Well, in western tradition there is bias about the role of civil society participation.

On one hand you have strong theoretical support rooted in political participation/participatory democracy - stating that citizens have right to be active in policy processes.

On the other hand you have more realistic/elitist approach which is closer to reality, which on the level of argument agrees that people shall participate but then how one can participate if person does not know how policies work.

I would say that reality is that everyone supports the idea of public participation as long as it does not endanger the position of political elite. When it comes to endangering the power of elite the elitist argument goes from soft "they don't know how it works so better to leave it to professionals" to hard "people have no right to interfere once they voted at the election".

Bonus statement: people are, theoretically, ultimate sovereign, which means that they have absolute right to change politicians even in the middle of electoral term if they are unhappy with them. Sure practice is bit different :)

To some extent one needs to separate between different forms of democracy/or other political systems.

Normally, we use different forms of democracy to talk of the role of civil society in policy formation and implementation.

May I direct you to some recent books in the topic.

Theories of democratic network governance by Eva sorensen and Jacob torfing (eds).

Interactive policymaking, meta-governance and democracy By torfing and triantafillou

interactive governance - advancing the paradigm. torfing et al.

From government to governance... edited by Bellamy and Palumbo!

The literature on this topic is huge. and I believe you need to specify your rather open question!

Good points made above. As indicated by previous respondents, placed in a specfic context, this question can open into several interesting study lines (including comparative policy research). For instance, one can then ask

a) what opportunities are there for civil society participation (who set up the rules and arrangements for participation and why)?

b) who counts as 'civil society' ?

These questions have/can have very divergent answers in different countries (eg Australia vs Sweden vs Mozambique), policy contexts (e.g. health vs public financial management) and also at the analytical level of interest ie local, regional, national or 'global'. However, two (common) issues, which I have found to frame the local definition of civil society and roles, are:

1) 'strategic goals' for participatory governance arrangements not only vary but are often multiple. Public goals may stem from genuine desire to listen to current views or look for new ideas. Background goals may include providing window dressing (fashionable, a condition of funding, etc), diffusing political (opposition) pressure and delegating or sharing responsibility (for failure, crisis, etc).

2) capacity to participate is often ignored but closely linked to both questions e.g. status (individual or group profile), size (large or small group/organisation) and access to resources. Again, this influences what 'role' is or can be played by civil society 'actors'.

Dear Chidinma,

It is different, of course, but, actually, not so far from my sociological manuscripts that you can find at http://vixra.org/author/emanuel_gluskin.

Yours, Emanuel.

Basically, civil society populate discursive sphere to involve all stakeholders including the citizens or rights-holders to exercise their agency in the formulation of policies. They are the connections between the citizens (including both the excluded and marginalised community) and the government and multinational coorperation. In a way, it broadens the policy arena to include all disenting voices. this advantageous in that it address the unequal power relations that often characterised policy arena. it could improve the effectiveness and sustainability of project. Besides, civil society organisations are saddled with most the alternative devlopment thinking that could yield favourable outcome.

Moreover, at implementation stage, the above strengths of the policy sphere because of the links of civi society promotes participatory mechanism and ownership that guarantees positive outcoms

Here's an interesting article on the subject

http://www.stes-apes.med.ulg.ac.be/Documents_electroniques/EVA/EVA-PROG/ELE%20EVA-PROG%207409.pdf

Policy and Program Evaluation, Civil Society, and Democracy

ANDERS HANBERGER

" The overall aim of this article is to develop conceptual tools and practical guidelines for evaluating the effects of public policy and program on civil society and democracy, and to analyze three broad ways of taking evaluation to the people. The terms “civil society” and “democracy” are ambiguous, referring to different notions in various discourses. The article demonstrates how different notions (ideal-types) of civil society and democracy can be useful in assessing the effects of public policies and programs. Finally, three broad approaches to evaluation are analyzed as tools for taking evaluation to the people. I argue that, in light of the legitimacy crisis, the “mediating evaluation approach” is the most promising approach today. However, the role of the evaluator and the notion of both civil society and democracy differ among the three approaches."

Hi, in most developing countries, the roles of civil society very much vary depending on the political will. yet the fundamental for a meaningful participation in long term would be a strong foundation in education which equip the citizens with capacity in the form of information and knowledge before they could make any decision of a specific policy or even to decide at what level they would like to participate; rather then, depending on the role being assigned to them. Yet, the process can be very chaotic and may thought by many that it has failed, but no, it is just a transition (a long one even) which everyone has to adapt and face (how much time the citizens have been tamed and domesticated, then that is how much time (at least) in reverse to bring back to the neutral point and to move positively on the other direction).

