This paper reflects much of the programme experience gathered from Within and Without the State (WWS) over the last two years.
WWS is a programme piloting approaches to working with civil society to promote more accountable governance in fragile contexts. WWS is working in four countries – South Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, and the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel (OPTI) – and also has a strong emphasis on capturing and sharing its learning with others.
Key findings:
- WWS experience demonstrates that it is possible to do effective governance programming in fragile contexts, and that such work is essential to tackling fragility, building stability and resilience, and overcoming poverty. Detailed context and power analysis can reveal appropriate entry points for programme work. ‘The state’ is not homogeneous; even a weak or unwilling state may have levels of governance, departments, or particular officials interested in promoting change. Approaches to governance work can also be adapted for more restricted contexts: governance can be developed as a strand within other work-streams, for example livelihoods, as this may prove less threatening to a government nervous about the role of civil society; and activities can be designed which emphasise constructive engagement rather than confrontation with the state.
- Working with civil society is an appropriate entry point – but is not sufficient to promote good governance. Civil society should be supported to engage constructively with duty-bearers, and programme strategy may include linking civil society to other influential non-state actors and institutions. Citizens in fragile and more authoritarian states have less opportunity to participate in governance, and less voice and power, than those in democratic states. Experience from WWS suggests that working with civil society, particularly with groups which represent women and the poorest and most marginalised people, can be effective. However, to achieve change it is necessary to work with both citizens and duty-bearers on developing a ‘social contract’.
- The social contract refers to the agreement of citizens to submit to the authority of government in exchange for protection of their rights and access to services, security, and justice. Citizens will refrain from anarchy and respect the law; government will govern according to law, and promote peace and development. Developing a social contract in a fragile context will be the product of ongoing explicit and implicit negotiation between different interest groups and a range of formal and informal power-holders. The advantage of using the social contract model in governance work is that it emphasises the roles and responsibilities of each party and shows that by engaging with each other and taking a collective problem-solving approach (rather than by confrontation or challenge) they can work together to build a more effective state.
- In fragile contexts, traditional ‘demand-led’ advocacy may not always be appropriate as it may be seen by government as a challenge. The social contract model enables civil society to engage constructively with the state. Demand-led advocacy (where citizens make demands of the state) may not be appropriate as the state may have neither the will nor the capacity to meet these demands. Experience from WWS shows that the social contract can be a useful tool to promote constructive engagement between citizens and state, and promote accountability and good governance.
- Experience from WWS demonstrates that women and men are differently affected by conflict and fragility, and that gender inequality is itself a driver of fragility. Addressing gender inequality is essential to governance work in fragile contexts and will actually improve its effectiveness.
- In fragile contexts, significant power may be held by informal or traditional power-holders such as tribal and religious leaders – or by business interests or elite groups. These informal power-holders may act either as ‘blockers’ or ‘enablers’, preventing change which they do not see as desirable, or being able to influence formal power-holders in the state to achieve change. Strengthening governance may also involve working to improve the accountability and transparency of these informal power-holders, and ensuring they exercise their own power in the interests of citizens and communities. This underlines the importance of conducting detailed power and context analysis to reveal where informal or hidden power lies in any particular context, how to target the source of power, and who can help to influence power-holders. WWS’s experience also shows that it is important to find new and innovative ways to build relationships and work effectively with informal power-holders.