Prof. Nyong’o looked at why social movements emerge, and justified their role in terms

of expanding the realm of citizen participation beyond the formal and legal frameworks

set by governments and other powerful institutions. In Prof. Nyong’o’s view, there is

always a constant tension between ‘the legality of participation’ as defined and regulated

by powerful institutions and individuals, and popular wishes of the majority of people

whose involvement in the affairs of their societies are limited by the rules of

participation. Social Movements emerge as popular contestations of the legality of

participation, and they seek to redefine and extend the space and limits of ‘acceptable’

forms of political, social and economic engagement within the polity and society.

Prof. Nyong’o argued further that because social movements emerge spontaneously

around social, political or economic goals, they dissolve equally fast once they have

fulfilled their mission. He stressed that the increasing emasculation of the space for

citizen participation by governments and other supra-state institutions present major

threats to the space that citize ns have for autonomous action. This has worsened in the

recent past, especially under the excuse of the global fight against terrorism. Besides, the

growing concentration of decision making on major global issues in the hands of a few

undemocratic and unre presentative powerful global institutions pose great danger to

civilized existence across the globe.

According to Prof. Nyong’o, a major paradox is that people can now organize more

easily across borders, and major issues that confront humanity require citizen solidarity

across borders, which makes trans -national social movement formation a prerequisite.

Yet governments are coming up with stricter laws to regulate the space for such citizen

organization and autonomous action. He concluded that the rise of organized protests

across the globe is an indication of a growing popular realization that citizens must

ultimately rise against forms of legality of participation that seek to limit the space for

engagement.

Murtaza Jaffer started by tracing the genesis of organized nationwide movements in the

independence struggles across Africa. He warned that there is nothing inherently

democratic in movements. He cited the example of nationalist movements which rode on

the wave of negritude, whose ideology was founde d on an assumed innate virtuousness of

being black or African. According to Jaffer, it soon emerged that ‘black’ could be as

oppressive as the white colonial predecessor, if not worse. He gave the example of

Mobutu, Bokassa, Iddi Amin and many other African dictators who turned into predatory

dictators in their respective countries.

The recent trends in globalization have seen relative weakening of the (African) state and

the role of politicians. Movement activity, especially from the non-state sector, has been

targeted at the state. In some parts of Africa, the state as we know it has fragmented and

what remain are localized substitutes for the state, i.e. in Somalia, the state has given way

to clan elders who have formed their own ways of engaging without ceding any power to

a centralized form of governance. The weakened status of the African state also raises

questions on the salience of movements whose focus is the state and whether they should

not widen their focus beyond the state, which further raises important questions on their

mandate and the legitimacy of their actions. The question of mandate and legitimacy of

action becomes particularly pertinent for International Non-Governmental Organizations

(NGOs). Who or what gives them the mandate to talk about social movements?

Jaffer was skeptical about the veracity of NGOs as vanguards of social movements, given

that most NGOs were/are born from charities, require state legislation to exist, are de -

politicized and have formal and hierarchical structures. Movements on the other hand are

spontaneous, do not require formal state registration to exist and are not structured –

essentially, movements belong to the people and defy hierarchical arrangements or

confinement within formalized institutional structures. NGOs rely on external funding,

complete with time-lines, reporting dates, set objectives and activities and a host of other

conditionality, (which limits what they can legally or programmatically do). Is it

therefore possible for social movements to be externally funded and to be subject to such

stringent conditionality – given their spontaneity, mass base and autonomy?

Jaffer’s skepticism with the NGOs playing a vanguard role in social movements also

stemmed from the fact the despite the stated aim of most NGOs being poverty

eradication, poverty seems to be on the rise across the continent. He argued that NGOs

have become sub-contractors in the development industry, simply managing projects on

behalf of donors and governments. In his view, international NGOs are the first to disown

popular causes when their status and privileges are threatened. He gave the example of

the struggles for autonomy by the Kenyan NGO sector in the late 1980s up to early 1990s

when the international NGOs cowed to pressure fr om the government and sought to

distance themselves from the national NGOs. He contended that NGOs want to see

justice and equity in the wider social setting while they themselves are characterized by

big disparities in salaries and wondered how people used to comfort and luxury will risk

foregoing their comfort to confront repressive systems that perpetuate injustice in Africa.

