The Intel

A Civil Society Partnerships Fund represents a significant opportunity to create a stronger strategic focus on civic space through Australian development engagement. This is in Australia’s strategic interest in line with development and foreign policy goals.

Supporting civic space fosters resilience to economic shocks and rising illiberalism, providing a critical balance to the relative power of the state, the market, and, of course, China. This re-balancing underwrites good governance and development outcomes.

Strong civil society is also a development outcome in and of itself, and this must primarily guide a fund design - building the “ecosystem” of civic space.

But, does our region really need Australia to create a transformative civil society fund? I submit that the answer to this is no – the region requires something more fundamental, far less inventive – a sustained commitment to enabling civil society via authentic partnerships. Australia is already committed to the OECD DAC recommendation on Enabling Civil Society, which sets out the framework for such an approach. Accordingly, an impactful fund would:

• Enable civic space via investments in the social infrastructure and enabling environment, in relationships, networks and coalitions between CSOs, within countries and across regions, as well as ties with Australian civil society.

• Support civil society with fit-for-purpose funding that responds to stated needs; provide core, flexible and multi-year funding; and target CSOs and networks led by the most marginalised, and aiming as local as possible.

• Incentivise CSO effectiveness, transparency and accountability by supporting regional/national networks and peak bodies in initiatives that drive accountability, such as the Pacific Islands Association of NGOs (PIANGO’s) CSO accountability framework that has long awaited an injection of funds.

Civil society is poised to deliver dividends to our region’s collective stability and prosperity, and the roadmap for it to do so is written. Australia has an opportunity to add meaningful funding and be a committed development partner.

A truly transformative Civil Society Partnerships Fund (CSP Fund) requires an objective review of the emerging trends in advocating for public interest and democratic contestation. On the one hand, according to many sources, traditional civic space is shrinking. Others disagree. ODI, for instance, asserts that new spaces are emerging, and non-traditional actors are transitioning to adapt and utilise new platforms to advocate and communicate.

Digital communication platforms, collective action through social media and influencers, and the rise of social entrepreneurs resourced by angel and impact investments (no longer reliant on traditional donors) provide new avenues of influence, advocacy and civic action which can and have exerted pressure on governments to address topical issues. These platforms, which extend beyond political borders, can and do elevate local issues to the global stage. Often lacking, however, is the depth of knowledge on contexts and underlying systemic issues, giving rise to activism not grounded in clear and shared democratic values, norms and principles.

This perhaps outlines a pivotal role for the CSP Fund; catalysing collaboration between traditional CSOs (that possess deep knowledge in their areas of focus) and emerging actors and influencers. The CSP Fund, by its very nature, must be deliberate in choosing issues and actors to support, focusing on forging partnerships that strengthen citizen-led action with shared democratic values. These partnerships would look to equip emerging actors and influencers to not only profile symptoms of “democratic backsliding”, but to also influence broader attention and action to address the systemic substance behind these issues.

In countries like Sri Lanka, Cambodia and, arguably, Solomons Islands, corruption, kleptocracy, and threats to civic space erode democratic norms and embolden authoritarian leaders. As USAID Administrator Samantha Power says, these problems are "development in reverse”. So, to be transformative, the fund must strengthen the enabling environment of civil society and democracy – here are three ways to do so:

1. Support actors who protect and strengthen civic space

Civil society programs often work with a broad base of civil society actors. But if the goal is to protect and strengthen civic space, then such support needs to be targeted to those who provide accountability and uphold freedoms and rights. Think human rights defenders, organisations who protect whistle-blowers, media and investigative journalists, labor rights organisations, and feminist movements. Also, civil society groups engaging in evidenced-based advocacy and research to develop policy and institutions that uphold democratic norms and laws. This would be complementary to the many great existing DFAT governance and institutional strengthening programs.  

2. Mix short and long-term partnerships  

It goes without saying that this kind of work requires long-term predictable support and partnerships. However, it is also important to have short-term flexible support available. Civil society actors under attack need funds to flee to safety. Many carry on working in exile. Similarly, there are often windows of democratic opportunity that can be pried open by social movements, youth activists or transparency actors. The fund must empower civil society locally, regionally and globally to respond quickly to these windows.

3. Money  

Civil society support is cost-effective. Relatively small investments can have significant impact. However, money is still required. A fund without an adequate amount available is well-meaning but ineffective.

ACFID outlines the need at $80 million per year but DFAT is yet commit. Past examples from SIDA, even USAID, and philanthropy, show how it can be done. Funding should be core, flexible, based on our democratic values and both short and long-term.