based perspective on corporate governance. This perspective stresses the fact that consumers, employees, affected communities and shareholders have a right to know about corporations and their business. Corporations are private initiatives, true, but increasingly they are becoming public institutions whose survival depends on the consumers who buy their products and shareholders who invest in their stocks. This particular perspective stresses accountability, transparency and social and environmental investment as the key aspects of corporate social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility offers a two-way street to companies, stimulating innovative business and technological initiatives which would open up new avenues for company operations and focus on the prospect of touching new market zones. It would give a cleaner societal reputation and identity to companies, involve the company and its employees in community development and gain from being a participant in promoting peace, equity and social development.

 

The success of engagement between civil society and private sector will be determined by a shared sense of values and commitment to promote the larger common good beyond the immediate business interests. International business now accepts the triple-bottom-line concept:

i. The stakeholders in a business are not just the company's shareholders

ii. Sustainable development and economic sustainability

iii. Corporate profits to be analysed in conjunction with social prosperity

 

The companies that excel today are those that restructure themselves as adaptive, resilient, creative and sustainable -- as living companies with the capacity to learn and change.

Shared-value framework for engagement

There is a link between sustainable economy, sustainable human development and sustainable business.  Sustainability as a principle requires a long terms perspective on and commitment to environment, peace, and inclusive human and economic development.  Sustainability of economy within a country or society is to a large extend influenced by human as well as technological capacity, human development and enabling infrastructure as and purchasing  capacity of people.  The development of private sector and market will be influenced by the broader purchasing capacity of people, which requires inclusive economic growth.  There are evidences to show that increasing inequality, lack of democratic governance and social-economic insecurities tend to create conflict and violence in many countries.  In a society prone to violence and conflict, it will be a challenge to build sustainable business enterprises. Hence, it is important to promote sustainability, inclusiveness, accountability, transparency and respect for human rights as core normative values for strengthening engagement between private sector and civil society.

.

The shared ‘value’ framework may comprise three sets of values; ethical values, environmental values and economic values.  There are four key questions that would help further discussions:

a)         How can engagement between civil society and private sector add ‘value’ to each sector in terms of capacity and sustainability?

b)         How does new partnership with civil society and private sector promote innovations (social, economic, corporate and technological)?

c)         How can engagement and partnership with civil society and private sector promote inclusive economic growth and sustainable environment?

d)         How can civil society and private sector contribute to each sectors sustainability as well as sustainable human development?

However, in many countries there is an absence of enabling legal and policy framework to promote partnership between civil society organisations and private sector.  There is also a key challenge of increasing economic and social inequality that tend to create new social and political discontent, hampering enabling social and economic conditions for sustainable business or peace. In significant parts of the world, the nexus between economic and political elites often hamper fair opportunity or transparent and accountable governance necessary for the growth of active civil society and vibrant private sector.  There is also a key issue of mutual scepticism between civil society organisation and private sector and in many countries, particularly where there is a nexus between political elites and big business, this also leads to direct confrontation between civil society organisations and private sector. So, on the one hand it will be important to identify specific challenges to explore creative solutions and on the other hand it would be important to identify specific areas for engagement and partnership between private sector and civil society

The terms of engagement between civil society and private sector need to be driven by a set of core principles. The United Nations Compact clearly articulated the ten key principles that would ensure more responsible private sector enterprises. The United Nations Global Compact is a voluntary initiative that seeks to advance universal principles on human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption through the active engagement of the corporate community, in cooperation with civil society and representatives of organized labour. With over 10,000 corporate participants and other stakeholders from over 130 countries, it is the largest voluntary corporate responsibility initiative in the world.

The UN Global Compact's ten principles in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption enjoy universal consensus and are derived from:

 •The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

•The International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work

•The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development

•The United Nations Convention Against Corruption

 

The UN Global Compact asks companies to embrace, support and enact, within their sphere of influence, a set of core values in the areas of human rights, labour standards, the environment and anti-corruption:

 Human Rights

 •Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights; and

•Principle 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses. 

 Labour

 •Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;

•Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;

•Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour; and

•Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. 

 Environment

 •Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges;

•Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and

•Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies.  

 Anti-Corruption

 •Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.

