Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

Anti-caste scholar activism is a relatively new academic arena adding pivotal insights to epistemic justice and academic research. I have been working with anti-caste scholars in solidarity since long and now hold a PhD place to push awareness and to create more space for anti-caste scholars.

Paper long abstract:

This research aims to solve a pressing omission in academic knowledge on lived experience of caste and its intersecting inequalities, through what is known by the self-named term “Anti-Caste Scholar-Activism”: counter-hegemonic knowledge production from the perspectives of Dalit Bahujan and Adivasi on the Indian subcontinent and the diaspora. The articulation of anti-caste scholar-activism as academic social scientific knowledge is a recent development by anti-caste scholars in South Asia and in countries with large diaspora communities in the UK and US. The mapping of it in terms of theoretical and societal relevance for academia within academia in the global North and the Netherlands in particular, has hardly been done yet. Further articulation and mapping of contents and relevance of anti-caste scholar-activism discourses in Dutch academia urgently needs attention for the following reasons:

- It adds to multiple academic postmodern and postcolonial discourses within social sciences and development studies, by adding counter-hegemonic knowledge production from the lived experience of subaltern Dalit Bahujan communities and scholars.

- It adds to decolonizing academia and research partnerships (in terms of institutes, individual scholars and knowledge production). This will be reflected in the research setup and methods used. Similarly, it contributes to ending the Brahmin hegemony (both in terms of representation of scholars and in the generation of knowledge) of academia. As such, it also adds to the emancipation of the anti-caste movement and members.

- It investigates alternative, reflexive forms of critical learning, “other ways of knowing” in development cooperation and social scientific research

Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract:

This study explores how civil society organisations in India construct their legitimacy representing marginalized groups. It addresses a fundamental condition of much advocacy by CSOs in India as elsewhere: the leadership of the CSOs often does not emerge from the marginalized groups themselves.

Paper long abstract:

In discourse on representation by civil society in the context of development, ‘True’ representation is expected from in-country civil society organisations, and especially those working at local levels. However, such claims are based on assumptions rather than research. In this study, we explore how civil society organisations (CSOs) working with marginalized groups at subnational and district level in the state of Jharkhand in India construct the legitimacy of their roles as representatives. For this study, we interviewed the leadership of 12 CSOs, and explore a fundamental condition of much advocacy by CSOs in India as elsewhere: the leadership of the CSOs often does not emerge from the marginalized groups themselves. This raises questions regarding the constructions of legitimacy associated with advocacy roles. The paper shows that the CSOs construct the legitimacy of their advocacy with reference to organizational qualities that make it possible to perform the role of an intermediary between constituencies and the state, acting for, rather than on behalf of, in solidarity. At the same time, the intermediary roles often contribute to state policy implementation rather than transformative change. Moreover, such claims to solidarity underline privilege and differentiation from groups involved; CSOs commonly exhibit little facilitation of leadership emerging from marginalized groups, or enhancement of their political agency. Constructions of legitimacy thus reinforce CSO roles, rather than support group empowerment. This raises questions regarding the viability of the concept of representation in contexts such as these where claims to legitimacy of CSO advocacy roles rest on privilege-based solidarity.

Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract:

Our presentation will discuss how legitimacy can be derived from other sources than elections. Civic engagement, local advocacy and popular activities, while nascent and by some viewed as disruptive, show they are inherently legitimate and empower Libyans to collectively launch change.

Paper long abstract:

This paper is based on 30 Libyan-led co-enquiries using participatory action research and an analysis of 227 dialogues and 54 actions organised by 50 CSOs in an EU-funded rule of law programme. This way people examine what matters to local communities, how they understand their context and devise the best course of action.

The paper draws on Kaldor’s concept of civic logic (2021) and the emergence of manifestations of civic practices in a context dominated by authoritarian and illiberal practices (Glasius 2018). The paper shows that Libyan people perceive legitimacy, trust, accountability and transparency as crucial elements for conducting accepted and effective advocacy. The findings indicate how legitimacy can be derived from other sources than elections. In the actual and everyday Libyan reality, a framework for legitimacy presents itself through active participation, inclusive dialogues grounded in local knowledge and experience, and adherence to laws, customs and religion. While not a formal way to replace elections, it provides a different and operational approach that empowers Libyans to launch changes.

The paper further demonstrates how civic engagement, local advocacy and popular activities, while unknown and viewed as disruptive, show they are inherently legitimate. People, even when personally at risk, continue their actions grounded in this understanding as they seek an end to ‘the atmosphere of apathy and fear’. Their manifestations of civic logic and practices counter the authoritarian and illiberal practice presently facing Libya and contribute across the country to national reconciliation, raising awareness, and improving safety, security and daily living conditions.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

My paper explores how processes of what I describe as ' NGO legitimacy-making' in forest protection relies upon diverse audience relationships in the local setting which are conflicted and complex in the context of uneven power relations in Cambodia's social and political space.

