Editorial
Nobel Peace Prize for Dr Yunus
and Grameen Bank
It was a cheering bit of news but quite expected. Bangladesh has been put on the world map of Nobel Prizes. The names of Dr Yunus and his Grameen Bank had become synonymous with poverty alleviation and some other countries sought to replicate his model. In the previous years too his name was believed to have been shortlisted for the prestigious award and last year the former US president Bill Clinton also recommended him for the prize. According to an announcement Bangladesh’s Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank have been awarded the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. He and the Bank have been honoured ‘for their efforts to create economic social development from below’. It has also been stated that the bank’s work in creating opportunities for large numbers of people to get out of poverty created conditions for sustainable peace.
The model Dr Yunus established was no doubt innovative. He brought the poorest sections within the fold of modern banking, and largely by the latter’s own effort as micro-level subscribers. To give loan without collateral was unheard-of in the world of banking. The trust thus reposed in the poor was reciprocated in the form of very satisfactory rate of repayment. The state also deserves praise for mobilising fund on easy terms. Grameen Bank creditors proved themselves to be more creditworthy than the big entrepreneurs. As an overwhelming percentage of Grameen Bank clients are women the project has the effect of empowering them. It proved that women are better savers and managers of finances. It also creates a feeling among poor women that by their own collective effort they can improve their economic condition.
While this is an occasion for national celebration, this is also a time for revaluation of the project from the point of view of its impact on poverty alleviation. The high interest rate of Grameen Bank loan is crippling and there are reports of some poor clients having to liquidate whatever assets she or he possessed to pay the usurious interest. Critics also say this loan has a self-perpetuating character and the creditor is seldom rid of his chronic indebtedness. There snags holding back maximisation of benefits for the poor need to be addressed.
Wages of RMG workers:
Dialogue not coercion
The garment owners have threatened to retaliate against vandalism at their factories apprehending further unrest during a strike called by the Sramik Karmachari Oikya Parishad on October 15. A report in this paper published Friday, also indicates that the top body of garment owners has decided to exert pressure on the government as well as the opposition to bring the workers’ unrest under control.
We point out that such short-sighted approach will not resolve the crisis for good. Instead of resorting to harsher coercive measures, the owners must recognise their workers’ deprivation and violation of rights that have prevailed for years and continue to be a common practice.
Owners have themselves closed down a potent means of negotiations with their workers having implicitly, if not directly, hindered the formation of the trade unions at the factories. We believe trade unions would have been beneficial for both parties in quelling the current unrest.
The owners have termed the scheduled strike illegal, since there has not been any prior notice, and have hinted that they might initiate legal measures. They have also urged the government to arrest the criminal elements and outside instigators involved in last week’s vandalism.
We believe that protests and strikes are democratic rights of the workers. We further point out that the owners have been getting warnings for many years now and have chosen to remain apathetic towards the entire situation. They are displaying a similar callousness towards the current unrest and not realising that the crisis is a culmination of many years of suppression.
Owners have claimed that there is no scope of a minimum wage in the prevailing open market system. They have also claimed that the recently announced wage structure was a good beginning and had been endorsed by all sides, including the garment workers.
We differ on both counts. An open market economy does not imply anarchy and complete dominance of the market factors. It demonstrates quite clearly a dire lack of understanding market governance and the government’s regulatory role in an open market economy. In fact the provision of minimum wage is inherent in open market economies across the world. Secondly, in the absence of structured trade unions it is impossible to ascertain or ensure genuine representation of the workers. The owners therefore cannot rightfully claim that all parties had endorsed the new wages.
The garment factory owners claimed, as reported in this paper, that despite paying regular taxes and abiding by all legal provisions, the government remains apathetic towards their cause.
We hold that the allegation is true, but from the workers’ point of view. The government has consistently sided with the owners. At least 300 workers have died and over 2,000 injured in fires at garment factories since 1990. The government has not punished or penalised a single owner till date. The owners continue to violate basic workers’ rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws of the land. These include timely payment of wages and overtime, weekly holiday, festival allowance, appointment letter and maternity leave. Although these were part of the provisions of the tripartite agreement the government has not penalised any of the owners who continue to flout these laws and claim to be law abiding businessmen.
