Engaging Civil Society in Governance Processes

I have just returned from the Public Participation Conference in Johannesburg where I presented a paper on my research with victim support groups, entitled, Engaging Civil Society in Governance Processes: A Case Study of Victim Support Groups in Northern Ireland. The paper can be downloaded from academia.edu by clicking on this link: http://aberdeen.academia.edu/LauraGraham/Papers/1450840/Engaging_Civil_Society_in_Governance_Processes_A_Case_Study_of_Victim_Support_Groups_in_Northern_Ireland

The aim of the conference was to present ideas to the Gauteng Provincial Legislature on how to engage civil society in public participation processes. Drawing on my research from the Compromise After Conflict Study, I presented a paper that employed Northern Ireland as a case study for participative democracy through civic organizations (e.g. victim support groups). My paper presented three key lessons for an international audience: 1) Government must provide a platform for civil society to engage with policymakers on social issues; 2) Government should promote policies aimed at developing social capital within civic organizations; and 3) Top-down approaches to governance and decision-making with fail to capitalize on the knowledge and talent of civic organizations, equating to missed opportunities for participative democracy.

The paper was well received by the legislators, practitioners and academics present at the conference and some very interesting and astute questions were raised about the issue of social capital development in civil society. One legislator asked what could be done to minimize the impact of bad civic groups (e.g. KKK) which has been referred to by social capital theorists as "The Dark Side of Social Capital" and "Bad Civil Society" (cf. Putnam; Chambers & Kopstein). Another question by an NGO representative from Australia was how can social capital be developed in societies where there are limited financial resources to incentivize civic organizations to engage in development strategies. On this note, I would defer to Putnam's description of 1950s America in his book, Bowling Alone (2000), to which he describes the social capital of civil society as having evolved from a moral responsibility to take care of others and a sense of civic responsibility and duty.

Although my paper was well received, it was by no means the highlight of the week. Since some readers will be interested in other aspects of the conference, I thought I would give a brief overview of my trip here.

Day 1: Morning presentations by the Speaker of the Gauteng Legislature, other distinguished guests and a very interesting presentation by an NGO called IAP2. I presented my paper in a breakaway session in the afternoon.

Day 2: Morning presentations by Professor Brian Wampler of Boise State University and Scottish MSP David Stewart on participative democracy. Mr. Stewart's presentation on the petitions committee for Scottish Parliament was particularly informative for legislators.

Day 3: I attended the Apartheid Museum in Soweto, which was an excellent memorial to South Africans who suffered at the hands of apartheid. I was sorry that the TRC exhibit was missing and that there was no specific attention to the female victims of apartheid, but apart from that, it is a must see for any Jo'burg visitors. I ate lunch with Prof. Wampler and Mr. Stewart, where we discussed a number of very interesting topics related to US and UK politics. In the evening, I dined with Brian Currin, a human rights atty involved with the TRC and the NI Sentence and Review Board.

Day 4: I visited a Lion and Rhino park in Pretoria, where I saw many ostriches but no lions or rhinos.

In sum, I would characterize this as a very fruitful and entertaining trip. Many thanks to the Gauteng Provincial Legislature for their generosity and for putting on this conference. I hope they have received many ideas about how to engage civil society in governance processes that will be useful.

The Physical Health Needs of Victims in Northern Ireland

I recently discovered, while writing my literature review, that there is a dearth of information about the physical health needs of victims in Northern Ireland. Apart from the Commission for Victims and Survivors' Comprehensive Needs Assessment Report and the research currently being undertaken for the WAVE "Injured" campaign, I am at a loss to find any significant studies or reports related to the physical health needs of victims of the Troubles.

Given that the conflict began circa 1968, leading to the deaths of around 3,600+ people, one would expect a vast amount of literature on the subject of physical health needs. Why is it that the government and/or civil society have not addressed this subject in the literature?

Does a failure to address this issue in the literature constitute a failure in meeting the physical health needs of victims?

Definitions and hierarchy of victimhood

It seems pertinent to begin any discussion on victimhood by trying to define the term and address the issues of hierarchies of victimhood.

A very broad and inclusive definition would include all those affected by the Troubles -- either physically, psychologically, or economically. It may be accurate to say that anyone living in Northern Ireland during the Troubles has been affected by the conflict. However, as Marie Smyth points out, "we cannot all say we are victims, because to do so implies that we have all had equally difficult experiences" (Smyth, 1998, p. 34). Therefore, we must try to limit the definition somehow.

Unfortunately, this has been done quite radically in Northern Irish politics and society. Many, including the government, have limited the definition of "victim" to include only "innocent" or "legitimate" victims. This problem was highlighted in the former Victims' Commissioner's report "We Will Remember Them" (Bloomfield, 1998), leading some "victims" and "survivors" to feel excluded from government-funded support schemes. However, more recently the Consultative Group on the Past, and the new Commission of Victims and Survivors, along with many other civil society organizations, have tried to define the term "victim" in a way that is more encompassing, and does not exclude individuals who may be perceived by some as "illegitimate" victims.

This begs the question, in terms of my research, how should I define the terms "victim" and "survivor"? Should I adopt a broad and inclusive definition, or should I try to limit it somehow? I could never reduce the definition to exclude certain individuals who may be deemed "illegitimate" by some, because to do so would deny their grief and their opportunity for healing. On the other hand, if a definition is too broad, it risks adding insult to injury for those who have suffered as a result of the conflict, and trivializes their pain. Thus, I will invite any responses regarding the issues presented in this post.

My new blog

Hello,

I am creating this blog as a forum to post updates and have discussion about my research on issues of victimhood in Northern Ireland. Comments, questions, suggestions, and discussions are welcomed. More information about my research can be found at www.abdn.ac.uk/compromise-conflict/.

Laura