 

Options for Engagement

Following are some of the specific areas for the strengthening engagement between private sector and civil society for promoting peace and sustainable human development:

 

1)         Promoting the principles of UN Compact

 

Private sector enterprises or companies can build partnership and alliance with civil society organisations for joint advocacy initiatives for promoting the key principles of UN Compact. This would on the one hand help companies to adopt principles of the UN Compact and on the other hand enable civil society organisations to positively influence the agenda for responsible corporate behaviour and positive interventions by the private sector companies.

2)         Sustainable management of nature resources and sustainable environment.

 

Sustainable management of nature resources such as water, forests, land and clear air requires change in the corporate behaviour, consumption pattern as well as the choices of companies and society. Civil society plays an important role for policy advocacy as well as influencing the societal attitude to ensure sustainable and clean energy, water and protection of forests, water and clean air. And private sector can play an important role for advocacy as well action within the sector to promote energy efficiency, green-business practices and promoting sustainable environment.

 

3)         Promoting Inclusive Economic Growth

While many countries faced unprecedented economic growth in the last twenty years, there is an increasing concern about the uneven pace of growth, excluding a large number of people from the benefits of economic growth.  In many countries, particularly in the emerging economies and developing countries, economic growth was more urban-centric and benefitting only a minority of people with high level of education and skill. This has resulted in increased social and economic inequality in many countries, resulting in social and political discontent.  Hence, the civil society and private sector together can play a role in partnership with respective governments to promote social and economic policies as well as more sustainable business practices to ensure inclusive economic growth as a key strategy to address the causes and consequences of social and economic inequalities.

 

4)         Sustainable Human Development Programme 

Civil society organisations and private sector enterprises and associations may be able to work together as partners in joint social development projects in promoting health, education, water and sanitation or other social development initiatives in a given area or community. However, it is important that such partnership is based on core principles of UN Compact to ensure mutual accountability and public transparency of such initiatives. This is important due to the fact that often private sector funding for NGO project in the community where a private company operates are seen as ‘corruption’ to silence NGOs and CSOs while companies indulge in displacing poor communities or destroying environment

 

 

5)         Advocacy for Accountable, Transparent and Responsive Governance

 

Private sector companies succeed when the governments are responsive, transparent and accountable. This helps private sector companies to operate in a transparent and accountable manner. One of the key roles of civil society organisations is to promote accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and responsiveness in government and public policy process. Hence, a stronger engagement in promoting advocacy initiatives for accountable, transparent and responsive government will be a ‘win-win’ approach in terms of civil society-private sector engagement.

 

6)         Promoting shared-value approach to corporate social responsibility

 Though there are more rhetoric and less concrete investment to promote corporate social responsibility, there are evidences of new leaders in the private sector with an eco-social perspective on corporate social responsibility. They recognise the fact that social and environmental stability and sustainability are two important prerequisites for the sustainability of the market in the long run. They also recognise the fact that increasing poverty can lead to social and political instability. Such socio-political instability can be detrimental to business, which operates from a variety of socio-political and cultural backgrounds. Seen from the eco-social perspective, corporate social responsibility is both a value and a strategy to ensure the sustainability of business. It is a value because it stresses the fact that business and markets are essentially aimed at the well-being of society. It is a strategy because it helps to reduce social tensions and facilitate markets. For the new generation of corporate leaders, optimisation of profit is the key, rather than the maximisation of profit. Hence there is a shift from accountability to shareholders to accountability to stakeholders (including employees, consumers and the affected communities). Civil society organisations and actors can play a very important role to build the capacity and networks of private sector actors to promote genuine corporate social responsibility initiatives.

7)         Partnership for Capacity Development

The civil society organisations in general and non-profit sector in particular provide employment opportunities for millions of people across the world. However, may of the small and medium civil society organisations often lack adequate capacity for management of programmes, project finance and resource mobilisation. It is here the private sector may be able to provide capacity development opportunity for the civil society organisations through staff exchange or specific programme designed for civil society organisations and non-profit sector.

 

On the other hand, a large number of for-profit private organisations and enterprises lack the capacity to communicate to communities and also to engage in social and environmental initiatives. Many of the private sector organisations also lack an understanding and appreciation of the principles of human rights, women’s rights, environmental safe-guards and social policies. It is here that civil society organisations can play an important role to build the capacity and perspective of private sector to enhance their capacity in the area of human rights and sustainable human development.