I think you could make a case for arguing that private companies, often multinationals, have adopted a policy-making role in many African states. This is primarily due to the state being weak, which is itself a consequence of Western governments stipulating that developing countries implement neoliberal economic reforms in order to receive aid and other assistance. The dominance of 'civil society' (if you interpret that as being non-profit making organisations) remains undeveloped because these multinational companies have significantly more resources and clout.

See Hoenke and Thauer (2014) "Multinational Corporations and Service Provision in Sub-Saharan Africa: Legitimacy and Institutionalization Matter", Governance (early view) for a very recent discussion

Please note "Governmentality and EU democracy promotion - The European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights and the construction of Democratic civil societies" in International Political sociology 2011 by Milja Kurki!

I would say that NGOs representing many facets of the civil society may act as initial motivation for the presentation of new drafts of government policies, especially that the governance body has sub-committees specialized in civil society issues. At least in Lebanon representatives of NGOs are invited to such hearings. In the last 5 years many government decrees have been revitalized including issues related to women and children well being.

Real feedback and suggestions to the government are required

Hi Chindinma,

The role of civil society in policy formulation and implementation (or, in the entire policy process) is extremely important in the changed context of governance and development. As Babatunda rightly mentioned that they should act as the positive connections among citizen, government and the non-government actors including the development partners. They are well-placed to articulate citizen's real needs and demands. Similarly, they can develop and promote alternative development thinkings. Their role in policy implementation is also crucial as they can facilitate, obstruct or even block the implementation process. In this context the questions raised by Lorrine are pertinent.

When we talk about the role of civil society in the real world situation the normative aspect is not sufficient. We need to dwell on how actually they are influencing the policy process and what is the outcome of such participation. All these depend on the willingness, opportunity and ability of the civil society to participate the policy process. Willingness depends on the level of education, awareness and societal tradition and culture. Opportunity to participate by and large depends on the type of regime, leadership and governance. Ability includes the capacity of civil society to clearly articulate their views and options as well as the public sector capacity to accomodate and participate civil society in the governance process.

However, I think, we should clearly differentiate civil society from the NGOs and interest groups. We should understand the nature, interest and motives of civil society before discussing their actual role in the policy process. How they are formed and how they are nurtured clearly have implications on how they perform. In the context of developing countries specially in Asia and Africa, it is often said that civil societies are neither 'civil' nor they represent 'social' interests. We also have to keep this critical aspect in mind while assessing with the role of civil society in the policy process.

In this connection, I think, you will find Mark Bevir and Rod Rhodes' book (2010) entitled 'The State as Cultural Practice' and Martin Painter and Jon Pierre's book (2005) entitled ' Challenges to State Policy Capacity: Global Trends and Comparative Perspectives' interesting and useful.

I think it is very country specific. Most countries I believe have very little civil society involvement unless the policy issues includes an organization that has been an implementer. If the policy effects a powerful organization with ties to the government and many stakeholders and beneficiaries than it'll consulted.

The countries of Eurasia are pretty weak in this area. Civil Society didn't exist in the Post-Soviet sphere but rather an elitism that was pasted on from the Russian Empire.

The answer to your question depends a lot on the definition of the notion of civil society that you adopt in the first place. There is a big debate on this subject in International Relations. I wrote a paper that proposes to clarify this debate by focusing on three theoretical traditions (liberal, marxist, and kantian) allowing of different conceptions of "civil society". On the basis of these three traditions, the paper then elaborates a typology of the roles and political functions that non state actors may perform in international relations. There should be some useful insights with respect to your question.

Conference Paper Civil society in international relations : a typology of rol...

Hi Chidinma,

I suggest you to look at the role of cooptation' actions during the decision making and governance processes according to Selznick's theory of bureaucracy.

It's an "old" thesis, but I think it still fits by explaning what kind of goals political institutions are searching for by including civil society actors, and what kind of participation it generates.

See also Arnstein and Verba, or Putnam.

These theories may give you not only some important indicators concerning the relationships between political actors and civil society, but also some features regarding the kind of existing civil society , i.e. if an élitistic one (that acts for the only advantage of its members) or a civic one (acting for promoting and achieving of common goals).

