Building a society of citizens-
One of the major concepts that run through all the readings related to building a society of citizens is the concept of civil society and how it can build itself into a forum for public discourse. It is a very important concept as it is the basis for building “a public” or series of “publics” for citizens’ participation in governance.

Civil society has been defined as that section of society that is not in government and not in the private- for-profit sector. It is a fluid section of society as members of the two other sectors fine themselves into it at different times in different capacities. David Mathews in his paper “…after thoughts” explains civil as the arena where we wrestle with questions of what should be and how we ought to act which also includes moral sensibilities, norms , mind-sets and other intangibles. I see this explanation as all embracing and very important for the understanding of building an “engaged” citizenry.

The concept of civil society, the proper understanding it and its role in making governments as well as ensuring that governments and other public agencies entrusted with the responsibility of leading the implementation of citizens’ decisions work is crucial for democratic deliberation.

In small and traditional communities in Ghana people live communal life and are easily mobilized to deliberate on simple but important political, social and economics issues that affect their lives and immediately take action to solve them. The more urbanized communities that have been heavily influenced by modernity and globalization have developed more complex systems and coping strategies that are gradually given way to more individualistic and self-centred life styles. These do not easily lend themselves to mobilizing and forming publics for public discourse.

A blurred understanding of the concept of civil society and its role in my view, constitutes a challenge to building a democratic civil society. Reading through many materials on the topic, I have a feeling that this is not the case of less democratic states like Ghana alone. Many people equate civil society to civil society organizations. The citizens rely on NGOs as the mouth piece of communities. Some are doing what the government should be doing thereby making the people mere consumers of public goods with little or no contribution to decision making processes. The people do not see the need for a public to deliberate on matters that affect their lives. Or where people feel the need for deliberation they are not given the chance with the excuse that experts and professionals are there to always fix the problems for them. Deliberation in some communities in Ghana for example is therefore limited to family, clan or small village discussions about close and intimate issues.

Civil society and civic actions is not new in Ghana. At the national level, pre independence era nationalism and patriotism led to mass movements that fought against colonialism. The tempo dropped drastically thereafter partly because since independence, attempts to redefine the state, governance and citizen participation has taken the form of single and multi-party elected regimes truncated by military interventions and dictatorship that has not provided the solution to the prevailing problems. Among the problems are corruption, poor quality of leadership, and the hegemonic and proprietary claims and ambitions of some of the government leaders. Currently Ghana has a multiparty democracy with an elected government. A new wave of formalized, well organized and sustained form of civic discourse is being encouraged to strengthen democracy. Traditional rulers’ normally referred to as the “invincible hands” in Ghana’s rural local government, have their sphere of influence limited by the 1992 republican constitution because of the ethnic diversity of the county with a multiplicity of traditional enclaves and leadership systems. Another reason is to keep the purity of the chieftaincy institution by debarring it from the “messy” and “dirty” politics of today. Nevertheless, their influence serves as a bonding element in many communities that can be relied on at least to kick-start the building of social capital for public good. What is needed to synthesize this potential of the old system of traditional governance with modern democratic practices is visionary and quality leadership.

Closely related to the concept of building democratic civil society are the twin concepts of relationship building and social capital mobilization. In Enersto’s “Reweaving the Social Fabric“, and Daivid Mathew’s “…afterthoughts,” “citizens political process” and “publics” and the issue of relationship building are emphasized as very important ingredients for democratic civil society and effectiveness of public sector institutions. I share these views because relationship building is the bedrock of citizens’ civic actions. It strives well where social networks are effective and other cultural intangibles such as norms, mind-sets, moral sensibilities and interest are well catered for to create a well balance society.

The similarities between American and Ghanaian perception of the role of civil society and their relationship with government is interesting and intriguing. Citizens of both countries are dissatisfied with government output. They believe govern have fallen short of citizens’ expectation. The national context, history and age/maturity in terms of practicing democracy are the things which separate the two. Whiles in America deliberation and civil action is rooted in a long history of citizens active participation in governance through town hall meetings and other forums, Ghana is trying to develop a democratic culture from a once multi-states and multi-tribes with varied traditions of leadership systems from some how autocratic leaders brought together as one nation state only 5 decades ago. Relicts of these diverse governance systems which manifest themselves in rich cultural display at festivals and embodied in Kings, chiefs and queens are still very influential in Ghanaian society and are continuously asking for their share of ruler ship in the new found republic of Ghana. This duality at times confuses some Ghanaians. They have to role-play as subjects at one time and act as citizens at another moment in dealing with Chiefs and elected representatives and government officials.