8)         Promoting Women’s Rights and Human Rights

In most of the countries and societies, women are marginalised and often paid less than men for the same job.  Women are not only marginalised in terms of gainful employment opportunities but also sexually harassed in the context of work. Hence, civil society organisations and private sector companies may undertake joint initiatives to promote women’s rights within the society and at work place. In many countries, marginalised/ minority communities (ethnic, racial, cast, religious and linguistic) are often discriminated in society as well as in terms of unequal job opportunities.  Civil society organisations and private sector may work together to promote more human rights and ensuring equal opportunities for women and those from the marginalised communities.

9)         Promoting youth empowerment and Leadership

The number of young people has increased in an unprecedented in the world, particularly in Asia, Africa and Arab World.  The increasing lack of unemployment, the tendency of global migration and the insecurities that emerge from economic, social and political inequalities give rise to discontent among a significant number of young people across the world. As per the report of the Amnesty International, in the last two years, there were protests in more than ninety countries and most of these protests were led by young people. In many countries, political and social unrest have affected private sector and companies in an adverse manner. Hence, from a long term perspective it will be strategic for private sector companies to invest in a generation of leaders who are committed to peace, justice, human rights and democratic principles. Civil society organisations can play a very important role in providing opportunities for promoting socially responsible young business entrepreneurs and also for promoting a new generation of competent and ethical leaders within the civil society and political process of a given country.

10)       Innovative technology for sustainable human development

The private sector plays a very important role in terms of innovating technology and finding solutions for long lasting problems of poverty, disease and development. The innovations in technology by private sector actors have helped to make safe drinking water available to poor communities, or to promote digital literacy to bridge the digital divide or to promote affordable generic drugs to fight communicable diseases or to save energy or to create more green technology to protect the environment.  Private sector also developed innovative technologies to ensure transparency and accountability through e-governance. While private sector organisations may have technology, civil society organisations often have wide network within a given society and also the ‘know-how’ of how to translate a given technology in given community or society to ensure maximum impact. Hence, civil society –private sector engagement in the use of innovative technologies for sustainable human development can make a long-term impact within a country or society

Civil Society Organisations have a responsibility to engage with the private sector companies to make them more sensitive to issues of human dignity, human rights and sustainable human development. Private sector on the other hand will be able to enhance the capacities and resources for civil society organisations to play a strategic leadership role in promoting a peaceful and sustainable world without poverty and discrimination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Global Conversations on Democracy: In search of Democratisation

John Samuel


( Draft Notes on challenges to democratisation, presented at the global conversations on Democracy in New Delhi)

 Ironies of Democracy

Subversion has become the hallmark of the postmodern politics- where everyone only has a user value.  While dominant mainstream politics at the national and international arenas often use the language of democracy to claim moral and political legitimacy, the powerful political-economic elites perpetually undermine the substantive moral and political content of democratic process. This irony of the linguistic and ‘communicative’ exercise of using the language of ‘freedom’ to undermine rights and dignity of citizens, people and communities of countries and cultures constantly undermines democratisation. Dominant institutionalisation of power in the state apparatus is largely negotiated by three Ms- Market, Military and Media- controlled by politico-bureaucratic and economic elites of a given country. The very ideal and idea of democracy is being subverted by the new nexus of corporate interests. The established and entrenched nexus of interests and power-configuration between the political, economic, bureaucratic and media elites have captured subverted the electoral process and the apparatus of the states, in the name of democracy.  The financing of elections, political parties and political leaders by the corporate monopolies ( in return to access to natural resource, tax evasion and more profits)  have undermined the political and moral content of  even the so-called ‘mature democratic systems’- across the world- in the global north as well as south.

 The present predicament of the discourse on democracy is well captured by John Gaventa: “Around the world, the forms and meaning of democratic participation are under contestation. In Iraq, Fallujah is bombed in the name of making the country ready for democracy; in Indonesia, Ukraine and United States, voters and observers are gripped in debates and protest against electoral democracy; in Cancun and other global venues, streets are occupied by those demanding more democracy in global processes; in small villages and neighbourhoods and grassroots groups are claiming their places in local democratic spaces. Democracy is at once the language of military power, neoliberal market forces, political parties, donor agencies and NGOs. What is going on?” He further elaborates: “the way to deal with crisis of democracy or democratic deficit, is to extend democracy itself- that is to go beyond traditional understanding of representative democracy, through creating and supporting more participatory spaces of citizens engagement, which in turn are built up on the rights and responsibilities of citizenship”

