Feedback on the Synthesis Reports

1. Feedback on the Synthesis Reports Elisa Martinez, Diana Wu, Michael Drinkwater Governance Programming Framework - GPF Synthesis Workshop April 2011

2. Acknowledgements • Governance work in CARE builds off CI’s broad based adoption of RBAs in the early 2000s • All long term programs in CARE require a governance component if they are to be successful • Nevertheless, engaging in governance work is a risky business; requires expert knowledge of contexts, and excellent relationships • The work reviewed provides many wonderful examples of good work, but also carries significant health warnings!

3. Main Features • CARE is comfortable with a model of ‘constructive engagement’. • Whilst positive in some respects, it is dangerous not to be differentiating more between contexts and the situations impact populations find themselves in • Our work on governance is focused on ‘citizen empowerment’ and building the capacity of people to engage with the state • The political sphere is ignored too much, and also the political role of the private sector • There is too little emphasis on differentiation and the relative powerlessness in governance of women, minorities and other marginalised groups • Need to focus more on the dynamic relationships between the domains • We need to identify our allies in this work, at all levels!

4. Dimensions of GPF Addressed/ Not Addressed • Predictably, the strongest areas of focus are in seeking empowered citizenry, setting them up to influence the state. • Least common are efforts to directly shape state actor mentalities, practices, and tools of governance. •  In addition, how much work is done promoting good governance among non-state entities? • Private sector responsibilities and ways of working with local communities? Accountability of customary leaders and institutions to uphold inclusive rights, and act in a way that is participatory? • By and large, while there are a number of important examples of groups working with district, or national levels, the majority of work across COs focuses on community and local levels • Engaging national-level rights networks or coalitions;? What would be the role of CARE here? I think most papers discussed partnerships in terms of working at lower levels (community, district). An exception, however, is CARE Peru’s engagement with ForoSalud – national health network. CARE Nepal has also engaged national networks with the CA and Dalit initiatives.

5. The Limits of Constructive Engagement • This raises questions about the overall theory of change, and whether an organization that operates at the will of social elites can be effective in supporting a holistic approach to governance reform necessarily bounded by their calculated retention of power and privilege. • Depends a great deal on coopting local levels of of government • Can give rise too, to the dangers of raising hopes of the ability of impact populations to influence change, and then finding these dismissed, or worse, repressed (people do not appreciate the family, social and political cost – Bolivia) • COs work with public authorities but rarely politicians (Peru exception)

6. Additional dimensions to consider in GPF, from Participant Views or CO strategy Key themes from CO reports focus on: • Making mechanisms of gender subordination and marginalization of vulnerable groups more visible in the understanding of governance processes • Clarifying the concepts of development, democracy/democratic governance, citizenship and poverty, and distinguishing how their interactions vary according to context and social status inequalities of social stakeholders. • Recognizing alternate visions of good governance to the liberal democracy model – for example, communal harmony, protection of vulnerable groups, valuing different forms of leadership and subjecthood, recognizing the price people will pay for peace/non-violence, post conflict. • Raising profile of private business and market ideologies writ large on governance norms and processes

7. Larger insights/thoughts for GPF consideration Each of these thoughts is important and should provoke a valuable discussion of the underlying assumptions of the framework. I wish we’d had similar cautions when we were producing the WEF! Common themes call attention to: • the static nature of the framework, when governance dynamics interact across the domains, and at different levels of society, in varying ways over time and space. • the excessive protagonization of the State, which is not an autonomous or even important actor in many settings. The need to examine political economy of each society, and identify the actors/interests that shape what kind of state is possible, and how reform actually happens • the need for sensitivity to the fragile post-conflict social order, and to different forms of governance that are possible or unavoidable • The undue invisibilization of specific axes of social inequality, primarily gender, but also caste, ethnicity, geographic zone

8. Some further questions/ feedback - 1 • The framework is intentionally normative – it seeks to describe an ideal situation. However, this has two risks: • The “ideal” is always defined by a certain social, cultural, historical perspective – and it may not be universally held, or valid • A normative frame is more useful for planning than for understanding what IS the prevailing system/relations of governance. In order to be effective in advancing any reform agenda, CARE must first be sure it understands the basis of existing governance regimes and power relations, and has strategies that are capable of navigating within, as well as acting upon these.

9. Some further questions/ feedback - 2 • The framework speaks of a strong and accountable state, at the service of an informed and empowered citizenry. However, given that these conditions do not exist in most societies (USA pointedly included here), and in cases like Egypt and Ethiopia have been very explicitly blocked by the elites who control the State, do efforts to strengthen the “capacity” and legitimacy of the state (or any other ruling social institution) merely reinforce the grip of a parasitic/undemocratic state-citizen relationship? • This is particularly a concern because of the unquestioned assumptions of neoliberalism that allow states to get away with leaving questions of quality and equality to market mechanisms, and development NGO/donor participation in that neoliberal process of privatizing citizen concerns.

10. Some further questions/ feedback - 3 • Asking citizens what governance entails often produces a micro-level analysis of power, which obscures larger rules and institutions that shape what is even imaginable, in terms of the rules of the game • It’s important to bring in an analysis of the larger institutional rules/ norms that pre-structure society (eg, neoliberal market economy, role of religion, culture and history, forms of racismand sexism)

11. Starting with Variations of Context • If we start from a basis that is less normative and more grounded in context, then we would start by highlighting the forms of distinctiveness and the reasons behind performance variations • We would also look at relative fulfilment in each domain • Also need to identify ‘emergent’ processes and institutions

12. Variations in Context

13. Variations in Context across Domains

14. Context The “rules of the game” and how governance actually works Citizen Empowerment Domains of engagement… with negotiated development The Normative Circle Informalactors and institutions Formal actors and institutions How citizens understand and experience governance – Local Definitions of Governance Accountable & Effective Public Authorities Inclusive & Equitable Public Authorities-Citizens Relations Power relations within society and their impact on Public Authorities-Citizen relations Bringing the Context into Play