The tale of two methods of social change 

Narratives now an appendage to market-driven capitalism

In his good old days of Sindh University in the late 80s and early 90s, Sehto was a student activist – a member of a student wing of a nationalist political party. His political career continues with a Marxist political party in Pakistan. And more important is the fact that he is an NGO worker too. For him, development is all about politics.

He also acknowledges that had he not been a student activist of yesteryears, he might not have been as dedicated an NGO professional. His dream to bring pro-poor social change by using ideological tools proved futile. The important question is that, now, by changing the strategy and tools and by using NGOs as a vehicle of change – will he succeed this time? In all probabilities the answer is a No, as what he is involved in, is a simple talk shop affair.

And yet there are amazing similarities between the two deployed tools for change – political struggle and civil society activism. In the decade of 60s, 70s and 80s major ideological parties whether Right or Left, drew their strength of ideas from the major global players of those times.

Same holds true for civil society organisations that are perceived as proxies of western powers. Both talked about bottom-up approach, whereas both have a predefined blueprint of social change. Both claims that they cater to the voice of the poor or people at large whereas both have a limited understanding of the social and political dynamics of the people, whom they aim to serve.

Both are mere reactionaries as they know what to fight against but lack the ability to define what they are fighting for. Though they both claim to have ideal governance models for the poor of the world or if I can borrow the language of the right, for ‘Mustazafeen’ or the underprivileged of the world. If even they have, it is not reflective of the desires of the people. Their public posturing of consensus building and following democratic norms is far from ideal.

In party meetings of yesteryears, it was claimed that comrades will define the future strategy, whereas in reality, the core group had already in mind about the line of action, popularly referred as the party line. In civil society set up, the party line is defined by donors or “funding partners” and the top management happily toes the party line. Right is also the same where an omniscient leader knows what is best for the rest of the world. The principle of exclusion of dissident voices is more obvious and blatant in political setups whereas in civil society it is more subtle.

The commonalities between the two methods as prisoners of a pre-defined mandate, ideology-based value system, proactively approaching people, core group method, a-priori ideas, a farce of consensus in the name of discipline, facade of bottom-up approach, leadership by the chosen few – a class in themselves, the assertion of the middle class and its preferences in decision making, are much obvious to ignore. The answer to why it happens in civil society, which is a relatively new phenomenon, lies in the evolutionary history of the sector itself.

Before the decade of the 80s, welfare endeavours were the response to the social, political and economic realities of those times. After the breakdown of the ideological and mighty USSR, disgruntled leaders of the Left saw civil society activism as a refuge and a means to fulfil the lost dream.

With time this perceived vehicle of change was hijacked by the institutional donors. High salaries, perks, big vehicles, frequent ravelling opportunities and exposure to alien cultures were deployed as means to capture the ideologues and hardliners of a lost political world and thus carving a new and privileged class of consumers within a subaltern segment of the society.

It resulted in a compromised state of the politically trained agents of social change, as what they were doing in the past with the help of limited resources and by making themselves vulnerable is, in their perception, now being achieved on the basis of donors’ money and in a luxurious manner. The politics of protest got replaced by the enterprise of incessant negotiation with the instruments of governance…!!!

It resulted in short-term, project-oriented endeavours and funding-based projects. Usually, when funding dries, the community and the constituency of the civil society activists are left on their own; high and dry. The love for short-term outcomes replaced the process and the quality of the process went down. Accountability, whatever little there is of targets and not of the process; hence the issue of service delivery and replacing government functions routed the classical approach of the state as being the provider of civic facilities to a contract awarding entity making service capitalism the triumphant stakeholder.

In the civil society sector, this also resulted in the demise of intellectual activism. The good work comes to the do-gooders in such a fulfilling manner that it quenches any heart-wrenching questions and fills the soul of the development practitioners with eternal satisfaction. Whatever mental exercise is done, it’s in the methodological domain: the broader picture gets lost in local-level, though important, achievements. And it’s not to blame the do-gooders since the blind man holding the elephant’s trunk has every reason to identify it as a snake. The same may be said for the blind man standing next to the elephant’s leg who perceives it as a tree. The problem is inherent in the way the good intentions of the do-gooders are operationalised.

Interestingly, both narratives of social change are now an appendage to market-driven capitalism. Socialism is now market friendly and civil society is the human face of capitalism. So the big question is will the system change for the betterment of the people? The answer is probably not the way both dreamt it but the poor will get some residual benefits of the elite-oriented development and change, without having a major impact on relations of production and power. Thus providing the opportunity to the vanguards of the system to sing in chorus, Bhaiaa all iz well…!!!

The writer is a PhD scholar, and board member of the Urban Resource Centre, Karachi. [email protected]