 Internalised orders of power

The subversion, misuse and abuse of power have systemic and socio-historical manifestations in different contexts. This has to do with the way power is institutionalised and internalised in a given society, with a particular cultural and political history. For example, the political elites of South Asia often demonstrate the embedded feudalism and cumulative hierarchies (through cast system) internalised within the collective memory of the society. So the one common defining political aspect of South Asia is that all power-elites in most of the South Asian Countries (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and Afghanistan) operate through family network and, cast/identity networks to acquire and maintain power. Such internalised ‘order of power’ tends to undermine the process and content of democratic process itself. Though political parties play a cardinal role in the democratic process of a country, the irony is that political parties themselves have least of internal democracy or accountability. And in many cases, political parties are reduced to institutionalised forms of ‘interest’ networks to capture and control the power of the state. In many countries in Africa, the use and abuse of power can also linked to the internalisation of power in the form of ‘tribal’ hierarchies and identities. In China or East Asia, there may be a different historical and cultural contexts of  the ‘internalised order of power’ In Europe and North America, such internalised ‘orders of power’ have links  with ‘protestant’ or ‘catholic values’ at the deep structure of the main-stream political process. And the historical memories of  colonial and post-colonial discourse, military contestations and the hegemonic knowledge formations play an important role in shaping the collective perceptions about the  ‘form and meaning’ of democracy in  Europe and North America.  So the process of democratisations- as a political and moral process – and the operationalisation of democratic systems- as a form of government and governance- are in constant negotiation with the ‘internalised order of power’ within a particular socio-historical and cultural context.

 

 Multiple  Disjunctures: There is also a disjuncture between the academic discourse on democracy/democratisation, the political party-driven political process and the grassroots process of politics- that operate through informal or semi formal networks of identities, interests and power. The disjuncture between knowledge and practice of politics and democracy at multiple levels create ‘exclusive’ arena of ‘discursive’ politics. Such disjuncture and disconnect create a problem translating and transmitting ideas and practises beyond each spheres.  The problem of ‘language’ and ‘communication’ in creating and perpetuating such ‘disjunctures of democracy’   is philosophical, political and technological.

 

Ideals of Democracy and Democratisation

Democracy works when citizens and the most marginalized people have the capability to ask questions, seek accountability from the state and participate in the process of governance. Democracy becomes meaningful when people can shape the state and the state, in turn, is capable of creating enabling social, political, economic and legal conditions wherein people can exercise their rights and realize the freedom from fear and want.

It is not merely elections or universal adult franchise that defines the process of democracy. While constitutional framework and human rights guarantees can form the grammar of democracy, it is always people and the ethical quality of political process that make democracy work. Democracy involves dignity, diversity, dissent, development, participation and accountability. Unless even the last person can celebrate her sense of dignity, exercise democratic dissent and inform and involve in the process of governance and development, democracy becomes an empty rhetoric. Democracy dies where discrimination begins and politics of exclusion takes root.

 

Democratization is a political as well an ethical process based on human dignity as well as empowerment of people wherein they participate, irrespective of gender, race, identity or age, in those decisions and institutions that affect their lives. Democratization involves devolution of power in all institutional arenas. This also means democratization of information, knowledge, economic resources and technology. Thus the ethics and practice of democratization is relevant from all institutional settings from family, to the state and global institutions. Democratization as political and ethical value depend on the equality of all human persons, and their rights to participate in social and political process, rights to development and rights to live with dignity.

While democratization is more of an ethical and political value, democracy is political system of government. Substantive  democratic governance requires both the process of democratization and the effectiveness of democracy as a political system, based on constitution, the Rule of Law and accountable institutions.

Plurality of discourse and locations

The most visible and dominant discourse on democracy is derived from the Athenian legacy (where women and slaves were excluded from the very process) of western- liberal democratic theory and the ideas that emerged during the enlightenment. So there is a need to reconstruct a pluralistic history of the process of democratization in other cultures as well as ethical traditions such as Buddhism and Islam. Amartya Sen in his book, The Argumentative Indian, discussed the various trajectories and histories of public argument and ethical governance (particularly that during the reign of Ashoka and later by Emperor Akbar). Some of the most inspiring experiments of grassroots democratization and the claiming democracy at the national level emerged during the struggle against colonialism and apartheid. In the ‘main-stream’ governance, democracy and “rule of law” discussion there is hardly any mention about the freedom struggles of peoples in Asia, Africa or Latin America or mass political movements for democracy led by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela.

