BEYOND LOBBYING: How Citizens’ Groups Should be Challenging Poverty and Inequality By Steven Friedman Who holds the power to decide social and economic policy in South Africa? And how can citizens’ organisations which challenge poverty and inequality influence power-holders to win change towards a fairer and more equal economy? A ‘common sense’ approach to these questions insists that it is the government which holds power and that the way for citizens’ groups to ensure change is to persuade governing officials and politicians to adopt the policies they favour. Lest this view seem hopelessly naïve it is, in essence, the approach of much of South African civil society over the past two decades. Because a movement which led the fight against apartheid has been in office, it was assumed that government and civil society organisations which fight poverty shared the same concerns and goals. When it became clear that this could not be automatically assumed – and that the government often ignored the voices of these organisations – the response was to denounce government for not being on the ‘right’ side. The ‘common sense’ approach’s key flaw is that it ignores the importance of power. Policy is influenced by the strength of arguments only in very specific circumstances – where those who make the decisions share common goals with those making the proposals but may not be sure how to implement those goals. The role of citizens’ groups is then not to persuade decision-makers what they should do but to advise them on how to do it. The decision to follow a particular policy path is in most cases, a battle between competing interests, and the outcome usually depends on the power balance between them. In the South African context, even if we were to see a governing party such as the ANC as a united organization striving for clear and agreed goals, its decisions in government would always be constrained by the social forces with which it must contend as it seeks to govern. Reality is further complicated by the fact that the ANC is not united in its chosen direction (few governing parties are). It is a ‘national liberation movement’ and so has a mix of interests united behind the broad goal of national freedom. Who Holds Power? Assuming that government is simply an instrument of particular groups in society can cause equal confusion. In this view, government is simply an instrument of economic interests, who are the real power holders. It merely does their bidding. But reality is more complicated. Government has real formal power, private interests have real informal power and policy is always a result of how the two interact. Formal Power Formal power, of course, lies in the hands of government and the governing party. This is not simply a legal nicety: control over the levers of government does offer real power to change social reality. The power of the governing party is limited by the courts. Courts have played a limited but significant role in extending social and economic rights and this has had some impact on government policy and practice. They have to tread carefully if they want to steer the government onto a new path and their influence rests largely on the reality that most constitutional court judges tend to see the world in much the same way as governing party politicians. Government structures staffed by employed officials also wield power which may become decisive in some cases. Civil servants are not simply powerless implementers of the decisions of elected politicians. Public servants’ access to information and the fact that they stay in office while politicians come and go gives them considerable power. An accurate understanding of governing party power must take into account who wields power within the ANC; this depends on a complex interplay between factions and interest groups. Professional and business groups connected to the ANC are generally able to wield more power than other interests but the power of organisation gives the trade union movement influence too. It is important to acknowledge that there is real power within the government system. But it is equally important to know the limits of this power. Informal Realities In any market system governments do not enjoy anything like unlimited power: they must take into account the reality that social actors also wield power. Governments which want to impose their stamp on society always need to take into account the power of key groups in society. The most obvious power holders are those who wield economic power. Business owners are not powerful enough to tell governments what to do but governments do need businesses to create wealth and this does give them power. This reality is complicated by the fact that direct links between politicians and particular businesses are common. The ANC also has to take the power of wealthy people seriously – residents, ratepayers and professional associations which represent those whose resources are needed by the government are likely to enjoy access to it which other organisations do not enjoy. The ANC in government must also contend with the cultural and social power of private groups. The privately owned media, academic institutions and many organized citizens’ groups are controlled by interests who wield power. While no democracy can survive unless private citizens wield power, South Africa’s history means that this private power is usually wielded on behalf of those who were privileged by minority rule or, more generally, by a middle class which sees its interests as those of the entire society. This private power is often an obstacle to attempts to address poverty and inequality. A more complex issue is the power over policy making wielded by international institutions and agencies. South Africa, like all market economies, is open to economic pressures and influences by countries from which it seeks trade and investment: while states and international companies do not enjoy a veto over policy, they are among the influences which the government must take seriously. This works both as a constraint and an opportunity for social justice campaigners: while it limits possibilities for radical policy change, international influence does play some role in influencing the government towards pro-poor policy where this conforms with donor understandings. In these cases, the power is often wielded in complicated ways. The issue is less that donors tell the government what to do than that government and donors reinforce each other’s view of the world. South African attempts to address poverty over the past two decades have often misread the needs and concerns of the poor and this owes at least something to international development fashion to which both donors and local actors adhere. But, where the goals of social justice campaigners are consistent with donor thinking, this is likely to be an important strategic lever. While the influences discussed thus far often constrain action against poverty and inequality, there is one source of power which can be harnessed to press for change – that of organised citizens. If citizens are able to organise, they are also able to influence decisions: suburban residents gain their influence from their ability to organise. Evidence from other societies shows that, where poor and working people are organised, they are able to achieve favourable policy. In current circumstances, organised influence is exerted by ‘civil society’: organised citizens’ groups do have a significant influence on policy. Those who are concerned about poverty and inequality have less influence than others. But this is not a consequence of civil society’s weakness – it is a result of the fact that this section of civil society remains shallow in the sense that it has failed to organise a strong constituency among poor people at the grassroots. Those civil society organisations which speak for the middle class and the wealthy do not need numbers – their influence stems from their economic and social power. Organisations representing the poor need much greater numbers than they have achieved thus far. A Way Forward?: Some Strategic Implications Organisation is power and so groups outside government are able to exercise power partly because they are organised: the key reason why poverty and inequality are not taken more seriously is that the poor often lack the power which organisation brings. Although numbers are needed to change power balances, this does not mean that only numbers matter. Even a large, well organised, movement cannot simply impose its will: it will need to engage with all the power holders discussed here. What does seem clear is that engagement in party politics is premature unless a strong social movement has been built. This does not mean that, in the interim, campaigners should ignore party activity. Political party competition can assist activism and that activists should take engagement with parties seriously. The purpose of this piece has been to begin the conversation by pointing to the power realities which limit some opportunities for change while creating openings for others. Acknowledging these realities will hopefully open the way for strategic discussions on routes to social change which are firmly grounded in an understanding of the society’s power dynamics.
Posted on: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:31:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015