The post-colonial history of Kenya was characterized by camaraderie between the Church and the civil society; the repressive regime of the Kenya African National Union (KANU), mostly under the president-ship of Moi (1978-2002) and the ruthless massacres that accompanied his hegemony acted as a catalyst in bringing them together. Hence, simultaneously with the civil society players, the Church in Kenya also vehemently disparaged the almost ‘autocratic’ one-party state throughout the 80’s and 90’s of the last century. In fact, the opportunity for the Church to engage in the process of democratization in Kenya increased in manifold not only because of its robust organizational resources but also due to the dwindling socio-economic scenario and the gradual weakening of the civil society actors in face of the terror unleashed by the oppressive state. However, throughout the last decade Kenya witnessed not only the decline of the anarchic KANU domination and Moisim in December 2002, but also ethnic violence in the post 2007 election period. At this juncture, the role of the civil society and the Church also experienced a metamorphosis. In fact, in 2010, the effort of the coalition government to set out a new constitution for Kenya was opposed by the Church. This demonstrated a major shift in the role of the Church as against its traditional stand in favor of the establishment of a non-violent state and constitution. The leadership split into ethnic constituencies leading to the Church corroding its legitimacy as a neutral arbiter and rational voice in society. Rather, the face of the team that was fighting against the constitution was the Church led by the figures of impunity willing to maintain status quo and resisting change that would bring liberation to the citizens of Kenya. They clearly displayed the elite-driven, urban-based, power-motivated “Glasshouse” civil society of Kenya operating from the above; simultaneously there also emerged a second line described as the “Grassroot” civil society consisting of the citizens and operating from the below through peri-urban/ rural areas. Apart from this sharp division, Kenyan civil society was also challenged by the emergence of career and money motivated players who entered the sector for being bought to secure their silence over certain issues. Today, with the Church in Kenya at crossroads, the voice of the Kenyan citizens including women groups, farmer groups, and people living or affected by HIV and AIDs, trade unions, cultural leaders is heard once again; the media is also emerging as a whistle blower and works closely in association with the civil society. Hence, a study on the Church at cross-roads is relevant and worth-researching.

PRIA and Wave Foundation organised a half a day workshop in Dhaka on 21 November 2011, taking advantage of the South Asia Social Forum that took place in Dhaka. 20 civil society organisations participated in the discussion. The following is the summary of the discussion. As a follow-up it was decided to organise a series of workshops both in Dhaka and in other locations of Bangladesh to take forward the debate and discourse on the emerging scenario of the civil society which could shape the collective action in Bangladesh.

• There is growing mistrust and discontent among the citizens on the failures of the political parties to represent people and their interest. The political class in Bangladesh has developed a patronising culture. Many party workers are also disillusioned with the political parties. In this context, civil society has been acting as the pressure groups – collecting and mobilising public opinion and channelling them to governance institutions.

• There is also mistrust, discontent and disappointment among the citizens on the failure of NGOs. Historically, NGOs have been playing important roles in development, however, their ability and willingness to safeguard and support the citizens’ interest is increasingly coming under scrutiny and interrogation.

• These situations has also alienated the youth in the society to get involved in the ‘social transformation’ discourses and action. How to influence the young minds?

• NGOs are adversely affecting the vitality and sustainability of civil society. Over the years, as NGOs have been implementing ‘projects’ through the creation of project based committees at the community level, they destroyed the traditional forms of civil society like youth groups, cultural associations, etc. There have been multiplicities of project based committees, as every project will create new committees.

• Although, after decades of ‘military’ regimes democratic governance have been in place in Bangladesh, however, some form of ‘Parliamentary Dictatorship’ has been established. The practice of deliberations, tolerance of dissents, and inclusivity of ideas are not welcomed. There are now more ‘ex-military’ personnel in the parliament and occupying important state authorities.

• The dominant face of NGOs is that of service delivery agents. The watch dog functions have been either abandoned or diminishing in worrying pace.

• The NGO community in Bangladesh is divided along the partisan line. There is also division among NGOs along the line of ‘right based’ versus ‘service delivery’. The networking and partnership is only limited to project delivery, if there is any inter-organisational collaboration at all. The value of solidarity is fading or already faded away. As a result, the bargaining and negotiating ability of the NGOs with government has decreased manifold.

