This paper examines the experiences of citizens’ groups seeking to hold Pakistan’s elected representatives and governance institutions accountable. A recent citizen-led accountability programme across both conflict-affected and peaceful constituencies has reported significant success in mobilising volunteer groups to demand the resolution of local issues. This paper examines the strategies that contributed to their successes. It focuses on the tensions between the programme’s drive for ‘inclusive’ citizens groups that raise demands, and the need for such groups to work in ways that acknowledge the power and politics of their local contexts. While in some cases this led to innovative solutions to local problems, in others it may have strengthened the divisions and networks that support unaccountable governance.
The paper is based on three months of research and fieldwork in Pakistan. The first phase consisted of a desk-based review of Supporting Transparency, Accountability, and Electoral Process in Pakistan (STAEP) documentation. The second phase comprised in-depth, semi-structured interviews and focus groups with STAEP staff, the implementing NGOs, constituency relation group (CRG) members from five constituencies and stakeholders (members of Pakistan’s development and donor communities). The five CRGs studied were chosen to allow comparisons between those that served peaceful and those that served conflict-affected constituencies.
Key findings:
Inclusivity:
- Although STAEP aimed for an expansive operationalisation of inclusivity that engaged marginalised, skilful and influential citizens, the reality of Pakistan’s diverse contexts and political contests presented many obstacles to this goal.
- In the studied conflict-affected constituencies it was not possible to include marginalised groups that stood in opposition to the CRGs’ dominant members.
- In conflict-affected areas where two clearly defined groups are violently competing over economic and political opportunities it may be difficult to include them within the same citizens’ association.
- It was found across the CRGs that the majority of advocacy activities were undertaken by a core group of educated and comparatively wealthy members, many of whom had significant experience of activism.
- Such a division of labour poses a danger to inclusive decision making processes and the realisation of shared objectives. This danger is compounded by the findings that some of the CRGs’ members had little understanding or oversight of the group’s wider activities.
- Even when associations are inclusive and politically astute, more work must be undertaken to ensure inclusivity is deep, with marginalised groups having a voice at all stages of the associations’ activities. Programmes attempting citizen-led accountability, therefore, cannot assume inclusivity is a short-cut to their goal.
Accountability:
- The biggest dilemma faced by programmes that encourage citizen-led accountability in weak, conflict-affected states with strong societies is the apparent need to engage local non-state power-holders to get things done. This is because such routes to responsive governance risk legitimising and strengthening the actors and institutions that underpin unaccountable governance.
- CRGs that engaged influential local people had unsuccessfully tried the short and long routes to accountability, including the traditional tools of accountability, numerous times.
- CRGs’ preferred routes to accountability were heavily dependent on where power lay within their constituencies. Thus, regardless of the programme’s guidelines, the CRGs often sought to achieve their aims by working with the grain of local politics.
Working with the grain of politics:
Research concentrated on a small number of case studies and, therefore, does not claim generalizability.
- It can be argued that by interacting with local authorities, such as maliks, the CRGs introduced new ideas and practices into the public discourse, and laid the foundations for longer-term change.
- When opportunities arise CRGs should be encouraged to involve themselves in the design or reform of local governance institutions.
Recommendations:
- Reduce the possibility of citizen associations being captured by training marginalised members to take part in the core group’s activities and by using mechanisms that make their activities transparent.
- Develop mechanisms, and create opportunities for, separate groups that represent competing parties to communicate and coordinate strategies to achieve shared goals.
- Donors should design programme guidelines that are flexible enough to encourage locally led innovations, whilst setting aside time for honest conversations about what citizens’ needs may be in any given context, what skills they already have, and how they may be accommodated within a programme’s aims.
- Acknowledge the informal actors and institutions that are central to responsive governance in conflict-affected contexts with weak states and strong societies.
- Support citizens’ associations to engage with influential people on a case-by-case basis.