Both advance democracies such as America and developing nations like Ghana are always seeking ways of getting “a public” to take center stage in the governance of their countries. Democratic self-government is business in progress. The American advantage is that the public is there, quite active and have a history to refer to and willing to take back their role in decision making processes. Ghana on the other hand is seeking to demystify the perception that “experts, professionals and politicians “know it all, therefore let them do it all for us” to encouraging social capital building to form the critical mass needed to deliberate and act in the interest of the public. The uphill task for Ghana is the multi-ethnic and varied traditions and customs worsen by political polarization that needs to be managed and synthesized for national cohesion. Ghana risks becoming a two party state if the weaker political parties do get their axes together and make positive impact on electorates. The surest way out is to stop the two main dominant parties-the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the national Democratic Congress (NDC) from easily changing the buttons of government leadership. It deepens the polarization along party lines.

The public’s view and concern about how public institutions and public interest groups relate to citizens and citizens limited opportunities to influence what these institutions and groups do in the name of serving the public is a fundamentals challenge that has generated mistrust for public institutions and public office holders. The relationship-building concept becomes even more necessary under such circumstances for Ghana and developed nations alike.

Working for a NGO, I m touched by the findings of Kettering foundations study that NGOs are changing their mission, becoming inward looking and focusing on demonstrating the benefits of their particular programs. These changes deprive communities of allies and efforts to build a democratic public. This is one of the concerns of the public in Ghana who think that some of these NGOs are simply a source of livelihood for their members who are not really interested in helping to build the capacity of citizens to participate in decision making processes but to continue to be in business as usual by claiming to represent the interest of the poor forever.
As learning experience it will be good to interrogate the Colombian example on deliberative forums take to scale at various levels further to gain insight into the following:
a. How did they get the government committed to their course of preparing citizens to deliberate?
b. How were the conflicts and differences (if any) generated by the multiple deliberative sessions dealt with?
c. What measures were put in place to ensure institutionalization of the process and its sustenance even without the NGOs intervention and support?

In conclusion, it is fair to say these readings raise very pertinent issues about preparing the public to deliberate. The examples from America and others from developing democracies give a balance perspective of the leanings that we need to move forward with deliberation. I find the Colombian example useful because they are akin to the context in Ghana. As demonstrated by the Colombia and Equador examples deliberating in a difficult context needs commitment of government and other stakeholders.

Some Food for thought

Is the challenge of creating civic societies using public institutions and organized civil society groups such as NGOs real? How accommodating are public institutions to “the ideas of the civil” in their operations in our countries?

Topics, comments, links, and other materials posted here must be related to either the ICSC network or to public issue deliberation in some way. No unrelated, abusive, marketing, or anonymous (name and e-mail address is required) postings will be accepted. An overabundance of postings by one person may be limited. Please title each posting in a way that will give others a good idea of what the posting is about.

Partners for Democratic Change’s 20th Anniverary culminates in the “Innovations for Tomorrow” Conference co-sponsored by the Center for Transatlantic Relations at the Paul H. Nitze School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University (SAIS). The Conference caps a week long series of workshops highlighting innovations in good governance co-sponsored by Partners and a diverse group of institutions from Washington and leaders from the field.

Promoting a “conversation” with key policy and foundation leaders, the Conference focuses on three critical deficits which undermine international development: leadership; capacity building; and, sustainability of effort. What new policies, innovations, and opportunities are envisioned by the National Security Council, the Department of State, USAID, the World Bank and foundations that address these deficits which thwart mid- and long-term reform?

Each Presenter has a distinguished career in development and local reform. Those invited to the Conference are encouraged to engage in a conversation with the Presenters on the reforms and approaches set forth in their presentations.

Distinguished speakers will include:

Robert L. Corcoran, President, GE Foundation
Sanjay Pradhan, Vice President, World Bank Institute
Dr. Anne-Marie Slaughter, Director of Policy Planning, Department of State
Dr. Gayle Smith, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for International Development, Democracy, and Stabilization, National Security Council
Dr. Jessica Einhorn, Dean; Foreign Policy Institute Chair, SAIS
Dr. Daniel Hamilton, Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations; Executive Director of the American Consortium on EU Studies, SAIS
Raymond Shonholtz, JD, President, Partners for Democratic Change
Additional presenters will be confirmed in the coming weeks and a full agenda for the day will be posted soon.

Registration details:

There is limited seating available for this conference so we are requesting that those who are interested in attending please fill out a short application. We will respond to your request within 48 hours. We regret we will be unable to accomodate all those interested in attending but we will be posting session materials and conference materials on our website after the event.

REGISTER for Innovations for Tomorrow here!

Learn more about the International Civil Society Fellowship.

Learn more about the Fanning Fellowship.

In December 2008, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching granted the University the classification of Curricular Engagement and Outreach/Partnering as a result of its unique Service-Learning Model. This is a unique Service Learning Initiative where all regular Senior students serve as expert consultants in their major field to community-based organizations for the development of solutions to identified problems in their organizations or communities. This is done through required capstone courses in the senior year.

more information about the event here.