By Kieron Murdoch | Opinion Contributor

One of the biggest challenges that we face in further democratising our political system and making governance more accountable is the relative weakness or lack of organised, active, and policy-oriented civil society organisations. Despite being one the biggest challenges we face, its impact is perhaps one which we do not always appreciate.

Governance in Antigua and Barbuda would certainly improve were there more civic organisations, presenting coherent demands for policy action to the government on a regular basis. More so, our politics would benefit from having more civil society organisations that were focused specifically on political activism or public sector accountability – a point to which we will return later.

Broadly, civil society refers to groups of citizens linked by common interests and collective activity. They serve a number of functions such as providing a service to a community or a certain bracket of the population; providing for self-regulation of a profession, industry, or other community; and advocating for their members or for the interests of a particular group.

The term covers a range of actors that include faith groups, community groups, youth groups, nonprofit organisations, charities, unions, private sector organisations, industry associations, professional associations, activist groups, and pressure groups. That is not an exhaustive list.

One of the many functions of civil society in a democracy is to help citizens take part in setting the political agenda and promoting human rights. In Antigua and Barbuda, the unfortunate reality is that the extent to which they are able or willing to effectively participate in this way is limited by a number of factors.

Some can be grouped under the bracket of limited capacity. Often, groups may be too informal in terms of their organisation, or too loose in terms of the commitment of their members. Civil society groups are also challenged by the demands of administration – what can often be thankless work done by a few committed members on a volunteer basis and funded from their own pockets.

Sometimes, an organisation is really just one person or a handful of committed people who religiously hold fast to the cause, so much so that when you call the name of an organisation, you only think of one individual. Some organisations live and die with the members who started them or the members who kept them alive. Sometimes, people with a passion simply cannot find the time between work, family, and making ends meet.

Some civil society groups may also be challenged by a lack of capacity in terms of the ability of leaders to properly govern the organisations, handle its finances, fundraise, apply for grant funding, communicate effectively, and keep records. As well, the internal power struggles of organisations can limit the effectiveness of groups.

All of these are challenges that affect civil society organisations in a general sense and ultimately limit the extent to which they may be effective at their various goals. It becomes an even greater hurdle therefore to engage effectively with the political system if and when action from policymakers becomes a goal favourable to the organisation, its members, or its interests.

Going a step further, we must recognise that the political culture itself is an obstacle to the effective engagement of civil society groups with the political system. Like the rest of the English-speaking Caribbean, entrenched patronage networks and political victimisation are unfortunate elements of Antigua and Babuda’s political culture.

In such an environment, even when organisations have the capacity to engage with the political system in furtherance of their interests, their sector’s goals, or their member’s interests, they may refrain from doing so due to the personal political biases of leaders or members themselves, or, out of fear of stoking the government’s ire. This introduces a set of challenges that can be grouped under the bracket of political obstacles.

There are some who lead various civil society organisations who, by virtue of being a member or a supporter of any given political party, are reluctant to fulfil their role in civil society and address demands to the political system – a sort of conflict of interest that often becomes unavoidable in the case of micro societies like ours where so many people wear ten caps.

In the same vein, it is also worth mentioning that the willingness or the ability of civil society actors to engage effectively with the political system by placing demands and pressure on policymakers for action is further hampered by the extent to which many in the population rely on the public sector for some form of employment. This must be placed in the context of the reality that we live in a very small society.

How free would the average person feel as a public servant or as someone whose income is reliant on state coffers to participate in civil society activity that puts them in direct conflict with the political directorate? How swiftly might they be made the subject of Saturday afternoon diatribe by high ranking political officials on party airwaves accusing them of biting the hand that feeds them?

Yet, in spite of all that, the best democratic systems are those in which civil society groups are organised, efficient, active and unafraid to approach the political system with demands. If this small democracy hopes to progress and not to stagnate at one point of the spectrum of democratic progress, then the role of civil society in this regard must be advanced.

It means having a Bar Association that is willing to advocate openly for law reform and to criticise the lack thereof when it persists; having unions that are unrestrained by partisanship and are willing to collaboratively advance the interests of their members; and having industry associations that operate more efficiently and prepared to put demands in front of the government.

It also means having a national association for parents that engages with the state on school and youth policies; and neighbourhood associations that put demands on the political directorate for greater local administration, community upgrades, and better policing. These are only examples of civil society organisations interacting with the political system, but in reality, they serve their members through a range of primary functions as previously discussed, and that is important to remember.

