Transformation of government into governance in Manipur
(Changing complexion of civil society: an assessment)
- Part 2 -

Dhanabir Laishram *

Here one may analyse the authoritarian environment of Manipur in which the State does not in favour of expansion of civil societies because such interaction between the two sides always brought against the wishes of the ruling elites. In a real sense it should be happening in the democratic system.

Sometimes, the State deliberately tries to crust all of them. Recently maximum numbers of civil societies' leaders were arrested and put into the jail by charging as anti social groups. It is happening so often in Manipur. As consequence the member of civil society seem to be in violent activities. That is the indication of authoritarian regime.

As we have already mentioned that the civil society organizations are generally equated with NGOs. If NGOs are seen doing welfare and developmental work, we feel civil society is working well. This approach ignores the intermediate institutions and their role in the society.

This tendency also limits our understanding of a broad process of interaction among different types of organizations. The concept of civil society, points out Alan Whaites, has been 'grabbed' by NGOs as one relating closely to their own natural strengths. On the surface, civil society is intimately connected with the role of local community associated or groups, and with the indigenous NGOs sector.

In the globalization scenario, it needs to be kept in view that among the donor agencies, the interest in civil society has been associated with the evolution of the conditionality of aid in the 1980s. Donors have begun to re-appraise the role of civil society in providing a foundation for sustainable democracy. The combination of donors', NGOs and UN's interest provides the background to what has been termed as the civil society 'grab'.

The States are adopting new strategies, using NGOs for their own purposes. In short, State-centred and society-centred approaches are now providing problematic and inadequate. Importantly, it is believed that the civil society approach is itself problematic, if it does not take cognizance of global civil society. The States are adopting new strategies, using NGOs for their own purposes.

The idea of global civil society combines elements of both anti-state and anti-nation positions. The growing size, sophistication, and influence of the Global Civil Society Organisations (GCSOs), have been facilitated and actively encouraged by one major factor-the Neo-liberal consensus that emerges from the power centres in the west.

Among other things, the consensus dictates:
i) The State, particularly in Third World countries, should withdraw from the social sector.
ii) The market should be freed from all constrains.
iii) Communities in civil society should organize their own social and economic reproduction and well –being.

The State has thus been liberated from its traditional responsibilities of providing the conditions of human flourishing. This stance is particularly complex in context of 'governance', as the State has to assume the role of facilitator and catalyst in bringing about just and egalitarian governance. The Neo-liberal State's roll-back ideology is misplaced in the context of developing countries like India. The same fate falls in the context of Manipur also as part of India.

The vision of civil society minus a well-defined role of the State is therefore replete with serious consequences, which not only weakens civil society, but also jeopardises the future of GCSOs. It has been pointed out that by drastically reducing the importance of proximity, the new technologies change people's perceptions of community.

The potential for building global civil society might come at the expense of weakened identity with one's State and with the civil society within one's country. In the absence of a global public space and an opportunity for dialogue, robust global community may remain a distant dream.

In the development administrative discourse such as public choice approach, and now the New Public Management (NPM) make an endeavour to provide alternatives to bureaucratic hegemony. But while the public choice perspective seeks to reduce individuals to utility maximisers and focuses on individual interest, it does not provide the mechanism for arriving at a collective general interest. The NPM, on the other hand, treats the citizens as mere clients and customers.

The Pluralistic, Communitarian, New Public Service and Network Agency perspectives give due regard to community, non-bureaucratic institutions and values, but do not focus much on the development of the idea of autonomous, self-reflective, humane and conscientious civil society with an accent on genuine public interest.

That means there are not alternatives to the institution of the present representative democracy and the market. The future would, be the endless repetition of more of the same, with politics centred in bureaucratic problem-solving, limited social engineering and liberal compromise.

This, indeed, is a very pessimistic projection of the socio-economic and political reality. If one goes by it, the alternatives to absolute State or market control over production and provision of goods seem almost elusive. A ray of hope could be democratic decentralization, participative decision-making, institution-building and community management of resources through different civil society organizations which can surely solve the problem to some extent.

Voluntarism and associationalism have been a part of the culture in the developing countries, their potential needs to be harnessed, more so, in the globalization situation.

The very fact that the number of community organizations, voluntary agencies, self-help groups, and non-public, non-market associations has grown tremendously in the last decade is a step in the right direction. It needs to be seen that their welfare and developmental goals are not sidelined or discarded. The best example could be mentioned about COFPAI (Committee for Peace and Integrity) and its campaign to bring peace in Manipur when there was ethnic clash in between Naga and Kuki in Manipur.

COFPAI was formed by arriving together 48 voluntary organizations of Manipur including UNC and KIM under the initiative of National Research Centre (NRC) Imphal. Other prominent member-organisations include such as All Manipur Ethnic Social and Cultural Organisation ( AMESCO), All Manipur United Club Organisation (AMUCO), All Manipur Students Union ( AMSU), All Manipur Women's Volunteer Association ( AMAWOVA), Fraternal Green Cross(FGC) a leading NGO in Manipur, Friends in Need Society(FINS), People's Democratic Movement (CDM), and Chanura Lamjinglen Kangleipak (CLK), etc.

This is indeed a significant achievement as it took place amidst the speculation that the ethnic armies of both the groups involved warned their fellow tribes to abstain from participating in any of the meetings organized by the government or any organisation aimed at restoring normalcy and peace.

(To be contd..)