Another important aspect to consider when involving civil society in policy formulation and implementation is to define the level/intensity of participation. Here, different levels may apply to different cultural and political contexts. It is interesting to consider here the citizen participation staircase, which starts at the bottom with minor levels such as consultation, dialogue, and ends with co-formulation and co-production - a process in which citizens play an equally important role as the political actors or an even more important role. Political actors should be aware that citizens input might be more effective if they can see that their views, opinions are somehow taken into account.

The best role of civil society is to provide ideas, make suggestions and assist in the monitoring of public policies implemented.

For local development, I can show you a methodological proposal we have prepared for small towns in the province of Buenos Aires.

Conference Paper Improvement and growth of local productive systems through i...

Beyond creating awareness or serving as watchdogs

Civil society place many roles in policy development. It should be part of the consultation program, it can rally the people either for or against a certain policy and it can monitor the implementation ( hold the government accountable). However for civil society to achieve this level it must be strong and supportive of each other. This does not mean they must always agree but resources are scarce and there needs be a general understand of who makes up civil society and how they can work together

Civil society can play the role of pressure group which compels the policy formulators to integrate the demands of the civil society. Civil society can be the watch dog.

Civil society can influence but not compel. There also needs to be recognition that it can be dangerous for civil society employees to active go against a government or to be seen as being too active in the monitoring role

Elueze:

In a democratic State, civil society must play its role as a main partner in the formulation and implementation of public policies, no longer a simple receiver. To do this, she must be aware of their duties and rights; She should learn to exercise them; and should also know to explore the various forms of political participation that its legislation guarantees. Participation is the answer! Participate constantly and progressively. After all, as DEMO (1996) said: participate is an achievement.

Hi,

Yes participation is important but the participation should be targeted to ensure maximum benefits.

Roberts:

Take responsibility, choose and invent new ways of collective relations is part of the process of participation. Participation provides significant changes in people's lives, to the extent that they are interested in and feel responsible for everything that represents a common interest. The Act of participating means democracy when the people involved have capabilities and autonomy to decide and implement their decisions. This is because democracy implies, in addition to the free choice of the rulers and the decisions by majority, the recognition of social diversity and overcoming social inequalities. Therefore, the democratic learning implies acquiring ability to discuss, develop and accept rules, as well as the overcoming of obstacles and differences by means of dialogue for the construction of common purposes.

Excellent inputs. In many countries NGOs are part of sub-committees which provide consultation to government offices. So, in a country where NGOs are marginalized, they have to build a coalition first to unify purpose and then act as a consultation force to selected persons in office to reach later on to the cabinet where decision making is mostly conducted. Moreover, NGOs are nowadays preferred by International Donors to act as intermediaries and fund keepers against the spoiled political manipulation of provided funds.

Civil Society has active role to play in democratic system of government. Its platforms gives the ideas of what to be included and what not to be included in public policy.

Civil society has the methods and knows the concerns of their constituents. They have the opportunity to provide a voice for the people who most likely not be heard. However, there is a down side and that is some NGOs are corrupt (the minority I hope) and they do have their won agendas. I also wonder if it is more that NGOs cost less than other means of achieving the same or similar results. This is not to say that NGOs are not doing a great job but a realisation that they are not the government or IFOs and their place with the structure of the society should be apart from the legislative process

Civil Society organizations have to be involved because they bring to the decisions the population's inputs and add reality to the planning.

Civil society has a store of information which in most cases is objectively constructed. Such valuable information which is a resource for development is lacking to governments of developing countries. Civil society can therefore impart on the policy making process with the unbiased information at their disposal. They are also better placed to assess the success or otherwise of policies due to their 'neutral' position within the political system.

Agreed that NGO's bring the voice of the people to the table and they can add a critique of the governments policies and practices. The other area where NGO's have a critical role is in the implementation of governmental policies and procedures.

It could be improved through developing the check and balance systems.

A scorecards approach can be used to monitor progress both of the government and of the implementation.

In my experience in Kenya, Tanzania, and Ghana, I've seen very active citizen participation in the form of reading newspapers and conversing in coffee shops and online in social media. In Northern Africa, I believe the Arab Spring showed us that civil society is alive and well in Africa. Thus, while I concur with the notion that the transition from liberators and founding fathers to a mature democracy with a large and diverse crowd of potential candidates from many sectors is underway, I believe civil society is healthy within many places in Africa.

Looking at the latest events in Lebanon, NGOs have built a strong influencing voice for the improvement of government performance.