Clientelism as Civil Society? Unpacking the Relationship between Clientelism and Democracy at the Local Level in South Africa

Abstract

This article, building on analyses from the global south, attempts to reframe democratic expectations by considering where previously maligned practices such as clientelism may hold moments of democracy. It does so by comparing the theory of civil society with that of clientelism, and its African counterpart neo-patrimonialism. It argues that clientelism as civil society may fulfil democratic tasks such as holding the (local) state accountable, strengthening civil and political liberties and providing channels of access for previously marginalised groups. Clientelism is not necessarily a reflection of imposed power relations but, at times, can demonstrate a conscious political strategy, to generate development, on the part of its protagonists. Clientelism (as a process) and civil society (as an actor) are two concepts that are frequently referred to when looking at types of engagement, and those that mediate engagement, between state and society. The first has traditionally been vilified, the second valorised. This study is concerned with the nature of civil society and compares it to that of clientelism, arguing that in practice there are many similarities between the way in which civil society organisations engage political actors and the state, and the way in which clientelism operates. Drawing on research from the community of Hangberg in Hout Bay, South Africa, I will argue that the nature of civil society in a particular setting may be conditioned by the nature of the state as

Relationship Between ‘Civil Society’ and ‘Democratic Freedoms’

“…A 'non-liberal' practice like clientelism could contain some 'democratic moments.' Anciano (2017) extrapolates some insights on civil society and democracy from qualitative fieldwork, including interviews, focus groups and informal observation in a South African village.…”

The politics of social assistance in South Africa: How protests and electoral politics shape the Child Support Grant

“…In the construction of this electoral hegemony, one must emphasize the role of redistributive policies, which has manifested itself as the ANC shifted from a developmental state logic, which regarded employment and education as the main mechanisms to prevent poverty, to a logic of social policy, which focuses on social grants for alleviating poverty once it comes into place (Piper and von Lieres 2016; Plagerson et al 2019, p. 2). Furthermore, as participatory democracy and civil society remained weak, clientelism and contentious politics became the main “informal politics” of representation that shaped the provision of public resources (Staniland 2008; Piper and von Lieres 2016; Runciman 2016; Anciano 2018; McKinley 2016). In such a context, the poor and marginalized used this informal politics to access basic needs through their relationships with the ANC party members or organizers of contentious politics (von Holdt 2013; Piper and von Lieres 2016).…”

What makes urban governance co-productive? Contradictions in the current debate on co-production

“…In line with the arguments discussed above regarding the first contradiction (institutionalisation vs flexibility), this implies an ability to act outside of existing regulations, as well as a continuous involvement in governing the delivery of specific strategies and playing a monitoring role. In this respect, one strong indicator of the success of this model would be that institutionalised and non-institutionalised governance relations outlive the span of a specific political leadership and its clientelistic aspects, which is often the motor behind these types of relations in the context of the South (Anciano, 2017). In other words, successful and ideal models of co-produced urban governance should attain a balance between the two goals of the urban poor in the South -the securing of greater control over the development process and the securing of access to resources -regardless of the changes in the political leadership in a country.…”