Presentation on theme: "Lusaka 9.-11. March 2005 Joint Research Project University of Zambia / University of Duisburg-Essen / Germany Political Participation of Civil Society."— Presentation transcript:
Lusaka March 2005 Joint Research Project University of Zambia / University of Duisburg-Essen / Germany Political Participation of Civil Society Organisations: A vehicle for fighting poverty and challenging neopatrimonial practices? Dr. Bruce Imboela / Dr. Beatrix Waldenhof University of Zambia / University of Duisburg-Essen Presentation for the conference on “Political Dimensions of Poverty Reduction – The Case of Zambia” Lusaka, March 2005
Lusaka March 2005 Joint Research Project University of Zambia / University of Duisburg-Essen / Germany Introduction: Participation a key to good governance? Aim of the study: Analysis of the interdependence of PRS process and participation principle on national/provincial level (core and peripheral actors) Depth (information-sharing, consultation, joint decision-making, initiation and control) and breadth (in- and exclusion) 4 standard elements of institutionalized participation: rights- based, integrated in political structures, legitimacy, capacity Civil society as contested terrain (goal, means and framework) Research questions: PRS as an enabling environment for opening up new spaces for policy dialogue and increasing developmental capacities? CS as a vehicle to challenge neopatrimonial practices and empower the poor?
Lusaka March 2005 Joint Research Project University of Zambia / University of Duisburg-Essen / Germany National arena: PRSP formulation process up to 2002 Opening up space for new political dialogue and coalitions CCJDP: since 1994 EJP and 1997 Budget Advocacy (need for participation and parliamentary oversight on the budget) JCTR: since 1998 Jubilee Zambia: Debt mechanism and critical to link PRSP and HIPC CSPR: since 2000 new broad network in the PRSP context (90 members, variety of activities and players), poverty profile enhanced, 80% of suggestions were taken over in the full PRSP Depth and breadth of participation: Depth: Joint decision-making, improving relations with government (time pressure + scrutiny of donors) Breadth: High legitimacy, representativeness, capacity of core actors
Lusaka March 2005 Joint Research Project University of Zambia / University of Duisburg-Essen / Germany National arena: Implementation process up to end 2004 Civil Society uses entry points in the PRS cycle: Annual budget cycle and reforms (MTEF, ABB), macro- economic (PRGF: critique wage freeze) and sectoral policies (education, health) and national politics (constitution: ring- fencing of poverty funds, demand for decentralisation) to challenge the poor performance of government in implementation and misuse of state resources (independent HIPC Team in April 2004 suspended) Absence of institutionalisation of participation: Lack of deep and rights-based participation: Not going beyond consultation; ad hoc manner (i.e. MTEF Green Paper) No integration in political structures (i.e. SAG starts only end 2003 in the MTEF framework) Despite national actors show high capacity and legitimacy
Lusaka March 2005 Joint Research Project University of Zambia / University of Duisburg-Essen / Germany Eastern Province/Chipata District: Peripheral players? Top-down approach: “A Lusaka based programme“ Lack of implementation, information and involvement of state as well as non-state actors at sub-national level No response of the national level to the Chipata District PRSP: District PRSP should be directly linked to the national PRSP Realisation of decentralisation policy and decentralised financial resource mobilisation as precondition for the PRS process Participation of civil society Despite a variety of CSOs in the field of poverty reduction (Agriculture, Health/AIDS, Gender and Education) PRS no topic Some actors benefited from PRSP training seminars by national actors or donors (as CSPR Focal Group, CCJDP, NGO-CC, EPWDA, ZCTU) but they were barely involved in the PRS on sub- and national level Dominance of international NGOs as Africare, Care International, LWF at the provincial and district level and partial lack of transparency towards local government institutions
Lusaka March 2005 Joint Research Project University of Zambia / University of Duisburg-Essen / Germany Conclusions PRS process has the potential to create an enabling environment National level Most obvious traces in the formulation process (new actor and improved dialogue) whereas implementation shows renewed neopatrimonial features (suspension of independent HIPC team after proved misuse of funds) Despite of enhanced capacities and ties with the international arena of CSOs lack of institutionalized participation Provincial/District level PRS crystallised decentralisation as dormant reform programme and consolidated capacities of local authorities through District PRSP, but no real impact Capacity gap between core and peripheral actors partly strengthened Civil society is an effective vehicle to challenge neopatrimonial practices National level Challenging systematic clientelism and use of state resources (i.e. budget and expenditure tracking, HIPC funds) and presidentialism (i,e. strengthening role of parliament in budget process) Provincial/District level No real change in the direction of empowerment: Participation is also limited due to an information and implementation gap in the periphery (state as non-state actors!)