Argument: Civil society is good for economic development

There is increasing evidence that a more active and involved Civil Society is good for economic development [1] . Specifically, CSOs are believed to have a crucial role for African development prospects. The Local Economic Development Network of Africa argues that ‘In particular, they often know what are the employment and income generation needs of different groups within the population and what could stimulate better outcomes for them. It is very important, therefore, that they are involved and consulted’ ( LEDNA, 2013). In addition CSOs autonomously implement development programmes. Only to give an example, in Nepal CSOs in the Education for Income Generation program have played a crucial role in building up workers skills resulting in 80% being in employment many striking out entrepreneurially on their own5. It is therefore necessary for African governments to guarantee such organizations and grant them a wider participation.

[1] Panth, Sabina, (25 February 2011) ‘What Role Does Civil Society Play in Economic Development?’, blogs.worldbank.org

Candidate 1: "There is no consensus on the assumption that CSOs may function as alternative channels of accountability. This, in fact, would require CSOs to be democratically accountable themselves. Yet, this is not the case. There is no form of direct accountability between Civil Society Organizations and the communities they claim to represent. In other words, no one ‘elects Oxfam’ [1] . Moreover, CSOs are not even representative of the people they are supposed to give voice to. In fact, wealthy and highly educated men are overrepresented in CSOs [2] . It is therefore hard to understand how civil society can guarantee or increase democratic accountability in African countries.

[1] The Economist, 23rd September 2000, p. 129

[2] Talberg and Uhlin (2011) ‘Civil society and global democracy. An assessment’, in Archibugi, Koenig Archibugi and Marchetti, Global Democracy: Normative and Empirical Perspectives, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press"
Candidate 2: "The idea that CSO’s involvement in political life equals good governance is essentially an oversimplification. In extremely corrupt semi-democracies, there is no guarantee that societal actors will not be co-opted within the system and become corrupted themselves [1] . This would result in a legitimation of the non-democratic powers in the public eye, rather than a promotion of better practices and good governance. We could say that a wider role for civil society is desirable only for those countries that are well ahead in the path of democratisation. The risk is, otherwise, to trigger a counterproductive reaction.

[1] Mogalakwe and Sebudubudu (2006) ‘Trends in state-civil society relations in Botswana’, Journal of African Elections, 5:2, pp. 207-224"
Candidate 3: "We may agree that an active civil society may be good for the economy. However, there is no need for African governments to ensure CSOs have a wider participation in the political life of the country to do this. As long as the government respects and protects the existence of such organizations, their positive economic by-products are preserved. Societal actors can work autonomously and independently of the political system."

We may agree that an active civil society may be good for the economy. However, there is no need for African governments to ensure CSOs have a wider participation in the political life of the country to do this. As long as the government respects and protects the existence of such organizations, their positive economic by-products are preserved. Societal actors can work autonomously and independently of the political system.
