(Washington, DC) Xolela Mangu, a distinguished South African social scientist and columnist, joined our conference last week on the Obama civic agenda. In his national column, he reflects on “service” (with its hints of moral obligation, on one side, and dependency on the other) versus civic empowerment:
LAST week I participated in a cross-Atlantic conference with officials and academics closely aligned with the Obama administration.
On this side, I was joined by the distinguished scholar-activist, Harry Boyte.
The conference was convened to ask one question: how far has Obama gone in fulfilling his campaign promise of making active citizenship the centre of his administration?
The chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service, Alan Solomont, provided a wide-ranging account of what the administration had done in increasing funding for public service and getting the youth actively involved in community service work.
The administration has also done well in opening up the government.
Obama’s foreign policy speeches have also set the tone for civic engagement around the world.
However, Harvard University’s Marshall Ganz was more cautious about the emphasis on service as opposed to building community.
Boyte could sense technocracy creeping into the language of the administration, from the mobilising theme of “yes, we can”, with the government and the people working together, to “yes, we should”, which is more about doing for communities.
My own view is that instead of foreign policy discussions proceeding only in terms of the human rights/national interest dichotomy, we should be exploring international collaboration around issues such as active citizenship.
Interestingly, the masthead editorial in the same edition of the same newspaper (The Weekender) echoes the same themes. Commenting on recent grassroots protests in South Africa, The Weekender says:
The community-based protests have been the catalyst for a long-overdue conversation on the “service delivery” issue, which was all but drowned out of the election campaign earlier this year by the power struggle within the ANC and Zuma’s battle to avoid prosecution. But it is not clear the party has any viable alternative to vague promises based on a top-down delivery model–hence the hastily arranged national summit to establish the cause of the flare-ups. …
There is a lot more to it than unrealistic expectations, though. The very basis of the term “service delivery” needs to be revisited–what is meant by it, how is it understood by the poor, and is it appropriate given the capacity and skills challenges the state faces?
“Service delivery” implies from the outset that poor communities are passive recipients of state largesse, and this clearly accords with the view of many ruling party politicians, who unashamedly link political support with handouts. Yet it has been shown the world over that community involvement in projects such as infrastructure development not only helps ensure that the product is looked after but enhances individual confidence, self- respect and skills levels.
Several commentators have pointed out that the nub of the protests is not so much about delivery–although that clearly leaves much to be desired in most parts of the country–but the fact that communities are seldom consulted about what they really want.
“Community service” is not the same thing as “service delivery.” The former usually involves amateurs who are unpaid or given small stipends; the latter, agencies and professionals. Yet it is no coincidence that the two phrases share a word. Their shared problem is a conception of people as needy clients, not as active agents. In both the United States and South Africa, now that left-of-center governments hold power, there is a quiet struggle underway between “service” and civic agency.