The process of Democratization is also a function of the culture and history at a given point in time. However, such histories and experience are often ignored or marginalized by the academic institutions and other proponents of the Euro- American model of liberal democracy. The very political economy of knowledge production, dissemination and marketing is still controlled by the privileged institutions and think tanks in the global north. Hence most of us are taught a privileged history and model of western-liberal democracy. Even the so-called ‘southern’ discourse if often shaped by the academic and civil society elites who often derive their ‘academic credentials’ from the very same dominant academic paradigms and universities in the North.  So often the  ‘critique’ of the northern discourses of political theory itself  is a corollary discourse of  the dominant political economy of knowledge This partly a  problematic of  ‘language’ through which are ‘taught’ and ‘express’ and partly a problem the political economy of  funding  of  the  institutional locations through which knowledge is negotiated and generated.




Democratic Governance

A substantive democratic governance demands radicalizing democracy, through the deepening and widening of the process of democratization of state and all institutions of governance. Social movements and civil society organizations, which act as counterbalances and counterweights to the dominant powers of state and non-state actors, have an important role in deepening democratic process and expand the spaces wherein poor and excluded people can participate as well as challenge the process of governance. Power relationship is inherent in the process of governance at various levels.

The process of democratization has both grassroots and global dimensions. Such a process will necessarily involves the empowerment of women, minorities and the disenfranchised people, due to historical of structural reasons. Democratization at the global level requires free flow of information, knowledge and coordinated action and a shared sense of global solidarity based on the values of Justice, equality and human rights. Such a sense of solidarity can be built in the public sphere through “communicative action”. Habermas explains the conditions for reaching a common understanding: “I speak of communicative action when the action orientations of the participating actors are not coordinated via egocentric calculations of success, but through acts of understanding. Participants are not primarily oriented towards their own success in communicative action: they pursue their individual goal under the condition that they can coordinate their action plans on the basis of shared definitions of the situation”. Such a shared sense of communicative action also implies argumentative rationatinality, where in participants in a discourse are open to be persuaded by the better argument and the relations of power and hierarchies recede in the background. The goal of such communicative action is to reach reasoned consensus. Sense of solidarity, a sense of identifying with fellow human beings with a sense of shared bond of humanness and dignity, can make the process of democratization deliberate, creative and participatory.

 

In spite of all economic growth, there is still entrenched poverty, social and economic inequality in India. When there are islands of prosperity, surrounded by sea of poverty and inequality, the real participation of everyone as equal citizens would be more challenging than it is assumed. We may have to go miles before realizing the dream of Gram Swaraj of Gandhi

“Every village has to become a self-sufficient republic. This require brave, corporate and intelligent work.....I have not pictured a poverty stricken India containing ignorant millions. I have pictured an India continually progressing along the lines best suited to her genius. I do not, however, picture it as a third class or even first class copy of the dying civilization of the west. If my dream is fulfilled everyone of the seven lakhs villages becomes a well-living republic in which there are no illiteracy, in which no one is idle for want of work, in which everyone is usefully occupied and has nourishing food and well-ventilated dwellings, and sufficient Khadi for covering the body and in which all villagers observe the laws of hygiene and sanitation”

 

Party Politics and Democracy




The quality and stability of democratic process depend on the quality and strength of the institutional frame-work and socio-political process that sustain the body politics of a country. While a good constitutional framework and electoral process are important indicators of a democratic system, elections are not in themselves a guarantee for the success of a democracy.

Political Parties are one of the most crucial factors for the sustenance of a viable democratic system. There seems to be a direct connection between the health of the political party system and the vitality and long term viability of a democracy. A vibrant system of political party serves the role of blood vessels of the body politics of a given country.

Political parties are socio-political institutions, in the public sphere, that help citizens to interface and negotiate with the state. Political parties are also primary legitimizing agents of the government and governing systems of the state. On the one hand they play the most crucial role of representing the citizens, people, and societal interests and issue that concern a large number of people at a given point in time. On the other hand, political parties also serve as the network mechanism of the institutions of the state and major forces of power, operating in a given context. So, there are very important political, social, cultural and class dimensions of political party system. The more political parties are rooted in the real issues, needs and aspirations of the people, there is more chance for the party to thrive.

