Power, Politics and Programming for Social Accountability in Pakistan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE POWER, POLITICS AND PROGRAMMING FOR SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN PAKISTAN Submitted in Fulfilment of the Full Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, November 2017 Thomas Kirk 1 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of the author. I warrant that this authorization does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. ……………………………………………………………. Signature: Thomas Kirk I declare that my thesis consists of 104,645 words. I declare that the thesis references and para-phrases the arguments of previous studies carried out by the author but does not contain empirical data from them. 2 Photo 1: A community leader adding his signature to state documents REMOVED FOR COPYRIGHT Source: Author’s own photograph 3 Acknowledgements This thesis was co-created with those I already knew and those I met along the way. Here I wish to briefly thank a few. It would not have got off the ground if it had not been for Khalid who welcomed me to Pakistan and helped me explore it. If nothing else, he has made a friend for life. My partner, Sarah, was stoic throughout, never doubting, always encouraging and occasionally picking me off the floor. She was there when I first went to Pakistan ten years ago and drove me to return. Perhaps for a bit too long. I am also thankful to my mother, Helena, for showing me I could take the less well-trodden path and for being my most avid reader. Susan, who now feels like family, was a source of advice in difficult times and someone to celebrate with during the good bits. My supervisor, Mary, for trusting me to produce something, at some point, and for shaping my politics. And, way back in Afghanistan, Marika who taught me ‘fieldwork’. Otherwise, a large group of people helped, housed, debated, argued and, on occasion, nursed me whilst in Pakistan for two years. Emrys was a fellow traveller on the GT Road. Annette and Hassan gave me shelter and company. Caroline was always there as a voice of sanity and health. Rosita for when I just needed to talk. Azeema for national and local political insights, including on the development crowd. I am also grateful to Shahid, Rashid, Mudassir and Gareth for giving me their time and knowledge and allowing me to explore their work. Several institutions also contributed. The LSE with funds, the Newby Trust and the Institute of Development and Economic Alternatives with awards, and the Justice and Security Research Programme, Palladium and Coffey with relevant employment. Individuals such as Eva, Duncan, and Sabine gave me invaluable feedback on my evolving ideas. I also employed a group of talented research assistants: Umer, Majida, Sophia, Umair, Daanika, Jamal and Omaid. Lastly, my friends in the UK kept me anchored despite claiming to have no idea what I do. 4 Abstract This thesis is about development donor organisations’ enthusiasm for social accountability programmes. It argues that when they are based on neoliberal conceptions of civil society, they complement and strengthen clientelistic networks. They do this by rendering activism a technical exercise, depoliticising it and blinding donors to both its democratic and undemocratic potentials. In doing so, they displace and, sometimes purposefully, ignore actually existing civil societies’ histories as arenas for identity formation, contests and alliances over who gets what, when and how. This reduces the prospects of programmes identifying and supporting radical forms of political participation that give citizens a say in decisions that affect their lives. To make this argument, the thesis details research on a voluntary social accountability programme in Pakistan. It explores the meanings it was given by participants, the processes they engaged in that brought it to life, and the power and politics it was embedded in. It also conducts a critical discourse analysis of the idea of social accountability in texts from the programme’s donor; the United Kingdom’s Department of International Development. It is shown how efforts to translate the programme’s ground realities into its donor’s dominant discourses wrote out the identities and aspirations of its participants, pushing the more radical to its margins and turning the most powerful into its experts. From this, a theory of ‘isomorphic activism’ is developed to account for how such programmes' wider democratic aims can be undermined whilst still achieving their donors’ desired outputs. The challenges the thesis highlights are important given recent calls for development programmes to change by whom and how politics is done, whilst granting local ownership to participants, reporting their impact and demonstrating value for money. They should also be of interest to those concerned by the spread of market- principles within donor organisations’ ways of working with civil society, and how they are welcomed, appropriated or simply ignored on the ground. 5 Contents Declaration ................................................................................................................................. 2 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 4 Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Contents ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Glossary .................................................................................................................................... 11 Acronyms ................................................................................................................................. 13 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 15 Research motivation ............................................................................................................ 17 Research design and methods ............................................................................................. 19 Contributions ....................................................................................................................... 20 Civil society .......................................................................................................................... 24 Clientelism............................................................................................................................ 25 Democratisation ................................................................................................................... 27 Neoliberalism ....................................................................................................................... 30 Thesis structure .................................................................................................................... 33 2. Civil Society ................................................................................................................ 36 Debating the good life and the state of nature ................................................................... 36 Political contests, ideologies and democracy ...................................................................... 38 Under totalitarianism ........................................................................................................... 40 Activist civil society theory .................................................................................................. 43 Critiquing activist civil society theory .................................................................................. 45 Civil society, development and democracy ......................................................................... 47 Neoliberal civil society theory.............................................................................................. 50 Critiquing neoliberal civil society theory ............................................................................. 53 Actually existing civil societies ............................................................................................. 60 Contentious mobilisations ................................................................................................... 63 South Asia’s CBOs and NGOs ............................................................................................... 69 A framework for analysing civil societies ............................................................................. 73 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 75 6 Aidnography ................................................................................................................... 76 Development practice .........................................................................................................