State-Civil Society Relations in Post-Apartheid South Africa

Adam Habib State-Civil Society Relations in PostApartheid South Africa Thebasictwinexpectations ofgovernmentare thatNGOswillfirstly, continue to act as monitors of the public good and safeguard the interests ofthe disadvantaged sections of society. Thisperformance of this social watch role requires both transparency and account­ ability on the part ofNGOs. Thegovernment’s second expectation is that NGOs will assist in expanding access to social and economic services that createjobs and eradicatepoverty among thepoorest of thepoor. This requires cost effective and sustainable service delivery — ZOLA SKWEYIYA IN BARNARD AND TERREBLANCHE (2001:17). Formany ofthe activists... workingin differentspaces and having different strategies and tactics, there was a binding thread. There was unmitigated opposition to the economicpolicies adopted by the ANC Activistsspokeofhowtheright-wingeconomicpolicies lead to widespread and escalating unemployment, with concomitant water and electricity cut-offs, and evictions evenfrom the “toilets in the veld” provided by the government in the place of houses. More importantly, there was general agreement that this was not just a question ofshort-termpainfor long-termgain. TheANChad become a party ofneo-liberalism. The strategy to win theANC to a left project was a dead end. TheANC had to be challenged and a movement built to render its policies unworkable. It seems increas­ ingly unlikely that open confrontation with the repressive power of thepostapartheid state cannotbe avoided — a s h w in d e s a i (2002:147) social research Vol 72 : No 3 : Fall 2005 671 TWO QUOTATIONS, AND TWO VERY DIFFERENT VISIONS OF POSTAPARTHEID state-civil society relations.' The articulators of these visions have as their goal the empowerment of, and delivery of services to, the poor. Both individuals are located in different institutional settings. The first is a cabinet minister responsible for the Department of Social Development. The second is a civil society activist, one among many leaders in the new and emerging civic struggles that are challenging local governments in their imposition of a cost-recovery paradigm to the provision of social services. Which vision is appropriate for the conditions of postapartheid South Africa? Both quotations reflect at least one element of our postapartheid reality. But the absolute and categoric character of their visions makes them inappropriate models for a contemporary state-civil society rela­ tionship. Implicitly, these visions imagine a homogenous civil society. They project a single set of relations for the whole of civil society. Is civil society, however, not plural by its very nature? And, should not this plurality infuse our understandings of state-civil society relations in contemporary South Africa? This article takes as its departure point a definition of civil society that celebrates its plurality. It recognizes that the set ofinstitutions within this entity will reflect diverse and even contradictory political and social agendas. As a result state-civil society relations will reflect this plurality. Some relationships between civil society actors and state institutions will be adversarial and conflictual, while others will be more collaborative and collegiate. This state of affairs should not be bemoaned. Instead, it should be celebrated since it represents the political maturing of South African society. Under apartheid, the adversarial-collaborative divide largely took a racial form with the bulk of “white civil society” establishing collegiate relations with the state, and the majority of “black civil society” adopting a conflictual mode of engagement. This racial divide began to blur in the transition period as significant sections of “white civil society” began to distance themselves from the apartheid regime. In the contemporary era, the racial divide has all but disappeared, with adversarial and collegiate relations extending across the entire ambit of civil society. 672 social research Elsewhere I have defined civil society as “the organized expression ofvarious interests and values operating in the triangular space between the family, state, and the market” (Habib and Kotze, 2003: 3). This defi­ nition conceptualizes civil society as an entity distinct from both the market and the state. Of course, traditional Hegelian definitions of the term include the market. I am, however, persuaded byJean Cohen’s and AndrewArato’s comprehensive and defining work on the subject, which makes a coherent case for why the market should be excluded from the definition of civil society. For Cohen and Arato, the actors of what they call...