We believe that minimum wages, which is at the heart of the current unrest, must ensure a certain basic standard of living for the employee. The wage structure, then should be based on the cost of basic needs and ensure a minimum level of calorie intake. We firmly believe that minimum wages should be living wages.
We urge the owners to initiate dialogues with their workers and strive to resolve the crisis instead of threatening with further coercion, which will surely worsen the situation.
The role of civil society in
strengthening democracy
Civil society organisations, including NGOs, in Bangladesh have been playing an important role in creating a vibrant democratic polity despite many odds of antagonistic and hostile relations
among major political parties,
write Adilur Rahman Khan and Jesmul Hasan
Civil society organisation (CSO) is neither a part of a government nor is founded by states. CSOs are therefore typically independent of governments. The term is generally restricted to social, cultural, legal, and environmental advocacy groups having goals that are primarily noncommercial. CSOs are usually non-profit organisations that gain at least a portion of their funding from private sources. But they are at least to some extent self-generating and self-reliant. This includes not only non-governmental organisations but also independent mass media, think tanks, universities and religious groups.
To be part of civil society, groups must meet some other conditions as well. In a democracy, civil society groups have respect for the law, for the rights of individuals, and for the rights of other groups to express their interests and opinions. The word ‘civil’ implies tolerance and accommodation of pluralism and diversity.
Civil society organisations generally get engaged in providing basic services, policy advocacy, action research, issue-based networking and protection and promotion of human rights.
Civil society groups may establish ties to political parties and the state, but they must retain their independence, and they do not seek political power for themselves.
The first and most basic role of civil society is to limit and control the power of the state. An effective democracy needs a well-functioning and authoritative state. For the establishment of a well-functioning and authoritative state, an effective democracy is vital. It also needs to find ways to check, monitor, and restrain the power of political leaders and state officials.
Civil society organisations are playing a vital role in monitoring the conduct of elections. This requires a broad coalition of organisations, unconnected to political parties or candidates, that deploys neutral monitors at all the different polling stations to ensure that the voting and vote counting are entirely free, fair, peaceful, and transparent. It is very hard to have credible and fair elections in a new democracy unless civil society groups play this role.
Civil society actors watch how state officials exercise their powers. They raise public concern about any abuse of power. They lobby for access to information, including freedom of information laws, and rules and institutions to control corruption. This constitutes another important function of civil society: to expose the corrupt conduct of public officials and lobby for good governance reforms. Even where anti-corruption laws and bodies exist, they cannot function effectively without the active support and participation of civil society.
Civil society is an arena for the expression of diverse interests, and civil society organisations try to lobby for the needs and concerns of their members, as women, students, farmers, environmentalists, trade unionists, lawyers, doctors, and so on. NGOs and interest groups present their views to parliament, local government bodies, media and professional bodies, by contacting individual members and testifying before parliamentary committees. Civil society organisations also establish dialogue with relevant government ministries and agencies to lobby for their interests and concerns.
Civil society organisations are helping to inform the public about important public affairs. This is not only the role of the mass media, but also of NGOs which are creating forums for debating public policies and disseminating information about issues before parliament that affect the interests of different groups, or of society at large.
Selected case studies
The Philippines: In the Philippines, democratisation occurred without economic growth. The strength of civil society and the democratic consciousness that had been firmly ingrained in the Phillipino people helped bring down the dictatorial rule of Marcos. The mobilisation of hundreds of thousands of citizens to reclaim the stolen 1986 elections through the National Citizens Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL) –– set up to monitor the elections –– forced Marcos out of power. Without NAMFREL’s strength, Marcos’ massive election fraud would not have been documented and publicised and the mobilisation would not have been possible. In addition, the strength of the civil society helped maintain democratic rule throughout the term of President Corazon Aquino, who survived several military coup attempts. Civil society flexed its muscles again in the successful campaign to oust Joseph Estrada for corruption. In recent movement against President Gloria Aroya on allegation of nepotism and election engineering, civil society organisations could mobilise people and came down to the street.
However, in Mindanao, despite the sustained and varied collective actions, civil society has not been able to attain the objectives of bringing peace as well as ensure the right to self-determination for the Muslims.