• There was a feeling that the atmosphere among the NGO community is that of suffocating. Organisations individually are engaged in implementing projects and have very little time to protect the political space for the ‘sector’. However, there was also a realisation that it’s still possible to come together and do ‘something’ which will encourage to come out of ‘project and organisational silos’ and search for a broader perspective and protection of the ‘civic space’.

• ‘Civil society’ terminology assumed a strategic advantage over terminologies like ‘not-state’ or ‘non-governmental’. However, over the years, the discourses on civil society have undermined the discourses of ‘oppressed-oppressor’ and ‘poor-non-poor’ and other such dichotomies in the society. We are far from the desired and required balance between ‘civil society-market-state’ trinity. Using the concept of ‘civil society’ in a class ridden society is becoming an obstacle for mobilisation and organising the voice less.

• Along with this ‘development’ as ‘transformation al agenda’ has been taken over by the ‘liberal governance reforms’. Good governance, corporate social responsibility and such other concepts are providing legitimacy to the ‘neo-liberalism’ and directly or indirectly supporting the local elites. In such a situation, the ‘people’s organisations’ are taking a back seat. The existence of solidarity economy is being challenged by the global capitalism like never before.

• Civil society in the country has also adapted to ‘market syndrome’ – ‘branding’, ‘competition’, ‘use and throw’, ‘new products’ and so on. All these have adversely impacted on the values of civil society like sharing, information dissemination, networking, solidarity etc. Civil society is now being part of the marketization. There is enormous fear among the NGOs of losing resources and therefore their brand in this development ‘market’. On the other hand, civil society is less engaged with the market and less critical about the transparency and accountability of the latter.

• Capacity in civil society is also changing – from the capacity for activism, to service delivery to academic knowledge production to consulting and advising. Nevertheless, the ability to take risk is diminishing.

• The earlier ‘spiritual’ orientation of civil society is now being replaced by narrow and parochial ‘religious’ orientation.

• There was question whether it is possible to organise civil society and even if they are organised whether they will remain as civil society. This is particularly in the context of social movements. How far such social movement could be organised?

• The mainstream media is either not interested at all in civil society actions or generally more critical about the NGOs. Whatever media space is occupied by the civil society, it is divided between the ‘elite’ and ‘non-elite’ civil societies.

• There is still hope that civil society in Bangladesh could come together and make efforts to re-occupy the political space that have been lost over the years. There was also hope that people will be talking about alternative economic model. Civil society needs to guide and support this discourse. However, in order for this to happen, civil society needs to come out of the ‘state-market’ connivance in which civil society is also a part of it today.

Having attended the CSO at a Crossroads brainstorm meeting at CIVICUS, I offer some observations on the Occupy Wallstreet movement here in the US as an example of less-structured civic agency and activism. While I am not a member of Occupy Wallstreet and while I purposively don't tend to 'romanticize' people's/social movements, there are a couple of observations to make that might be useful in the context of the worthwhile CS at a Crossroads project. What strikes me about this example is the following: 1) the citizens involved first and foremost see it as creating a civic space, and as a way to overcome the "political apathy" by citizens of the past few decades. This refers to Michael Edwards' frame of civil society as the public sphere. Second, they wish to begin a conversation between politicians and citizens about the role of government in people's lives (where they take a different view than the US TeaParty movements), about the role of money and concurrent corruption in politics, about the lack of regulation of the financial industry, about not feeling represented by mainstream politics, and about what they consider unacceptable levels of inequality in the States. Third, unlike the TeaParty, the Occupy Wallstreet movement so far chooses not to engage with specific political candidates or politicians, or with lobbying for specific laws or policy initiatives. Fourth, the composition of the movement seems to have the beginnings of some cross-sectoral, cross-class and cross-generational elements, but whether those characteristics will strengthen or weaken to me is a big litmus test for future strength.
Happy to engage in future discussions about this important project!

The discussion which all of you have initiated is a key one in today’s fast changing context where the role of civil society at least in India is being questioned and diminishing. As I am traveling, very shortly I shall be going through the questions in detail and responding to you and I will be happy to participate in this process.

This looks very interesting. It is a bit tangential to most of our work, but I think will have relevance to the climate dialogue work that we are developing. I’d like to be involved in some way if that is possible. I’m not sure how much I’ll be able to contribute as my work isn’t focusing on international civil society directly right now. But I’ll certainly follow discussion and would expect to contribute if I do have anything to draw on from what we are doing here.