Civilly shutting up the poor

This article is not an attempt to shame or to degrade anyone in particular, or to provide some magical solution to the complicated and convoluted problems, but rather, this is an article for the people, for frustrated youth such as myself, for those of us who understand but think that we never have a strong enough voice in anything that happens around us, to us. This article is about voice and who has the right to give whom the platform to speak, to debate, to dialogue, and more importantly, which voice is heard and which ones are deliberately muted. While I write this article, I am much too aware of the fact that most people in my country will not understand for my own shortcoming of writing and thinking in English. I never regret the medium in which I have been formally trained, but neither am I proud of how much the language has penetrated into my thought process. But whoever I can appeal or be heard to, I remain grateful for that opportunity.

Civil societies, since the time of Toucqueville and Locke (this is not to say "civil societies" never existed before such Western political philosophers, but rather, certain definitions were formulated by them which are now the basis for modern understanding and creations of civil societies) were viewed as the glue between the state and the people. There is an element of ambiguity in this term which allows for civil society to occupy this unique position between the sate and the people. The word "civil" in it of itself is a loaded term, implying a clear distinction between those who are "civilised" and those "uncivilised," the mob. In short, civil societies were made up of citizens but not all citizens were a part of the civil society.

These "civilised" groups of people created the space to either contest or support the state, with their own interest in mind and/or the interest of the "people." It is this very point of having the ability to formally associate and discuss the problems of the society, is a place of privilege, as well as to establish oneself to have a prior knowledge of what these "problems" are. This knowledge is at times direct presentation of voices who actually are affected by problems but most of the time, it is a "re-presentation" of the people. Based on this knowledge, civil societies legitimise their positions, enter into negotiations with the state and more so determine what should be on the agenda for change.

Relating this theoretical framework with what we have before us, is a group of closely knit individuals, both politically and socially, with certain acquired recognitions and achievements, presenting forth to the educated population an agenda for development. Within this agenda, there are certain favourites, top-tens, such as corruption in the bureaucracy and political parties, economic development for the country, and the possible ways forward. Those who have created this forum have already identified certain problems in the country and have set the debate within those parameters. All this in the name of the poor, in the name of the disenfranchised. Yet, no common poor person will ever read any of these critically thought out articles, let alone be aware of them. Then who gives this "civil" society the right to be the champion for the poor, the voice of the suppressed?

This is not to say that we sit back and do nothing. But that is also not the reason for venturing forth without being critical of this self-proclaimed position. Certain elements of feudalism never left the Bangladeshi elites, which have ensured rigid class structures. This class structure is maintained in various different ways ranging from different members of the family having strong holds over different sectors of the economy, including NGOs and media, ensuring children marry within the same social circle, and strategically aligning with one political platform or the other in order to maintain a position of power and privilege. In a "democratic" context, these feudal notions have transformed into "civil society." Even the World Bank joined the bandwagon by doing us a great service by coming up with a euphemistic term for such strategic power relations as "social capital." This civil society embodying such "rich" (yes, both in content and financially!) social capital seem to believe that they know what is best for the country, acting on behalf of the people, while deliberately refusing to realise that they are part and parcel of the problem.

While I type these words of criticism of not only this civil society initiative, a formal forum, I am constantly keeping in mind of the default position of being "born into" this civil society, this elite class structure as both a reminder to myself and to state clearly to the readers of my position. The idealist in me wants to appeal for the space to question: foundations-breaking questions, norms-defying questions, power-disrupting questions. Questions that must ask who is here and who is not, who were allowed to speak and who were spoken for. On the other hand, the cynic in me tells me that all these words will be carefully considered by a handful, apathetically read by most, but for those a part of the status quo, these will be words of breakfast amusement, easily overlooked and forgotten (the assumption being this article will at all be published!). Life will continue as the same with or without this civil society for the objective is not to transform anymore, but rather how to "build capacity." All this civil society will accomplish by the end of the day is to gain popularity for those who mainly initiated this forum. Donors will send words of congratulations on such "much needed initiative for democratic dialogue and active civil society participation as a process of accountability." Reports and academic papers will site this as "best practice" and later on the "impacts" will be condensed into "lessons learnt." But most of all this forum makes great conversation topics at cocktail parties and wedding receptions where while we continue to "dialogue," "negotiate," make or break our political and financial allegiances, and build our "social capital," the poor will remain suppressed, the voiceless will remain silenced.

Where is my position in all this? A "once upon a time" Marxist used to tell me that though he was a part of the ruling class, he will always betray it.

Shahana Siddiqui is a frelance contributor.