Nepal: Despite a plurality of religions, languages, cultures and ethnicities, a recent survey on the state of democracy in Nepal demonstrates that Nepali citizens retain their trust in democracy as the best form of government –– this despite disappointment with the working of democracy and the behaviour of political leaders. In the recent democratic upsurge against the feudal monarchy in Nepal, alongside the political parties, civil society in Nepal – NGOs, research institutes, human rights activists, media – too joined the battle, actively debating institutional designs and working to influence democratic behaviour. There is today a more widespread appreciation for the need to enhance inclusion and ensure active and meaningful participation of all groups in Nepal’s political process.
India: Civil society’s role in Indian polity needs to be understood within the context of its relationship with the state. Following independence, the post-colonial state was entrusted with the primary responsibility of institutionalising democracy and catalysing the socio-economic transformation of the country. Through the first two decades of independence, this role remained unchallenged and civil society, with a few exceptions, worked in tandem with the state to strengthen its legitimacy and role in institutionalising democracy in India. By the 1970s, however, it became increasingly clear that the state had failed in its promise. Crucially the state had not been effective in bringing in its fold the marginalised and had failed both to adequately meet citizens demands and expectations. Democracy in India was thus characterised by enormous deficits. This sense of disillusionment with the Indian state was further exacerbated with the imposition of emergency in 1975 that temporarily suspended democracy and fundamental rights in India. It was in response to those broader political developments that civil society emerged as a powerful force in Indian polity. The twin factors of an increasingly centralised state on the one hand and the failure of the state to substantively democratise Indian society, on the other, helped galvanise civil society to work towards countering the hegemonic tendencies of the state and secure the socio-economic rights of the marginalised. One of the most crucial roles played by civil society in contemporary India has been to act as a watchdog to the state; and in doing so push the state in directions that are accountable and responsive to citizens thereby protecting and deepening their democratic rights.
The movement for social transformation initiated by civil society has largely been conducted within a framework of participative and mobilising politics. The Gandhian means of civil disobedience characterised by mass mobilisation, rallies, petitions and direct confrontation have dominated the practices through which civil society engaged with the state and struggled for justice. Prominent examples includes the Narmada Bachao Andolon, the Chipoko movement and, more recently, the movement for the right to information.
Although civil society has come to occupy a powerful force in Indian polity, its impact has been somewhat limited. This is partly because civil society organisations have deliberately maintained a critical distance from mainstream political process. As a result, civil society has not been able to effectively leverage its mass base to influence public policy.
According to the ‘State of the India’s human rights –– Amnesty Report 2006’, perpetrators of human rights violations continued to enjoy impunity, particularly in Gujarat, which witnessed widespread violence in early 2002. There were reports of human rights violations in the context of unrest in several states, including Jammu and Kashmir and some north-eastern states. Socially and economically marginalised groups, including women, dalits and adivasis (tribal people), continued to face systemic discrimination and serious doubts remained about whether moves to enact new laws could achieve the intended aim of protecting their rights.
However, the role of human rights organisations of India has been selective and the trend has been not to embarrass the establishment. They have raised their voices in particular areas of their concern.
Pakistan: Pakistan is facing its greatest challenge in history. There is a lethal combination of crises (political, social, economic, institutional, and governance) and threats (both internal, from extremist groups, and external, from across the border), which can take a heavy toll on any country. Pakistan’s economy has never been worse, especially in the aftermath of September 11. Politically, the vicious cycle continues. Elections bring in a leadership that lacks competence, does not consider itself accountable, and aims at absolute control, scuttling diversity and dissent. Military coups bring in self-proclaimed ‘saviours’ who try to stay in power for as long as possible, and introduce their own special brand of democracy. Most of the country’s institutions have degenerated over time. With money and attention pouring in once again, in return for joining the coalition against ‘terrorism,’ Pakistan has got a real opportunity. The current government is running a major clean-up of extremist groups, reintroducing tolerance as a value in society, and pursuing peace and stability as a national goal. A further positive step is the tentative agreement between a significant portion of civil society and the current leaders on the direction Pakistan would take.
