When two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers

discord people suffer.
This renders true, the old African saying, that when two elephants fight it is the grass which suffers. It refers to the distress experienced by a feeble or helpless body when two superpowers engage in warfare. The two elephants herein are the government and civil society and the feeble being the citizens.
The government is composed of a body of individuals who effect control over political decision-making. Their function is to enforce laws, legislate new ones and arbitrate conflicts. The government is also expected to provide platforms conducive to socio-economic development, to serve the population with dignity.
On the other hand, civil society is regarded as the third sector, separate from government (public) and private sectors. Some have defined it as the sum of institutions, associations and groupings that manifest the will of citizens. This description includes for example; women and youth organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGO), social/peoples movements, labour unions, indigenous peoples’ organisations, farmers unions, business associations, charitable organisations, faith-based organisations, professional associations and foundations among others.
In recent times civil society has tended to be more associated with elements of political and democratic governance such as freedom of speech, independent judiciary, free and fair elections etc, and in general that which makes up what is called the democratic society.
It is this latter perception which has delivered the Government and civil society, on a warpath. Some actors in both the public and the civil society actually act on this phantom war, resulting in gross downplay of each other’s role in socio-economic development.
The civil society (CSOs), by the mere fact that they represent a cross section of the population, commands a huge influence on the mass. This vantage point is also believed to enhance the civil society’s ability to build social capital, trust and shared values, which are transferable into the political sphere and hold the society together.
Hence, the easy linking of civil society to democracy. There is a common also, thought that CSO is there to police the Government, by watching, for instance public expenditure. There is also a common misperception that working in harmony with Government is a weakness and causes the civil society to fail or sink into complacency.
This has created gross misunderstandings about the role and the need for a complementary relationship between the Government and the civil society. As is common with human tendencies, often officials on both sides chose war instead of peace, all at the expense of the citizens.
This misunderstanding and resulting conflicts between the public sector and the civil society, create a vacuum in governance and undermines the very essence for which most civil society groupings were created to address.
Accountability is often lost and as each of these two sides play hide and seek, openness and inclusivity remain poor. This effectively weakens the capacity of both CSOs and the Government to design and implement public policies for the common good.
We see democratic governance taking more space such as in advocacy for human rights, voting rights, free and fair elections etc at the expense of socio economic development and economic governance. In the same breath some have questioned how democratic the civil society itself is. This is against the observations that some actors within the civil society have obtained remarkable political power, without really having been elected or appointed.
In Africa and within the greater part of the global South, there are accusations that civil society is an extension of donor funders in the North, again at the expense of the local citizens. Recently, more and more researches are arguing that since the concept of civil society is linked to democracy and representation, it should also now be connected to nationality or nationalism.
The Government in its effort to enforce law, legislate or arbitrate, has in some cases tended to be heavy handed on the CSOs. It serves as evidence of power struggle and fight for turf in political and democratic governance spheres.
However, this notion of limiting civil society to elements of democracy is misleading in that it assumes that politics comes first or is more important than health, education, shelter, water, roads, telecommunications, electricity, and general basics to human dignity.
While democracy is important and is a critical link for development, the human dignity, should not be down played in comparison. Issues such as the right to housing, education, health, good roads, and access to clean drinking water are more pressing for human dignity. The same could be said about the right to national identity documents, such as birth certificates, national identity cards and passports.
The quality of relations between these two institutions sometimes change over a period of time, in relation with factors such as politics, individuals, or even development partners’ pressure. But should this be the case for effective nation building?
The needs of citizens in developing countries have remained the same for decades, and even remain linked to the age old Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Thus in national building and development, it should be a priority to ensure that the quality of relations between government and civil society remains progressive.
An important factor towards good governance and strong relations is the ability to respect authority. Authority starts with the rule of law and within institutions created by this law.
Respect for the law and authority is what defines the civility of a population. Being civil is to empower people to be active in different social, economic or political situations to solve community, cultural, economical, organisational and political problems.
Like two sides to a coin, governments and civil societies, need each other. They both have comparative advantages over one another, which if put to proper applications, could help speed up the socio-economic development agendas in many nations.
The focus of both institutions should be turned away from the North, to serve local and national stakeholders. It is also true that picture of Africa must now turn from that of famine, failure and conflict to many of the positive faces of Africa, as shown by love, courage, resilience, heroism and even environmental preservations.
This calls for an integrated vision. The civil society on its own does not count for much. Just as the government without people is an empty shell. Africa as a rising giant is now yearning to tell its own story. Actors from all sectors — public, private and the civil society must now respect citizens of this blessed continent. At odds, Africa is easy to be ruled by outsiders and united Africa can stand to rule.