Prof Steven Friedman: Activist groups lack strategies

IF the president’s future depends on the activist groups who are mobilising to get him to resign, he will be in office for a long time.

The hope that is pinned on a campaign for a change of president by citizens’ organisations who claim to support democracy and social justice – usually labelled “civil society” although that means all citizens’ groups, not just those who call themselves “progressive” – is only one example of enthusiasm here for “progressive” civil society as a force for change. It is hard to understand why.

Citizen action to force power holders to account and respond is key to democracy. But citizens’ organisations do not wield power because a textbook says they should.

They need effective strategies and strong, organised, public support. This is in short supply here.

Some groups who champion democracy have made a name for themselves by suing the government. This is sometimes effective but is costly, and even if you have the money, there is a limit to the problems courts can put right.

There is far more to citizen activism than court cases. But, beyond legal actions, it is hard to think of successful activism since the days when a campaign won treatment for people living with HIV and Aids.

There are organisations in townships and shack settlements who, in almost impossible conditions, fight for grassroots people. But because they are local, have few resources, and represent people who the mainstream care little about (the poor and the weak), they are largely ignored and rarely influence national decisions.

Those who have the resources and connections needed to be heard are strong on social media postings, media releases and some sparsely attended meetings or marches. They are weak on effective strategy and strong grassroots support.

Much of this section of civil society seems to believe that the morality of their position entitles them to influence even if they do not work for it.

This problem was highlighted when banks and auditors refused to do business with the Guptas’ Oakbay Investments. “Progressive” civil society, despite its opposition to the Guptas, did not claim credit for making this happen, instead it complained that banks and auditors were being selective since they had other undesirable clients.

This would have puzzled activists in other parts of the world who see pressing banks not to do business with those they oppose as a key strategy. The banks and auditors said they had pulled out of the Gupta businesses to avoid “reputational damage”.

It is not activist rocket science to work out that banks and auditors have no problem about who they do business with unless a public fuss means that their reputation could suffer.

This is why activists make it their business to make public fusses about their targets. Citibank pulled the plug on the apartheid government in 1985 because it decided that dealing with protests was not worth the (limited) gains doing business with it brought.

So the fact that the Guptas are targeted and others aren’t means that there has been a public fuss about them and not about the others. And there has been no public unease about the others because “civil society” groups have done nothing to create it.

Another strategic failure may be brewing. Despite reports that the Guptas have decamped to Dubai, it seems likely that they are trying to remain involved in the economy in a way low key enough to enable banks and auditors to service them without risking damage.

This is an ideal situation for an effective civil society campaign. Activists could dig into their financial dealings to discover where they are still active and then press those who provide their businesses with lifelines to stop it.

A well organised campaign would have a strong chance of making it impossible for the family to do business here.

None of this seems on the cards. Those who might play this role are far too busy denouncing evil at media events to do what it would take.

Whether they would be able if they try is open to question, but what is clear is that they are not trying.

This is only one of the issues on which civil society groups who claim to support democracy and justice might organise effectively but do not. It illustrates the key point that “progressive civil society” has failed to turn talk into effective action which could mobilise many in its support.