![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
Abstract
This article examines the widespread notion that post‐apartheid democracy can be deepened and civil society strengthened by NGO activities in the sphere of public debate and participation. I focus on a number of interrelated processes which I argue may compromise NGOs' ability to expand the public sphere: first, donors' overwhelming focus on NGOs as the sole representative of civil society may contribute to a homogenous and institutionalised public sphere; second, the tendency for NGOs to be drawn into partnerships with government bodies and corporate sponsors casts doubt on their ability to open up spaces for critical public debate. By directing attention to popular movements as potentially offering a site for the production of critique, NGOs' relationships to such movements are examined. It is argued that attention must be paid to the processes of NGO‐isation and reformism by which NGOs themselves come to define what civil society should be and may consequently contain counterpublic spheres.
Acknowledgements
The empirical data that this article draws on were produced from January to August 2007. I would like to thank the University of the Witwatersrand's Institute for Social and Economic Research (WISER), where I was based as a visiting researcher during this time. Many thanks in particular to the NGO professionals who kindly agreed to be interviewed for this research. My fieldwork was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) as part of a 1+3 studentship award.
Notes
1. This article draws on data gathered from interviews with directors or senior staff of NGOs. Consent was given by all participants to be named and for their institutional affiliation to be given. Clearly, though, these do not necessarily represent the often divided opinions within their organisations on key questions of location and identity.
2. There is considerable discussion about what is included and excluded in civil society, and particularly whether the economy should be included in the definition of civil society. See Edwards G. (Citation2004) and Elliott (Citation2003) for overviews of the debate.
3. See, for example, the Mott Foundation, Ford Foundation and the UK Department for International Development (DfID), as well as a number of Northern NGOs that act as grant makers in South Africa.
4. There are also academic institutions whose public lectures and research programmes seek to foster debate and bridge the gap between communities and academia but which do not fit the description of NGO as I employ it here. Many of the case NGOs are also involved in capacity‐building initiatives with local or community‐based organisations as a way of extending civil society and strengthening democracy.
5. As I indicated in the introduction, the NGOs sampled for this research are what I have chosen to call intermediary organisations, rather than straightforward service‐delivery NGOs providing welfare to the population.
6. The term Post‐Washington Consensus describes the shift in economic thinking and development policy, in the last decade, towards recognising the centrality of institutions and social factors in the efficient functioning of markets.
7. Interview with R. Calland, Director, Governance Programme, IDASA, 23 April 2007.
8. Interview with A. Motala, Executive Director, CSVR, 4 May 2007.
9. Interview with T. Bailey, National Coordinator, Harold Wolpe Memorial Trust, 25 April 2007.
10. See, for example, the edited volume by Ballard et al. (Citation2006), which contains chapters on the Landless People's Movement, the Concerned Citizens Forum, the TAC, the Anti‐Privatisation Forum and other movements.
11. For reasons of space, it is not possible to discuss the critiques of Habermas's original account, such as his exclusion of women and workers. Rather, this section is concerned with reconceptualisations of his account as they may apply to the politics of civil‐society sponsoring in South Africa.
12. While it is not implied that every protest action is indicative of public debate or the existence of emancipatory public spaces, social movements continue to formulate alternative policies and approaches to development, democracy, the state, etc.
13. There are other donor‐funded organisations that are aligned with or supportive of social movements, such as the University of KwaZulu Natal's Centre for Civil Society, SAHA, International Labour Research and Information Group or the Alternative Information Development Centre. Some of these reject the characterisation as an NGO, others are academic research centres and therefore not included in this analysis. Conversely, some international NGOs also support relatively more formalised movements such as the Anti‐Privatisation Forum (APF) or the TAC. This article is not concerned with NGO‐social movement relations, although a shift in terms of how such organisations conceive of popular movements has taken place in recent years (personal conversation with D. McKinley, Anti‐Privatisation Forum, 11 July 2007).
14. Following the mobilisations around the World Conference against Racism and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2001 and 2002, respectively, the government started to ban gatherings and repress movements – sparking new struggles and increasing support for existing movements. These events represented the first very public rejection of the ANC and its economic policies and also signified collective national action of previously highly localised community struggles (Desai Citation2002). They are noteworthy also because they marked a defining point in terms of repositioning the relationships between some of the movements and NGOs, with a small set of progressive NGOs and donors now beginning to support these movements (interview with J. Duncan, 30 March 2007).
15. Interview with J. Duncan, Director, FXI, 30 March 2007.
16. Interview with anonymous NGO director, 25 June 2007.
17. Interview with M. Oyedan, Director, Agenda, 27 June 2007
18. Interview with J. Duncan, 30 March 2007.
19. Interview with W. Bird, Director, Media Monitoring Africa, 13 June 2007.
20. Interview with anonymous NGO director, 25 June 2007.
21. However, it is important to note that rather than seeking funding or collaborations with NGOs, those movements that come from an autonomist tradition would reject funding from NGOs or other donors or NGOs outright.
22. Interview with L. Gentle, Director, ILRIG, 24 April 2007.
23. An analysis of social movements' understanding of NGOs would clearly yield quite different results which go beyond the scope of this article. Far from seeking relationships with NGOs, some movements come from a strong autonomist tradition and would reject funding from donors or NGOs outright (such as the Western Cape Eviction Campaign). Other movements, such as the APF, receive some funding from NGOs, work with them on a number of clearly specified projects, but similarly do not see a natural connection or political alliance with them – their relationship is at best a ‘tactical temporary alliance’ (personal conversation with D. McKinley, 11 July 2007). Many contemporary movements in South Africa have theorised their ideas of development and democracy in opposition to NGOs (including left NGOs). Richard Pithouse, for instance, writes about Abahlali that it has been driven by a commitment to intellectual autonomy from its beginnings, further noting that ‘[r]ival state and NGO vanguards have responded to the emergence of a politics of the poor with strikingly similar paranoia and authoritarianism’ (Citation2008, p. 86; also see Gibson Citation2008). Conversely, some NGO leaders are acutely aware of the danger of institutionalising the struggles of emerging movements or of speaking for them.
