The idea of an international convergence of people who are working towards
change in the diversity of ways in which change can happen, and in the diversity
of ways in which change is needed is an amazing thing. It is often through the
bringing together of people that great inspiration, hope, rejuvenation,
unification and education occur. In the face of the current globalization of
economies, oppression, corporate domination, etc., events that connect people
with each other, that facilitate for meaningful dialogue to take place around
the issues which effect us collectively (though ranging in degrees) is so important.
Events where the globalization of resistance and creativity can take place are
essential, they are exactly what we need to build solidarity in diversity - a
movement respectful and reflective of the multitudes of perspectives and
struggles existent within it.
Civicus is claiming to offer such an event - a place where those enacting in
progressive social change world wide can come together in an environment of
sharing. The mantra of this year’s conference is ‘putting people at the center,
voluntary action shaping social and economic change’ - a very powerful and noble
statement indeed. But as I delve deeper into the structure of Civicus itself, I
begin to question what kind of social and economic change its members are
working towards, and for whom.
Civicus has invited global ‘Civil Society’ to converge, yet I have a question -
who exactly is the ‘Civil Society’ that Civicus seeks to work with? Once this is
clarified, I would ask if Civicus realizes that in inviting certain groups to
this conference, it may well in fact be excluding others who perhaps better fit
the ‘Civil Society’ title.
My definition of Civil Society is as follows...
Civil Society is both a PLACE where people come together, and an IDEOLOGY which
is made real and turned into action. It is the convergence of people, and
organizations that exist distinct from government and business though it is
inherently interconnected to both. Civil Society has arisen in reaction to and
is trying to create change within (or erase all together) the faulty social
structures and systems that currently exist. To me Civil Society has the
potential to mean the mobilization and unification of peoples enacting in
positive social change on both the grassroots and larger NGO fronts, but a
mobilization unified in a diversity of experiences and tactics.
It seems as though Civicus is confused about what the voluntary sector is. When
one reflects upon it’s members, it becomes obvious that Civicus is confused
about what social change, democracy and inclusivity are - elements which are
essential to ‘putting people at the center’ and ‘voluntary action shaping social
and economic change’.
To me, Civicus, the body, the idea, the participants, appear to be symptomatic
of something greater that has developed within the movement - elitism and
'pretendism'. Two things which I believe have left in many cases a severance of
the grassroots activist/volunteer from the ‘greater’ NGO sphere (this stems from
personal/local experience and observation). In fact, it seems to me that some
member organizations/corporations may reveal Civicus itself to be a proponent of
such things as free trade, and economic globalization which are processes
completely counter to social change and empowerment.
Civicus promises that it will create a venue in which participants will ‘meet
like-minded peers with whom they can share ideas, experiences and hopefully,
find solutions to the challenges that face use all’. I however think that
reality falls a bit short of this, for I find it hard to believe that my
perspectives and visions of change will run in similar directions as those of
representatives from Chevron. So again I must ask, who this Civil Society
Civicus seeks to work with is.
Civicus also, seems to be reinforcing the great divide that has developed
between the grassroots and more heavily funded NGOs. Case in point - the
exaggerated registration cost which may seem like pennies for a large NGO or
corporation (such as Esso, Philip Morris Companies Inc., Toyota Foundation -
member corps of Civicus), but is completely unaffordable for a grassroots
activist. The question now to be answered is, when did corporations become
representative of the volunteer, or of any sort of ‘civil’ society/progressive
change (other than in rare occasions)? To my understanding, multinational
corporations are for-profit entities that exist with the aim and intention of
gaining economic clout - they are neither centered around people nor social
embetterment, which are two ideals upon which Civicus has built itself. The
grass roots however is a an organic thing that springs up out of the want for a
better world ? it is something that can be characterized as people working with
people, for people and for change. It is a social and human entity far
different from corporations. So why are corporations so integral to Civicus’
definition of itself?
Representatives from large corporations are severed from the grass roots, from
those enacting in social change, from those engaging in struggle, yet Civicus
attempts to label them as integral members of their ‘Civil Society’. I don’t
propose that we exclude industry or multinational corporations from the
dialogues of change, for if we ever want to see real impacts made, we must
embrace these people, we must become the inclusive structures that we are
demanding. But we must not give corporations a voice that is stronger and louder
than that of the people, than that of those who create and give life to
societies.
The Civicus definition of civil society does not include me, does not represent
my dreams of change, dreams which I share with many others. Idea has been
severed from action and only when these two converge, only when the action and
the idea are united and all peoples who participate in creative change are
embraced and appreciated in whatever roles they choose to take in this struggle
for social change, justice, equality, environmental protection,
will anything real happen.
Civicus seeks to redefine social and economic situations and seeks to find
justice but only succeeds in reinforcing and recreating the borders that exist
between class and culture.
Civicus claims that it seeks to create change but does not recognize that the
most valuable and profound changes that are made, are made at the grassroots
level. It is unfortunate that this event is highly inaccessible to those people
who are creating this profound change daily.
And in some convoluted way it seems that the same methodologies that colonial
‘explorers’ used to create the peoples of the ‘new world’ as their inherently
irrational, barbaric, backwards, evil others, are present within the Civicus
structure in relationship to the grass roots - giving those on the grass roots a
patronizing glance, discussing them, but never inviting them to be a part of the
dialogue, always outside of it.
To me it seems as though Civicus is an attempt to once again name a movement
that is inherently unnameable due to its diversity. It seems also as though
Civicus is confused on who the members of this movement are, and should be. In
trying to rename this movement, Civicus is constructing ideological fences which
exist impermeable to anything outside traditional, ‘safe’ expressions of social
dissent and dreams of change. In naming the movement, Civicus is confusing
progressive social action in an exploration of semantics. Sure we need
definition as a movement, but that definition should be sought from and rooted
in the diversity of peoples, struggles and experiences that exist within it. The
Civicus definition/renaming is only creating languages that are coded and only
accessible to those with privilege. In naming this movement, Civicus is
creating it as an exclusive entity - as something impenetrable and class based -
excluding the poorest from dialogues which involve them so greatly.
As a youth, as a member of a community striving to realize social change, I feel
that I am part of a group that is marginalized in the Civicus vision. I do see
the worth in such gatherings, but find Civicus’ attempt at inclusion to be
disheartening. I feel strongly that voices will remain unheard and that the
movement will remain incomplete as long as organizations like Civicus organize
in the ways in which they do. We must remember that there are many roads to
change that can be followed and that ultimately we are walking in the same
direction, and that there is only one final destination. Only when this is
understood, only we are able to embrace each other’s distinct dreams and
tactics will we be able to move forward and tangibly realize our visions of a
different world.