Reaching for the light

A case of heterotropism in the Kenyan Civil Society. Plants grow both towards light and water while the civil society middle class tends to grow more towards donors than to communities. This is reflected in effective and efficient upward accountability as opposed to downward accountability.

By Eliud Wakwabubi

Just as in biology, heterotropism has become a natural process in the civil society sector in Kenya. In biology, heterotropism is a process through which plants grow towards their source of energy: light and water. The civil society middle class derives their source of energy from donors. The energy itself is called money. This money is acquired by the civil society organizations through the relationship they establish with the poor in communities.

While heterotropism in plants is a natural process that irrespective of location ensures their survival, it has become a process for sustaining middle class benefits to Nairobi based civil society executives and founders. Benefits characterised by good cars, good houses, good schools for their children, good food and money. Does this process of centralising heterotropism in Nairobi and towards donors make it a natural biological process?

The answer is no.

Inequitable growth

Heterotropism in plants is an equitable process. Heterotropism in the civil society creates inequalities. Those who reap sustainable benefits are those living in Nairobi. This by using effectively contacts and networks with donors and taking disguised trips to the field.

If I go back to the history of the civil society sector in Kenya, commonly known as the voluntary sector, it’s intended or original idea was to work for the poor and marginalized who had been neglected by the government, particularly the KANU regime. Their main objective was to serve the poor who are excluded in all sectors of development, thereby giving them socio-economic and political empowerment in all decisions that relate to their livelihoods.

During the early period, there was no middle class and most of the resources generated were channelled towards addressing the needs of the poor. Directors and founders were more interested in fighting for the interests of the poor without giving much attention to their own vertical mobility towards the quartile of the middle class. But now, the emerging civil society middle class has also influenced poor communities to only account themselves upwardly.

Prior to this, the source of livelihood for the poor was entirely found within their communities. In fact the concept of poverty was not there among the pre-colonial Kenyan societies. This was because in all situations in which the community was lacking, it always relied on its own efforts and resources for its solutions. These days however, poor communities lean towards the services provided by the civil society organizations.

Liberty of conscience

Let me cite a case from India, where I had a short stint of experience with the civil society sector. In India civil society representatives are members of the community, have the same ideals and live together with the people they serve and strongly identify with them. They have common feelings and thoughts, face similar problems and obligations to overcome them. They identify with one another and hate the common enemy: poverty and structures sustaining it. In India, they have tribal organizations called village republics. When I talked to a friend working with one such organization Dr. B.D. Sharma, an accomplished writer on tribal development in India, I asked him if he contemplated leaving his job in favour of a good paying job in the government. He told me that it was not possible since tribal development is where his interests are permanently stored.

He noted to me that working with tribal communities is where he realises the liberty of his conscience. Village republics are common in tribal areas of India and are elected by members of the community. Communities have their own laws that are followed. They regulate their own affairs and development and determine how to use the money that they are given by the central government. Why? Because they realise that government resources are their own resources and they have the right to use them on their own priorities.

It is easy for poor communities in India to bring changes in the central government because they do it through organizations formed and led by the communities’ own people, who are elected based on the communities’ own laws. Co-option into the government and corruption of the village republics is very hard because those who dare will be ostracised from their communities.

This excellent scenario is not likely to be the case in Kenya. In Kenya, the root objective of the voluntary sector was to decentralise development in Kenya, but the emergence of a civil society middle class has contravened this noble ideal by re-centralizing the same development.

Reverse the process

We need to reverse the process of heterotropism in Kenya, first in the civil society sector and second in communities. Reversing the process of heterotropism is what empowerment means to me. But is this possible? I think this is a difficult task. It starts with the poor looking at themselves as assets and active clients claiming their rights appropriately in poverty alleviation strategies. The emerging middle class should find a way of identifying with the communities they are working for. For instance, living like them, eating like them and being consistent with their interests. Lastly, allowing the poor to monitor them as they do the same for communities the terms of reference being: how effective are the poverty reduction strategies?