Glenda Daniels
Big Brother interference or just sour grapes? This is the latest fracas tearing South Africa’s already tattered civil society process apart with less than six months to go before Johannesburg hosts the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
Some leftist NGOs want out of the present process because “the government has taken control of civil society”.
But the main players in civil society, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu), the South African NGO Coalition (Sangoco) and church bodies say there is no “government control or interference”. It is merely trying to make the whole process as efficient as possible and the summit a success, they say, as South Africa’s reputation depends on it. The civil society section of the summit will be bigger than the other two: business and government.
Allegations of government control of preparations for the civil society summit are pure “rabble rousing and sour grapes”, says Neva Makgetla, Cosatu representative.
Sangoco head Zakes Hlatswayo, acting CEO of the Civil Society Secretariat since the suspension last week of CEO Jacqui Brown, said at a press conference on Wednesday: “Bickerings have delayed our readiness. This enormous process cannot take place without such dynamics but the quibbling has not helped the funding process. We only have 25% of the budget [about R340-million] we need.”
This week some NGOs slammed the new Broad Political Forum running the civil society process. Director of the Rural Development Services Network (RDSN) Eddie Cottle said: “The Big Brother approach has taken root. Government has taken control of civil society.”
The Section 21 company, the Johannesburg World Summit Company (Jowsco) and Cosatu are in cahoots, he said, undermining real democracy. “We don’t want a government-led process. The government wants to use the summit to launch Nepad [the New Partnership for Africa’s Development], a plan for the whole of Africa, without consulting civil society.”
Cottle alleges that the accreditation process for civil society is being run by Jowsco, using smart-card technology and that Brown was booted out because Cosatu regarded her as too independent-minded when she fought against government control.
Magketla responds: “We must not forget that this is a democratically elected government. We must not oppose it just as a matter of principle but rather on specific issues All we say is that it is not appropriate to run the civil society process as an anti-government function.”
She says civil society is using Jowsco merely to organise logistics, because it is pointless duplicating procedures such as accreditation and transport when there is a company that can do this.
And Cosatu is not sanctioning Nepad, she says. “Nepad has to be consulted with civil society.”
As for Brown, “The audit found lots of cash cheques, unprocedural tenders, which may have been nepotistic, and on some tenders, tax wasn’t paid.”
Moss Mashishi, CEO of Jowsco, says: “In terms of accreditation, we do not decide who attends the summit and who does not; the United Nations does. We are providing the logistical and technical expertise.”
Makgetla agrees. The smart cards are for transport, she says. “There were problems at the Racism conference because people had logistical problems of accommodation and transport we can’t duplicate the same problems with this summit.”
Marginalised groups, including Cottle’s RDSN, met this week under the old banner of the Civil Society Indaba. They said in a statement they “will carry on a process that is independent from government” and “will prepare a parallel process that will be addressing the critical issues of the growth, employment and redistribution strategy, Nepad, globalisation and environmental issues”.
In the meanwhile a disciplinary hearing with an independent mediator is currently under way after last week’s suspension of Brown over allegations of weak management and financial irregularities. An outcome is expected by March 25.