In the absence of a multi-party system- with grass-roots presence, a committed cadre of leaders and wide network within the society- democratic process can be subverted and political process can be appropriated by a minority of vested interests. Though such vested interests may conveniently use one political party or even create one to serve their purpose of sustaining power, they tend to annihilate and subvert all other political party process. This is one of the single biggest challenges for the sustenance of a vibrant democratic system of governance

The social function and legitimizing role of political parties are under unprecedented strain. In most of the countries, political parties have rather less institutional history and social roots. Many of them emerged as a corollary to the state power and an instrument to sustain the state power. In most of the countries, particularly decolonized countries, the nation states as well as political parties are the consequences of decolonization rather than causes of decolonization

One of the key distinctions between mature democracies and vulnerable democracies is the state of political parties in the respective countries. In many ways, the strength, limitations and the contradictions of the political party system get reflected in the process of governance and the character of the state.

An educated and economically sustainable middle class play a very crucial role in the making and unmaking of the political parties. In many of the countries, the absence of a vibrant middle class, and the presence of a very small minority of political elites undermine the process of democracy. Political Parties, as institutions, do require funds and this requires an active economy with people or organisations with surplus money to fund the parties, either because of an interest or an issue. In most of the countries, the absence of a middle class or vibrant economy makes political parties as unviable institutions.


Political parties across the world are facing a crisis. They have been reduced to mere electoral mechanism or network to capture the power of the State. They are less and less social institutions or legitimizing agents of political process and increasingly turned in to “interest-networks” promoted by the larger economic forces and identity politics of various shades. In most of the so-called democracies, elections and politics are shaped and mediated by the big media empires and funded by big corporate power. This increasing dependence on media and corporate funds undermine the very character and autonomy of political party system. As a result, the new political-corporate elites are in the business of subverting politics and policy framework of the state to maximize profit for few dominant economic forces in a given economy.

Many of the political parties are now controlled by a “power-clique” and “fund-managers”, blessed by media and sustained by the corporate funds. The validity of the Presidential Candidate in the USA depends of how much money they raise from the corporate powers and how much rating they got from the surveys conducted by media empires. As a result, elections are reduced to media stunts with “brand” slogans, empty “policy rhetoric”, devoid of any in-depth political process or social mediation.

When media mediation replaces the social mediation, the very values of democracy get undermined and subverted. Political parties are filled with career politician with a single point agenda of getting a slice of state power and the privileges and paraphernalia that come with the package. There are less and less poets, philosophers, visionaries, scholars, social activists, or policy experts in political parties. As many social activists, writers and intellectuals choose to work within the civil society, political parties are facing an acute deficit of creative and ethical leadership.

 

Subversion of Political Parties and Democratic Values.



While most of the countries in the Western Europe and North America have a longer history and institutional basis of political parties, that is not the case in most of other countries. The case of India seems to be an exception, where there is a vibrant network of political party system. This is partly because of the fact that many of the political parties evolved over a period of hundred years, particularly in the context of the Freedom Struggle from the second half the 19th century. While South Africa and parts of Latin America have an emerging political party system, in most of the world political parties are often very fragile, ephemeral or a farce of the ruling elite.

One of the reasons for a very unstable democratic process in most of the parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America is the very character and nature of fragile political party system. The fragile political party system is a result of multiple factors that shaped the history, society and politics of these countries after the Second World War. Most of the countries that got freedom from the yoke of the Western European Powers failed to develop their own polity or the political process rooted in the respective context, history and society of the respective countries.

The very process of decolonizing also involved sowing the seeds of conflicts based on ethnicity, religion and identity in most of the countries. Unlike the case of India, there were not many mass struggles or wider political mobilization for freedom from the Colonial Powers. The struggle against colonialisation and imperialism was in many ways the beginning of the process of democratization and political process in most of countries in the world. The process of decolonizing also ensured the emergence of faulty and fragile democratic systems and process – more often initiated by an educated elite minority in conjunction with the erstwhile colonial powers.