Paper long abstract:

In this paper I explore IENGO legitimacy through representation, by claims of closeness to other actors/audiences. Beetham explains that a democratic based source of NGO legitimacy relies on their capacity to act as representatives of different social groups such as their members and supporters, and marginalised groups and voices (Beetham 2013:276). While INGOs can be said to primarily represent non-human habitants of forests, they often appeal to human concerns as a source of legitimacy, such as Indigenous rights, community participation, and local livelihoods. Criticisms of NGOs include those which accuse them of being too close to more powerful audiences to properly represent the interests of human and non-human inhabitants of forests.

Through a poststructuralist lens, and using empirical research, I explore how INGO-audience relationships are described in formal and informal settings, by INGO workers and their audiences in Cambodia's forest protection. These audiences include the government, bilateral donors, local communities and Indigenous Peoples organisations, media, environmental activist groups. I explore how this aspect of legitimacy-making involves differential normative expectations within INGOs themselves and other audiences and how claims of closeness rely on contradictions, and are contested by INGOs themselves, and their audiences. Thus, I explore how INGO legitimacy through closeness relies on managing conflicts and contradictions in what can be thought of as a juggling act in which some balls are inevitably dropped..

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

The paper examines the intersection of civil society advocacy, memorialisation, and erasures in the context of Kashmir through analysing the works of local human rights group Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society and international rights watchdog Amnesty International.

Paper long abstract:

As a site of continuing contestation between memory and forgetfulness—the former of a people subjected to decades of systemic and systematic violence, and the latter of a militarized state relying on institutional impunity, denial, and erasure—Kashmir presents an interesting case study to investigate the landscapes of memorialization employed as part of civil society advocacy. With the Indian state constantly engaged in a war over bodies and memories, the responsibility to challenge impunity and seek accountability from the perpetrator falls on civil society, both local and international. Although the only public memorials are the many mazar-e-Shuhdaa (martyrs’ graveyards) dotting Kashmir’s landscape, a key aspect of memorialization initiatives is the significant public repository of human rights documents prepared by local as well as international human rights defender groups.

This paper traces the complex relation between the concepts of impunity, denial, forgetfulness, memory, and human rights in the terrain of civil society advocacy and the legitimacy of memorialisation as an effective tool to bring accountability, deterrence and justice. The paper analyzes this aspect of standardized memorialization in Kashmir, focusing on the works of local human rights group Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS) and international rights watchdog Amnesty International (AI). It benefits from the analysis of documents, reports, legal records, petitions, campaigns, and press statements available in the online archives of these organizations as well as unpublished documents, and it is further supplemented by reflections gathered through a few in-depth interviews.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

This paper focuses on the question of community-based legitimacy for advocacy organizations, with particular attention for the role of community spokespersons who come to act as intermediaries between communities and advocacy organizations.

Paper long abstract:

This paper analyses community-based legitimacy for advocacy organizations through the lens of community intermediaries. Where advocacy organizations seek to represent rural, remote or otherwise marginalized communities, spokespersons emerge who take on an intermediary role between these organizations and the broader community. These persons are selected by the organizations as spokespersons, or put forward by their own communities based on reputation, skills or eloquence.

Once community spokespersons engage in frequent travel, participate in public forums and obtain an international network, their ability to represent and respond to the needs of other community members is altered. Meanwhile, they face a range of challenges. Increasing demands are made on them from various angles, and they need to balance their community activities with daily occupations and family commitments. Moreover, their prominent position as community representatives puts them at risk of repercussions by government and private actors who seek to silence local dissent, resulting in frequent threats, arrest and detainment. Such newly acquired positions, in short, come at considerable individual costs.

This paper is based on research conducted with organizations and community members in Ghana and Kenya, as well as interviews with Netherlands-based advocacy organisations to explore their existing policies and practices and their aspirations in assessing community-based legitimacy through the role of community intermediaries. The primary methods used are participant observation, interviews and focus-group discussions between 2018-2022 (Kenya) and June-July 2023 (Ghana), complemented with participatory research methods to create science comics depicting the experiences of communities and their representatives in relation to advocacy organizations.

Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract:

This paper will take a critical view of civil society (shushil shomaj in Bangla) concept and will demonstrate how organic civil society action can be transformed and made "toothless" by INGO managerialism and professionalisation in Bangladesh.

Paper long abstract:

Bengal has a long history of "civil society movements" in the broader sense of the phrase. The specific term "shushil shomaj" to refer to civil society was introduced by international development organisations to advocate for human rights issues. This introduction occurred in the socio-political context of the 1990s, a period marked by the restoration of democratisation following the removal of the military-autocrat government led by Major General Ershad through a decade-long mass movement. Simultaneously, Bangladesh witnessed a shift in the non-government-organisations led development approach from mere service delivery to a more 'people-centric' approach, with 'civil society' organisations playing a crucial role. However, throughout this period, there remained a persistent ambiguity regarding the meaning of the concept of civil society / "Shushil Shomaj." In this paper we will take a critical view of the concepts and will demonstrate how organic civil society action can be transformed and made "toothless" by INGO managerialism and professionalisation. We will argue that local vernacular conceptions of justice embedded in organic action and social movements strongly resonate with Global North discourses, but that Global North practices drive civil society to the comfortable and safe middle ground, away from the political issues. This is not least because the way in which Global North managerialism defines "success" is often misaligned with the kinds of approaches required to successfully challenge entrenched local elites and vested interests.

Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract:

This paper inductively analyses how the legitimacy and accountability of NGOs are constructed in Uganda among urban public constituencies (Twitter users). The paper uses a social media analysis of 400 tweets to shed light on perceptions and understanding of NGOs' legitimacy in authoritarian regimes.

Paper long abstract:

This article examines a case study of a popular Twitter campaign in Uganda (#UgandaNGOsExhibition). Activists and Twitter users posted about their experiences with NGOs – either as employees in the sector, beneficiaries of NGOs’ programs, or ordinary Twitter users. Critical NGOs in Uganda experience increased hostilities from the regime - through a restrictive legal environment, raids on NGOs’ offices, asset-freezing, and co-optation (CIVICUS, 2023; Bukenya, 2021). Concurrently, the dependency of Ugandan NGOs on foreign funding has threatened their legitimacy before the government and the public, questioning whose interests they promote and who they are accountable to (Larok, 2021; Bukenya, 2021).

This article addresses three questions: (1) What are the perceptions of Uganda’s Urban Public (Twitter users) on the state of NGOs’ accountability and legitimacy in Uganda? (2) How do NGOs respond to demands for their accountability when their legitimacy is at stake? (3) How effective was the urban public’s effort to hold NGOs accountable through the Twitter campaign? The study uses digital ethnography and inductively analyses a dataset of 417 tweets (under #UgandaNGOsExhibition) using NVivo coding. Twitter data has gained popularity in social science research as a source of text for data analysis (Steinert-Threlkeld, 2018). The findings reveal that framing NGOs’ accountability in the #UgandaNGOsExhibition prioritized three main mechanisms to hold NGOs accountable - Donor Scrutiny, Peer Accountability, and Naming and Shaming. Conversely, the campaign placed less emphasis on the role of Government Oversight and Community Oversight mechanisms. Yet, NGOs have previously prioritized their legitimacy to the state.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

Exploring civil society advocacy legitimacy in the Global South is crucial, especially in the absence of government ownership towards gender justice. The paper suggests that the global-local space is both constraining and empowering for local actors, allowing alternative definitions of legitimacy.

Paper long abstract:

This paper aims to explore the legitimacy of civil society advocacy in the Global South, focusing on the case of gender mainstreaming. The development field has evolved into a sophisticated industry, with jargon like ownership and accountability overshadowing the goal of achieving social justice on the ground. While the concept of local ownership emerged to highlight developing countries' autonomy in shaping their own strategies, its interpretation becomes complex, given that it is frequently vested in recipient governments rather than in local constituencies. This poses a particular challenge when governments exhibit disinterest in societal agendas, with gender justice being a representative example. Gender inequality problems are intricately tied to deeply entrenched traditions unique to each society, making them challenging to address through technical assistance offered by the industry alone. This calls for the recognition of local constituencies capable of genuinely owning the gender agenda in Global South countries. Based on interviews with civil society actors and gender experts in Vietnam and Cambodia, the paper posits that national gender specialists in development projects with strong ties to local civil society can play a crucial role in translating practical gender interests into strategic ones in the long term. The paper defines the local as the space of interaction between donor agencies and recipient governments of aid, encompassing government ministries and consultants. This space reveals both constraining and empowering aspects for local constituencies as they contribute their own translation of what gender mainstreaming means, thus paving the way to alternative definitions of legitimacy.

Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract:

Civil society is a complex category that refers to a plurality of postures, especially in the Global South. This article analyses sources of legitimacy mobilized by environmental CSOs to build advocacy strategies and rise themselves as an important actor within forest governance in Cameroon.

Paper long abstract:

Civil society is a complex category that refers to a plurality of postures and agency, with agency being defined as "the ability to operate or introduce socio-economic and political changes in the arena where actors act through a set of strategies implemented within the structures and spaces where they intervene" (Pairault, Soulé & Zhou, 2023). This paper analyses sources of legitimacy mobilized by Cameroonian environmental CSOs to build advocacy strategies and thus raise themselves as an important actor within forest governance in the context of China-Africa relations by answering the following question: How do Cameroonian environmental CSOs build their legitimacy to take part in forest governance in a context where a wide range of CSOs are competing to be heard?

To answer this question, the paper employs a qualitative research method inspired by the ‘grounded theories’ conceptual framework (Strauss & Corbin, 1994; Garreau, 2012). Using an inductive approach to draw as much as possible research findings from empirical-based research, this paper aims to generate new empirical knowledge about the different strategies mobilized by environmental CSOs to legitimate advocacy in defending local communities against Chinese actors in forest governance. This paper thus discusses the capacity of CSOs to fulfil their role as challengers of the existing power structures (Quantin, 2008) through advocacy (Morariu & Brennan, 2009: 100) toward social and environmental justice in a developing country.