Opiyo Makoude started by defining social movements as fairly permanent (or sustained)

collective action by a group or groups that seeks a restructuring of the social order,

He emphasized that the need to have social movements in Africa stems from two major

reasons: 1): For a majority of the people in Africa, development has not worked. They

remain trapped in poverty, marginalization and exclusion. For many of them poverty and

exclusion have been transmitted from previous generations, and will almost certainly be

transmitted to the next. 2): All indications are that there is a worsening in the condition of

the poor and excluded due to sharp declines in economic performance, the prevalence of

diseases (especially malaria and HIV/AIDS) and pressures inherent in rapid economic

globalization.

Conventional civil society interventions in dealing with the above problems have not

worked – NGO intervention in providing basic needs, working with groups of the poor

and excluded or in engaging individual national governments to change restrictive

policies have often been too piece meal and isolated to make any major impact. Makoude

therefore justified ACORD’s strategic shift on the basis of the need to go beyond

conventional NGO approaches in dealing with poverty and social exclusion. He stressed

that there was need to mobilize partnerships and alliances to confront the causes of

exclusion and marginalization in Africa and argued that isolated efforts, however well

intentioned, will always be limited in impact. ACORD is well-positioned to be part of

such movements and to help catalyze their formation because of having worked for over

25 years across 18 countries in Africa, in over 46 programmes. The organization has

strong links in Africa, Europe, Canada and Hong Kong, and intends to use and extend its

network in helping to build movements for achieving social justice in Africa.

Makoude gave four building blocks that are essential for movements in Africa. The first

is to work with and support particular individuals among the socially excluded to be able

to articulate the perspectives of the excluded. The next is support groups of the excluded

to organize and demand their rights. Thirdly, organizations and institutions that

perpetuate social exclusion need to be challenged and engaged to change their ways of

working. Finally, there is need to link with organizations, groups and individuals at

various levels, within and across different countries in Africa and internationally to

analyse, change and reform systems, structures and policies that cause and perpetuate

social exclusion.

In conclusion, Makoude mentioned several challenges that stand in the face of social

movements. One is getting authentic mandate and legitimacy and being credible and

salient. The second is how to engage with the contending discourses, perspectives and

interests that are characteristic of development. Thirdly, ACORD must be able to deal

effectively with conflicting interests that characterize movements, and ensure that the

greatest good accrues to the socially excluded while limiting the damage and risks to

them. ACORD advocacy and campaigning can not be consequence neutral – it must

constantly evaluate the risk of consequences of advocacy to the people ACORD works

with.

There were many issues raised from the floor:

i. Would ACORD create movements by itself or would it join existing movements

in Africa?

ii. Given that NGOs themselves occupy space that organized citizen activism should

take, how will ACORD reconcile these two conflicting situations – ACORD

being an NGO itself?

iii. Movements are characterized by internal feuds, conflicting goals and

disagreements over strategy. If ACORD is going to work at both continental and

international levels, how will it manage and deal with these internal movement

contradictions?

iv. What would ACORD be doing differently from movements that already exist on

the African continent?

v. The worst forms of exploitation, marginalization and exclusion are normally

experienced by the poor and marginalized – can there be a movement that

purports to speak for them? How can such people be organized to speak for

themselves? Where does an NGO get the mandate to speak for the poor and

marginalized?

vi. Are movements the best way to deal with poverty, marginalization and

exploitation across Africa?

Molly Kane, ACORD Board Chairperson, summarized the day’s deliberations by

highlighting important issues raised in the discussions. She stressed the need to question

popular perceptions. For instance, does International NGO amount to Northern NGOs

doing international development or NGOs that are truly international in their structures?

She argued that NGOs were re-creating levels of citizenship; in colonial times there were

citizens and subjects, now NGOs have recreated distinctions between citizens and

beneficiaries. She said that whereas globalization ought to create greater freedom for

citizens to organize across borders and deal with challenges that confront humanity,

governments were constricting that space under the pretext of fighting global terrorism.

In her view, governments were us ing the law to break the law (i.e. by infringing on

personal freedoms) and thus criminalizing dissent.

NGOs as gatekeepers to public participation and engagement have constricted the space

for autonomous citizen action further by unquestioningly reinforcing and re-enacting ‘the

rules of entry’ as defined by governments. In her view, the poor and marginalized have

not just been excluded; they have been wronged. Similarly, Africa has not just been

marginalized in the global political economy; it has been wronged. The power relations

need to be transformed. It is not enough to say that another world is possible. In fact,

another world is necessary.

Finally, she urged that there is need for constant critical reflection on how ACORD

works, and some of the concepts that underpins ACORD’s work. For example, what is

social exclusion? Who is excluded, and excluded from what? In terms of inclusion,

inclusion into what? In conclusion, she advised that there are no easy answers or

solutions to the problems we seek to solve; the answers lie in the debate.