Civil society in Pakistan can be seen in terms of three broad groups: NGOs and CBOs (including welfare, service delivery, human rights, advocacy, social, and membership groups); professional and other membership associations (such as labour and trade unions, the press/media); and academic and research institutions. Political parties and religious groups are in a category of their own. Over the past few decades, a significant number of civil society organisations, have moved from a welfare/charity mode to a developmental role that combines facilitation, representation, mediation, and advocacy. Political parties and educational institutions have taken on an increasingly religious colour, as ‘democratically elected’ and ‘self-appointed’ leaders both indulged in using religion as a political weapon, and as a tool to retain the shaky alliances critical for them to hang on to power.
Pockets of concerned citizens and alliances of civil society groups emerged to create access and opportunity for the poorer and more vulnerable sections of the population. The media, selected civil society groups, academics, development activists, and some enlightened members of political entities have been working together to create a more tolerant society with space for debate and dialogue. Examples of success abound, as do stories of repression. Several development and human rights organisations, NGOs and CBOs have assisted the poor and the excluded to improve participation in shaping their own future. The recent Peace Movement, demanding de-escalation on India-Pakistan borders, was initiated by a coalition of citizens and civil society organisations. The results of the latest local elections (where for the first time in the country’s history over 80 per cent of the seats reserved for women were filled) reflect a positive trend in citizen participation and the role that civil society organisations play in Pakistan.
According to Amnesty Report 2006, dozens of people were arbitrarily arrested and detained in the context of the ‘war on terror’. Several of them ‘disappeared’ and some were handed over to US custody. ‘Disappearances’ were also reported from Balochistan province. Blasphemy laws continued to be used to persecute members of religious minorities. The state took no action to prevent ‘honour’ crimes or to punish perpetrators. The Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, which provides protection for children within the justice system, was temporarily reinstated. At least 241 people were sentenced to death and 31 were executed. Role of the Pakistani human rights organisations was in favour of the elites and they being part of the prevalent feudal society are in constant struggle to go beyond the influence of the system.
Bangladesh:The NGO sector in Bangladesh is perhaps the biggest in the world. They were permitted to come into being during the years of military governments on the understanding that they were to devote themselves to humanitarian relief and rural development. By 1990, Bangladeshi NGOs had established themselves as some of the most innovative and dynamic in Asia. They boast a highly charismatic leadership and generous donor support. During the years of military rule, they developed highly sophisticated social service programmes like micro-finance, family planning, reproductive health, child survival and non-formal education. Ironically, during the late 1980s, when the moment of the political transition came with growing political movement to bring down military ruler, NGOs were ambivalent as to whether they should risk the space they had so carefully created and join the opposition forces or lay low and see which side came out top. Ultimately, they joined the opposition in a supportive rather than leadership role in the 1990 transition. By mid-1990s, major political parties locked in a struggle for power and crippled the country with succession of general strike and lost public confidence. While private sector business community were losing ground due to increasing global competition and internal political bickering, NGO sector has undergone a spectacular period of growth and development. Unlike other sectors of civil society that were mired in settling old scores, NGOs positioned themselves in national debate in a variety of strategic ways that have made it a leader in sustaining the process of public support and interest in building a sustainable democratic system. A succession of national and local elections began to reshape country’s political landscape forcing the NGO to rethink about their role and capacity to serve the poor without political interference. International donors were frustrated at the impasse between major political parties and tended to rely on engagement with civil society through NGOs for development aid. As a result, traditional service providers and social promotion organisations began to turn their attention to diversify their organisational skills to project on consolidating democratic process. It was aimed also at preserving their own political space and building mechanisms of accountability and transparency to serve the wider society.
Thus NGOs and other civil society organisations started civic education and election monitoring using their already existing countrywide beneficiary coverage. Several NGOs and some newspapers (as forum of people’s opinion) started conducting public opinion polling on a range of social, political and economic issues. Other NGOs developed and started training for elected parliamentarians and local government functionaries, keeping transparency and accountability in focus. Some civil society think-tanks started to analyse annual government budget and review macro-economic policies, development and social issues and other policy research portfolio. At the same time, large national NGOs came up with advocacy programmes based on their experience of working at the grassroots with mass people. They started organising and mobilising people at the grassroots to monitor and report performance of various government service providing apparatus and development projects. Human rights organisations and media started to work as watchdog over violations of civil and political rights and develop parallel monitoring and reporting system. Public interest litigations followed to protect human rights of victim groups through seeking intervention from the court of law. Thus civil society organisations, including NGOs, in Bangladesh have been playing an important role in creating a vibrant democratic polity despite many odds of antagonistic and hostile relations among major political parties.
