As the PRSP participation processes may well become the standard
for most low-income, aid-dependent countries, it seems important to rec-
ognize that these HIPC countries are very different one from the other. The
donor community ought to take this diversity into account when promoting
civil society participation. We suggest that donors must contextualize and
formulate country-specific goals. The contextualization of country-specific
goals will help to get a grip on the complex and heterogeneous character of
civil society and the diverging relations the different groups can have with
government and with other CSOs. The harmony and synergy model of so-
ciety-government must be abandoned in order to accept and come to terms
with conflict and diverging interests. The insistence on broad based partici-
pation by ‘all’ listed civil society actors is unrealistic and too demanding, yet
at the same time this casual listing gives governments too much latitude in
picking participants much to their convenience. As such, this open listing of
participants as suggested by the World Bank may even be undesirable. The
questions that according to Van Rooy (1998:199) have to be answered in a
country-specific sense are: who matters in social and political change? How
is power, political and economic, distributed among the governed and the
governors? What elements are amenable to outside intervention? What inter-
vention is legitimate and to whom? Based on the country-specific answers
to these questions, adapted participation schemes can be organized, and it
may become clear which parts of civil society should be strengthened, and
to what extent participation is needed to achieve the desired outcome.
Furthermore, the existing relation between government and parts of civil
society in a given setting should be taken as a reference point, in order to
project realistic goals that enforce wider and deeper participation. It might
thus be that government talking with civil society should in some cases be
treated as an aim to be met as part of the PRSP, rather than as a precondition
to commencing work on the PRSP (McGee & Norton 2001:25).
Without a clearly established legal framework in which participation can
take place, it is likely that false expectations may grow, both on the side of
government and civil society; hence frustration may mark the process and its
aftermath. The confusions regarding where the right to intervene, influence
and dictate begins and where it ends must be cleared out and legally backed
up so as to protect both government and civil society actors. Drawing actors
into negotiations without setting out rights and boundaries is bound to lead
to frustration. Giving the government freedom to pull the strings, participa-
tion risks becoming an instrument to neutralize and control dissident voices,
without it leading to measures that correct or sanction power abuses. Donors
should thus pressure for more protection and rule of law, while supporting
the a-priori outlining of the participatory framework, the division of tasks
and agreements on how binding the results of a participation process will
be. Once again, donors should be less demanding, yet at the same time more
demanding by rendering explicit specific goals for specific countries.
All these points point to a dilemma: when should donors take the
initiative and lead recipient countries, and when should they accept homeg-
rown solutions and follow? As Lancaster (1999:501) points out, this question
IDPM-UA Discussion Paper 2002-05 • 31