The wider civil society movement have to stop behaving like missionaries whose motives because they are allegedly doing ‘God’s work’, states Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem in connection with recent events in the AU’s Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC). Civil society has to hold itself to the same standards of accountability and transparency they demand from governments.

It was not unexpected that this column of last week on the orchestrated election of the Nobel Laureate, Wangari Mathai, as the President of the AU’s Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC) would generate so much private and public responses, especially on the internet. It is both an indication of the growing seriousness attached to African initiatives and African institutions but also proof of the global village that the world has become in the age of interactive multi media and new information technology. I have always been open about my enthusiasm for the Internet, even as I support many of the anti-globalisation causes! E-mail is one of the most democratising aspects of globalisation.

The responses are varied but can be broken down into two broad categories. Those that are in the realm of ‘to be expected’ and those that are more nuanced and proactive. The intriguing thing is that both aspects were often cohabiting in many of the responses. So lets deal with what should be more familiar. One, ‘why are you attacking Mama Wangari?’

My position is not about Wangari or any of her bureau members as individuals (many of them are well-known to me) but a defence of a fundamental principle of separation of state roles and civil society roles and obligations. Nobody will argue with a trade union organisation that replaces its general-secretary when he or she becomes a minister or a member of parliament. If a Minister is similarly elected as head of a trade union the government will expect the person to leave. Wangari is in the same situation at the moment and she can still make a choice since her appointing authorities have failed in their duty to know the difference between the two positions.

Two, I did not seek to denounce Wangari as a leader who originated from civil society and is still critically important to that constituency, but she has had a change of jobs and we should not blur the lines. It is important for civil society to have allies in government but government should not swallow it up. It is rank opportunism to think those lines do not matter simply because the current beneficiary is someone we respect and value. As one of my respondents pointed out she would have risen more in principled public estimation if she had done one of two honourable things open to her: refuse the post because of her government position or resign from government due to her commitment to the new post. By doing neither she has diminished herself and her standing.

The more nuanced responses are many and most of them share my concerns but give different mitigating circumstances. One, there is a pragmatist group that argued that ‘this is a done deal’.

Though civil society is part of governance it cannot and should not substitute for government. Therefore it must avoid any action that confuses both theatres of struggle. Two, some argue that what happened was legal and within the rules. Let me just stretch their limited imagination to remember that slavery, colonialism and apartheid were codified in laws of the day. Did that make them acceptable?

Three, one person even suggested that it was ‘backbiting’ to speak out after the event. Does this mean that we should only speak about an event only during the act itself or when we are physically present? If this dubious standard is applied to all public discourse we shall not have anything to discuss since most of the issues, decisions and life changing policies that affect us are taken outside of our purview and many, even outside of Africa. Does that mean that we have no rights to complain and should just bear our victimhood as a fait accompli? There is no statute of liberty on justice and none should be imposed on accountability.

Four, others argue that Mathai was the best choice because the other options being pushed by AU bureaucrats presented a worse case scenario. This is begging the issue. The AU could not have put guns to the heads of those present (even though they paid their bills) if a few people had voiced their opposition openly in the assembly instead of largely grumbling and agonising privately. Maybe the AU would have seen sense and taken them more seriously. The fact that Wangari was appointed in absentia, ‘unanimously’ meant that some of those present (who had strong reservations) did not, or were unable to follow the logic of their own convictions. I appreciate the fact that some of those present did not have speaking rights. Many others were even attending the forum for the first time and were on a learning curve that was too steep! They were required to make decisions about what they did not know. That ignorance strengthened AU bureaucratic manouvres.

Five, another person even suggested that the newly crowned Madame la Presidente ‘had no time to waste’ stating that she been given a great job to do and implying she is so busy that she should not be diverted by these debates. I can only say that even a good thing can be done in a very wrong way. And this is one of them. That kind of language coming from people who are supposed to be defenders of civil society exposes the lack of willingness by our leaders both in civil and political society to be accountable to the people they serve. Is civil society not supposed to have more democratic credentials than governments?

The whole process further exposes the orchestrated confusion between NGOs and civil society. While NGOs may be part of civil society they are not ‘The’ civil society. Unfortunately because of donor-driven agendas and mercenary activism, NGOs in Africa are now passing for civil society hence the new distinction between CSOs and CBOs! The former is dominated by middle class counter elite claiming to speak for the constituencies more ably represented by the latter.

However the more successful NGOs become the more integrated they become into national and international and multilateral structures of power. They move from advocacy into incorporation and cooptation. There is nothing wrong in people moving from civil to political society and vice versa or making a similar journey to the private sector. However the actors in the various sectors must be clear about the lines even when osmosis is desirable.

African NGOs and the wider civil society movement have to stop behaving like missionaries whose motives cannot be questioned simply because they are allegedly doing God’s work. We have to hold ourselves up to the same standard of accountability, transparency, level playing field and due process that we harangue our governments to uphold.

What happened at the ECOSOCC Interim General Assembly was clear: It was a stich up. Does this mean nothing good will come out of it? I am an optimistic political activist who, like Bob Marley, "may fight and run away but live to fight another day.” Therefore even if Wangari does not resign the interim ECOSOCC institutions should not be ignored. Maybe out of this fudge we could salvage an ECOSOCC that will work together and independently with emerging structures of the AU. It is not yet Uhuru therefore wherever we are and regardless of which side of the debate we fall, we should maintain interactive vigilance and challenge this largely AU-chosen representatives of CSOs to deliver to the diverse constituencies they are supposed to represent. They ought to be CSO representatives in the AU, not AU agents among Civil Society.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to