We are not suggesting that the primary function of every civil society group is to engage with the policy making process. Certainly not. But we are saying that when civil society groups are well established and functional, engaging with the governance and policy making process is one of many functions which they can execute that serves to improve outcomes for their members of their interests and serves to improve governance and democracy overall.

Of course, there are some civil society groups whose engagement with the political system is not just one of many functions, or a secondary function which they may execute, but is in fact their primary or even their sole function. These tend to be activist organisations, rights organisations, watchdog organisations, or pressure groups.

When we began, we did say that our politics would benefit from having more civil society organisations that were focused specifically on political activism or public sector accountability. Unfortunately, our society is wanting for many of these groups as well, and the challenges that face them or the persons interested in that sector are similar to the ones we discussed when speaking about civil society groups broadly, albeit, the political obstacles play a more significant role here.

It can be extremely onerous leading or participating in such organisations in a small society and given our political culture. But the lack of such watchdog groups, rights organisations especially, presents a challenge to achieving greater political and public sector accountability. Do we have a watchdog group that focuses on policing, justice and due process? Do we have a group that is focused on integrity in public life and anti-corruption?

In some spaces, we have been fortunate enough to have benefited from the work of willing citizens such as in the case of Antiguans and Barbudans for Constitutional Reform and Education (ABCRE) on the subject of constitutional and law reform, or on the subject of electoral integrity in the case of the Free and Fair Elections League (F&FEL). There are other examples.

However, the truth is that there are major gaps in terms of civil society activism and advocacy in the area of human and political rights and political and public sector accountability. The result is that abuses of power and miscarriages of justice often slip through the cracks unrecognised for what they are, or worse, eventually normalised as the status quo.

It is easy enough to say we should have such groups, but their absence is not something we can blame on anyone particular or entirely on the culture. It comes down to each of us as citizens being willing or unwilling to sacrifice the time, the energy, and the money, to take up the battles we so often assume that others ought to, or will, whilst we content ourselves to watch Netflix. This too is a challenge – each of us meeting our own individual civic responsibility.

In terms of advocacy, as citizens, we should be organising ourselves 365 days a year on the different issues that matter to us. Mostly, we don’t. We get accustomed to the regular voices who stand up on certain issues but we are not clamouring to join their organisations or pay any dues to support the work they do in the public interest.

Worse, we leave the work of being a rights watchdog or demanding political accountability to the political opposition, whichever party it happens to be. It is fair to say that we are seldom ever satisfied with the extent to which the task is effectively executed in that regard. But this should not surprise us, as partisan politics is bound to bring with it its own challenges, further complicating the problem.

In this way, we surrender greater and greater power to political parties where we should, as citizens, reserve it for ourselves, exercise it, and defend it – the right to speak on our own behalf and to make representation for the redress of our grievances to our government. Suddenly, when the political opposition is weak and ineffective, we as citizens are left sitting on our hands asking “Who will speak for us?” or “Who will challenge the injustices?” when these are things we ought to be doing for ourselves, regardless.

While we are on the subject of surrendering our civic responsibility to political parties, we also see them usurping what should be the role of civil society when it comes to charity, social intervention, and youth engagement. Apparently, in the absence of the state, it is the role of parties and those seeking public office to dole out assistance to make ends meet, provide materials for school, support local police stations, organise food drives, and organise youth activities.

Marrying such activity with politics is but a veiled extension of the patronage networks that political actors engender in order to support their tenure in office. These are practices of which every citizen should be wary, if not intolerant. But filling that gap would again, require an active civil society that is willing to take charge of those needs. That means willing citizens who are prepared to sacrifice what is necessary.

Ultimately, we must remind ourselves over and over that the effective engagement of civil society with the political system is a fundamental part of a strong democracy. And we must step outside of our comfort zones to confront the ills that we hide from and often wait for others to challenge on our behalf.

A strong civil society means that there are other constituencies which policymakers must be regularly accountable to in addition to the official ones which elected them to office. It keeps items that are important to citizens at the forefront of the policy agenda and it keeps the government in check by making them wary of stoking the people’s ire, and not vice versa.

In his independence day address in 1962, the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Dr. Eric Williams, stated, “Democracy, finally, rests on a higher power than Parliament. It rests on an informed and cultivated and alert public opinion. The Members of Parliament are only representatives of the citizens. They cannot represent apathy and indifference. They can play the part allotted to them only if they represent intelligence and public spiritedness.”

About the writer:

Kieron Murdoch worked as a journalist and later as a radio presenter in Antigua and Barbuda for eight years, covering politics and governance especially. He is an opinion contributor at antigua.news. If you have an opinion on the issues raised in this editorial and you would like to submit a response by email to be considered for publication, please email staff@antigua.news.