There has been hardly any social, cultural and political process of nation-state formation in many of the earlier colonies- which the imperial powers almost treated as territories for extraction of material, agricultural or mineral resources. As a result, the notion of a modern nation-state was often superimposed on territories and areas where power primarily operated through traditional forms of structures and systems like tribalism or feudalism. In most of the cases, a liberal–democratic system was super imposed either on feudalism, tribalism and theocratic formations. In the absence of social transformation or transitions, democracy was often a veneer to sustain the feudal and tribal power-networks. This most of the political parties reflected the feudal or tribal characteristics of the dominant social forces in country.


In most of the decolonized countries, the process of governance was lead by a minority of the western educated elite class, nurtured by the erstwhile rulers or their institution and heavily depended on an aid system that gave them money and legitimacy. The leaders of many of these former colonies derived their primary legitimacy from the position they held and the support they got from the erstwhile colonial masters or their allies. This meant that least of investment in developing and nurturing a vibrant political party system as it would have become a thorn in the flush of their power. So, most of the leaders in the erstwhile colonies used political parties as a necessary evil to ensure some veneer of socio-political legitimacy in their own countries and in the world.

The very process of nation-state and nationality process in Africa, Asia and many other countries are negotiated by the colonial powers in the first half of the twentieth century. The process of decolonization also involved sowing seeds of conflicts in many of the erstwhile colonies and making them dependent on the formal imperial powers for ideas, aid, weapons and legitimacy. A fragmented polity, perpetual conflict, and dependent economic system were sure recipe for poverty, oppression and subversion. The result is everywhere to see. Even today the arbitrators of the so-called democracy in the south are very much the institutions and the leaders in the North.



Another important reason for the fragile political party system in the Global South is the very impact of the cold war. In the name of sustaining and promoting democracy, the United States and its allies in many ways killed the very democratic process. This was done by eliminating a whole generation of dynamic and committed leadership of the left leaning opposition parties and the communist parties. During the cold war period, both the Western and Eastern Block fought for the soul of many countries, by funding political parties, political leaders as well making the opposition leaders or parties impotent through a well planned process of annihilation and co-option.


This very process of intervention by the external forces undermined the institutional framework and political party system in most of the global south. In fact, the Cold war politics of aid, subversive education and ideological dependencies by the Western and Eastern Blocks of Power- based on Euro-centric ideas- made the very foundation of the political party process weak and fragile. As a result most of the countries in the South depended on the policy framework of either Soviet Union or the West for shaping the very process of governance and economy. This dependency syndrome in terms of ideas, knowledge and legitimacy had far reaching implication in terms of weakening the polity, policy process and political system of each of the countries in the global south.



This is where India is very different from most of the other decolonized countries. In the Indian context, the very long history freedom struggle and the primary role of the Indian National Congress and other political process helped a rather deep socialization of political parties. So in many ways the vibrant spectrum of political parties, based on identity, ideology and commonly shared platform for freedom struggle paved the way for decolonization and social reforms, rather than the other way around. In case of India, the Gandhian political praxis and social ethics – distinct from the imported knowledge-policy frame work from Europe- influenced almost all the political party process in India. Other bold experiments and theorization by scholar-activists like Ambedkar, Nehru and range of social reformers helped inject a sort of Indian ethos and civilization content to the political party process in India. The vibrant multiparty system, with multiple ideological and identity base helped to sustain, stabilize and strengthen a unique brand of Indian Democratic system. . In fact, apart from the Congress party, the left parties and the parties on the right too contributed to make India a viable multiparty democracy. The fact that most of the Indian politicians still wear Khadi or prefer Indian dress code (as distinct from many other countries in South-East Asia, Africa or elsewhere) is a bit of reflection of the “congress system” and Gandhian legacy.

However, in many of the other South Asian countries, the absence of a vibrant multi-party system weakened the governance as well as democracy. During the cold war period, most of the left political forces in other parts of South Asia was subverted or eradicated by the nexus of ruling elite and western political and economic forces. The eradication of left political forces from Pakistan and Bangladesh actually had long term political impact in weakening the foundations of democratic process in both countries. The deep rooted feudal values( family based politics is an indication) and identity politics based on cast, religion or ethnicity and sub-nationalities shaped the very character, hierarchy of political party systems South Asia, including India.

Hence the secular values, or cosmopolitan political ethos and democratic values are actually skin deep in almost all the political party system in India and the rest of South Asia.

( These are the personal views and do not reflect the position of any of the organisations with which the author is associated)