In human rights front, movements are dominated by a handful of civil society organisations led by social elites. Therefore, it is more urban in nature. Policy formulation is not usually done at the grassroots level. As a result, except a few exceptions, mostly a top-down approach is taken on human rights issues.
Burma:When Burma was under democratic government from 1948 to 1962, a vibrant civil society existed in urban areas although paramilitary organisations existed and local politicians tended to repress dissenting views and independent organisations in rural areas. Since General Ne Win’s military coup in 1962, however, successive regimes have sought to stamp out civil society and permit only state-controlled organisations that further the regime’s interests. Civil society re-emerged during the nation-wide pro-democracy demonstrations in 1988, with an explosion of student organisations, political parties, and independent media. After the military retook control in September of that year, however, it clamped down on most independent organisations, although it allowed political parties to form. Following the 1990 election, the results of which it did not honour, the regime declared most political parties illegal. Nevertheless, the National League for Democracy (NLD), under the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi, and some ethnic minority political parties have struggled to restore democracy. The military regime continues to restrain civil society in Burma severely. Because the generals rule by decree and judges are under the influence of the authorities, legal challenges are virtually impossible. Some students, monks and writers have taken great personal risks to promote the restoration of democracy, but they have not been able to galvanise a mass movement since 1988. International NGOs and some local organisations have worked to start small-scale projects addressing local problems, but they must stay clear of politics. Many educated people have left the country rather than live under such constraints.
Recommendations
People’s participation in political process is an important aspect of democracy. NGOs can do this by educating people about their rights and obligations as citizens, and encouraging them to listen to election campaigns and to vote in elections. NGOs can also help develop citizens’ skills to work with one another to solve common problems, to debate public issues, and express their views.
Civil society can help to develop programmes for democratic civic education in the educational institutions as well. They can conduct research on reforms needed to revise the curricula, rewrite the textbooks, and retrain teachers in order to educate young people about the principles and values of democracy. This should not be left only to officials in the education ministry.
Civil society organisations can also help to develop the other values of democratic life: tolerance, moderation, compromise, and respect for opposing points of view. Without this deeper culture of accommodation, democracy cannot be stable. These values cannot simply be taught; they must also be experienced through practice.
Civil society can provide a training platform for future political leaders. NGOs and other groups can help to identify and train new types of leaders who have dealt with important public issues and can be recruited to run for political office at all levels and to serve in provincial and national cabinets. Experience from other countries shows that civil society is particularly an important arena from which to recruit and train future women leaders.
Civil society organisations can play an important role in mediating and helping to resolve conflict. In many countries, NGOs have developed formal programmes and training of trainers to relieve political and ethnic conflict and teach groups to solve their disputes through discussion and accommodation.
Besides, another way civil society can strengthen democracy is to provide new forms of interest and solidarity that cut across old forms of tribal, linguistic, religious, and other identity ties. Democracy cannot be stable if people only associate with others of the same religion or identity. When people of different religions and ethnic identities come together on the basis of their common interests as women, artists, doctors, students, workers, farmers, lawyers, human rights activists, environmentalists, and so on, civic life becomes richer, more diversified and more tolerant.
Counterparting, which focuses on integrating local NGOs more fully into the international donor and development programmes by having them supported and mentored, but not supplanted, by international NGOs, may have impact in strengthening democracy in Asian countries.
Building capacity and bridges between civil society organisations on opposing sides of a conflict (India-Pakistan) and the diaspora can be a good tool for strengthening democratic process in Asian countries.
Conclusion
That civil society is independent of the state doesn’t mean that it must always criticise and oppose the state. In fact, by making the state at all levels more accountable, responsive, inclusive, effective — and hence more legitimate — a vigorous civil society strengthens citizens’ respect for the state and promotes their positive engagement with it.
Adilur Rahman Khan is the secretary of Odhikar, a human rights organisation in Bangladesh; and Jesmul Hasan is the technical adviser of Odhikar.
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
