In much of the world, there has been a rediscovery of the importance of elements of a civil society in empowering citizens and providing an active means for them to improve their quality of life. And so, Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe criticisms of private charities, religious groups and other aid organizations for what he considers to be inappropriate interference in Zimbabwe's domestic politics are disturbing. But it is more problematic that he asked legislators in his majority Zanu-PF party to pass a law to tighten controls on such organizations.
Proposed legislation would allow his government to close groups and subject their leaders to arrest if they offend his sensibilities. Groups and trusts involved in charity work or educational and research programs would have to register to acquire a license to operate legally. They would also have to disclosure the origins and use of all funds as well as identifying foreign donors.
Claiming that non-governmental organizations have been infected by “foreign” ideas, judgments on whether they are working for the betterment of the country would be left to him. Western-funded charities, trusts and church and human rights groups have often sided with issues taken up by the political opposition.
His action or inaction suggests that respect for individual rights expressed through the organs of civil society are inspired by neo-imperialism. As it is, his government gave itself powers that have used to close independent media in order to silence critics of its policies.
To date, 31 independent journalists have been arrested. Another blow to the forces of civil society is seen in the attempts to stifle the voices of a free and independent media. A court ruling cited “irregularities” as the basis for canceling the publishing license of the “Tribune Weekly on Wednesday”, the third independent newspaper closed within a year.
Mugabe’s intransigence is all the more surprising in that civil society is the outgrowth of the demands for self-determination that guided independence movements and revolutions against imperialism. As such, the emergence of civil society reflects the quest for national as well as individual autonomy. The demand for individual autonomy represents a sense of “self-ownership” to allow for the exercise of one’s own free will in the pursuit of his
life purposes.
An examination of the direction of causation in these developments involves a distinction between means and ends. Self-determination is generally recognized as the motivating force behind the nation-state. As such, acts of defiance against absolute monarchs or imperialist forces can be interpreted as collective undertakings by otherwise-unconnected individuals. Participation in these group actions reflects an individual choice driven by mutual self-interest. Thus, self-determination and the emergence of the modern nation-state both support the quest for self-ownership of the individual constituents.
Self-determination is the outcome of a rebellion against the pre-Renaissance notion that authority and decree were the basis of knowledge and understanding of the world. Societies based on colonialism, slavery or feudalism did not treat people as complete human beings.
As such, individual constituents played little role in the process of grasping the meaning of the world around them. Following Descartes and after the Reformation, it became understood that individual introspection was the basis for developing an understanding of order in an otherwise chaotic cosmos. This was the first step toward defining the individual as a free agent and understanding how choices by individuals reflect some sort of free will.
The argument here is that civil society arises out of this exercise of free will leading to the spontaneous development of institutions wherein individuals promote or protect their interests. Most citizens in modern democracies understand how to form associations of like-minded persons to use their collective strength to bolster their individual autonomy.
In this sense, individuals choose to form or join groups to promote their self-ownership. This includes the nation-state that was one of many social mechanisms arising out of the actions and interactions of individuals. After the formation of the nation-state, other arrangements reflected an attempt to curb the powers of government. Some civic institutions have limited purposes that may serve a narrow community or ethnic group. Others develop that tend to be more inclusive, such as universities or the media or the ACLU or other NGOs that are intended to promote and protect the rights and freedoms of all individuals.
Interestingly, some critics are unable to see that individualism is an essential cornerstone of Western, liberal democracy and the basis for secure human rights. As such, there is a lack of understanding that individualism underlies the formation of civic associations.
Deeper reflection suggests that there are community-wide benefits of the continued development and expansion of individual rights and freedoms that will tend to outweigh the costs. This logic implies that identifying human rights in terms of group rights will involve considerable dangers.
Indeed, it can be argued that some of the worst atrocities in history have been perpetrated by relying upon group rights. Among these would be the Holocaust or other acts of genocide and apartheid. This is because basing human rights upon collective concepts like “fundamental” social rights tends to lead to zero or negative-sum policy outcomes. While some groups benefit, others necessarily lose.
For his part, Mugabe’s intrusions have focused upon advantaging his supporters while ignoring the rights of others. He has limited individual liberties in the form of private property rights and freedom of expressions. Empowered by this logic and with intrusive mechanisms in place, it is easy to reduce other freedoms as in the case of NGOs.
While extensive restrictions on individual rights in Zimbabwe have obvious political consequences, they may also be the cause of growing economic misery. Presently, Zimbabwe is experiencing a serious economic crisis with soaring consumer prices and rising unemployment as well as growing shortages of essential goods. Such conditions indicate that homegrown authoritarianism that neglects individual rights is perhaps more dangerous to freedom and welfare than was colonialism.
*Christopher Lingle is Professor of Economics at Universidad Francisco Marroquín in Guatemala and Global Strategist for eConoLytics.