Do you think NGOs can play an emancipatory role in contemporary Africa? If so, how? If not, why not? Manji: It is perhaps no surprise that the rise in the popularity of terms such as ‘NGOs’ and ‘civil society’ coincided with the rise of neoliberalism as the dominant ideology. Both terms obfuscate the nature of the institutions involved. Neither of these terms allows us to differentiate between those organizations and formations with respect to their potential role in the emancipatory project. So how do we differentiate between the different forms of organizations? Looking back at the past, I would argue that there has always been a contestation between those who struggle for two different kinds of freedoms. The first is emancipatory freedoms. These are freedoms that imply the collective power of peoples to determine their own destiny. Emancipatory freedoms are an expression of an historical aspiration, one that continues to exist and transcends the constraints that might have been wrung in any given historical period. Emancipatory freedom implies an assertion of dignity, self-worth, a commitment to a project that transcends frequently even the threat or possibility of death.[iii] The other type of freedoms are what I would call, licensed freedoms. Cattle in a field have the freedom to roam around the field to their hearts’ content, but the fence around the field delimits their freedom. There is no question of breaching the fence or of questioning the power of the farmer to decide on the limits of the freedom granted within that field. In society, this implies freedoms that are granted and delimited by those in power, albeit that such freedoms might be a product of concessions, negotiations or even noblesse oblige. But the right of those who set the limits are not fundamentally challenged. Crudely put, emancipatory freedoms are taken, while licensed freedoms are given. The two forms of freedom are of course not entirely separate: the struggle for emancipation and self-determination can and often does lead to negotiations of concessions from the ruling class as a result of popular struggles, with new parameters set for the exercise subsequently of a constrained, delimited freedom. Licensed freedom is, by its nature, one that is not only delimited, its parameters set by constraints imposed by others than those who seek their own freedom, but also does not seek to challenge the right of those who set the limits. In contrast, emancipatory freedoms seek always to push the boundaries and to challenge the authority of those who delimit freedoms. The movements and organizations that emerged in post-second world war period included those who sought to fight for emancipatory freedoms and those who fought for licensed freedoms. And there were also those that were against any form of freedoms being granted at all! With the growth of NGOs in Africa during the era of neoliberalism, we see a similar differentiation amongst civil society organizations. There are of course those who are shamelessly in favor of continued expansion of neoliberal hegemony, who argue that only through privatization will there be ‘freedom and democracy’, but fail to point out that such freedoms are for only the rich. The development NGOs about whom I have been critical are, in my view, largely concerned with licensed freedoms. There is little attempt to contest the right of those in power to set the rules or the extent of freedoms. I would argue that many human rights organizations work on the basis of the same paradigm. They may be vociferous in their critique of human rights violations and of legislations that potentially threaten human rights, but they do not contest the right of the rulers to rule. And by virtue of their judging everything according to some universal standard, they take no account of the historical origins or political nature that gave rise to the situation. In that sense, they play a similar depoliticizing role that development NGOs have been guilty of. At the same time, the fact that they do put pressure on the state and the judiciary can contribute to politicizing those who are engaged in struggles. But the human rights organizations are not themselves political. But not all NGOs are of the same ilk. There are some that understand that their role is fundamentally political. It is about pushing the boundaries of delimited freedoms and eventually to break them. They recognize the need challenge the legitimacy of the ruling classes to rule. And they recognize that the current situation of the disenfranchised, exploited and oppressed has historical origins, and that the future cannot be created without an understanding of that history. However, there are deeper problems amongst this latter group. There are some amongst them who see themselves as the ‘vanguard of the revolution’ and thus the holders of the ‘truth’. There is a tendency amongst such organizations to instrumentalise the struggles of the disenfranchised, exploited and oppressed for their own ends rather than enabling those engaged in struggles to speak for themselves or advance their own struggles. Like their development counterparts, there is frequently an assumption that the masses are ignorant and need educating. The possibility that they could actually learn from the experiences of the wretched of the earth is rarely acknowledged. Inevitably this results in conflicts between such organizations and those engaged in struggles, as we have seen over the years around the shackdwellers movements in South Africa. I think that NGOs can potentially contribute to the emancipatory project, but cannot themselves be the motor force of emancipation unless they are themselves membership organizations of the oppressed – such as trade unions, peasant organizations, landless farmers, shackdwellers. Most NGOs are private organizations – their boards are not elected by members, and they are for the most part not membership organizations. They are often accountable only to their boards and donors rather than to the constituencies that they purport to represent. They often consist of the well-educated and privileged strata of society. Nevertheless, they can chose to provide support to mass movements and to those engaged in emancipatory struggles through the services they provide. Their primary role should be to challenge the powers of those who benefit from exploitation and oppression – be they corporations, financial institutions, the state, or the elite. They cannot fight the struggles for the oppressed. What they can bring through their intellectual work is a greater understanding of the long arc of history, that every concession is but one step towards breaking the barriers of delimited freedoms. But such organizations are presently few on the continent. Nevertheless, I remain optimistic that this will change in the coming period. Firoze Manji
Posted on: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 02:28:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015