Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ASSESSMENT
REPORT
Contents
Executive Summary | 03
2
Background | 04
Methodology | 04
Conclusions | 20
Annexes 1-8 | 22
Executive Summary
The project Civil Society Self-Support Programme (CSSP) has completed a thorough assessment of Zimbabwean human rights
and pro-democracy civil society. The assessment evaluated the current state, needs and perceptions of civil society and the
most appropriate corresponding areas for capacity building, as well as existing support available in terms of resources and
know how as well as previous or ongoing capacity programmes. The level of interest and demand for a support system in
the country was reconfirmed through the various methodologies, which integrated a representative sample of Civil Society
Organizations (CSO) from Harare as well representatives from other regions in the country.
The methodologies used included a standard questionnaire, a series of focus groups, a set of interviews and preliminary online
research into existing resources. These were complemented by a mapping scorecard to evaluate the capacity levels of civil 3
society organizations in the core areas identified in the proposal and by the needs assessment process, and a research project
into media coverage received by CSOs in Zimbabwe carried out by the Media Monitoring Project of Zimbabwe (MMPZ).
The key findings from this assessment are not only useful in terms of what can be done to strengthen civil society and the
best possible means of doing so; they are even more indicative of how Zimbabwe civil society can take responsibility and
ownership of that process in the context of a rapidly changing political and social environment. The report reflects key findings
on internal and external skill sets; establishment of relationships and engagement with stakeholders; and strengthening of civil
society credibility, accountability and positioning. Each section provides an analysis of the main themes that emerged, and
possible intervention mechanisms to tackle those challenges.
In terms of the specific skills highlighted by participants, strong emphasis was placed on the areas of advocacy, fundraising
and internal organizational development. The need for sustainable mechanisms ranging from human resources operational
mechanisms to monitoring and evaluation models was articulated through all the different assessment methods and was a
concern for the majority of participant organizations.
Engagement with other sectors was highlighted not only in terms of coordination but also in other areas. It is clear that CSOs
recognize the importance of engaging many different types of stakeholders as a legitimacy, advocacy and resource tool. These
responses reinforced the general perception that for CSOs to build their credibility and accountability they must work across
the board with other segments of society while at the same time strengthening their inter-organizational relations. In this
vein, participant organizations emphasized the need to strengthen umbrella and coalition organizations as a hub for resources
and coordination. This realistic appeal was also closely linked to the need to provide space for effective communication and
networking channels to develop new ideas and promote exchanges of information. Organizations demonstrated willingness
and disposition to take ownership of the self-sustainability concept behind the initiative, not only through active participation
in this assessment phase but also by putting forth new proposals that have the potential to serve as the backbone for future
activities.
Overall the picture that emerged from the assessment process was one of widespread recognition, on the part of the vast
majority of civil society actors, that both efficiency and credibility are essential and integral factors in ensuring the sustainability
of both civil society and its initiatives.
01 Background
1. Background
The assessment process outlined in this report forms an integral part of the first phase of the Civil Society Self-Support
Programme (CSSP) The ultimate goal of this project is to contribute to the development of a flourishing and diverse civil
society across a broad range of human rights and democracy-related themes that is engaged at a variety of levels (local,
provincial, national and international). In order to support this goal, the broad target areas of this project fall into three areas:
Supporting institutionalization of self-support and interaction mechanisms for human rights and pro-democracy civil society
Helping human rights and pro-democracy civil society groups to redefine their role during and after a transition to democracy,
and to overcome the legacy of repression
Expanding the scope of human rights and pro-democracy civil society activity and encouraging the growth of new and
smaller groups and their interaction with the broader civil society community
Within the framework of this project goal and target areas, the assessment process is designed to evaluate the current state,
needs and perceptions of civil society and the most appropriate corresponding areas for capacity building, as well as existing
support available in terms of resources and know how as well as previous or ongoing capacity programmes. To this end the
assessment evaluates civil society capacity needs in light of the demands of the current operating environment. In keeping
with this orientation the findings of the assessment detail:
Existing capacities, capacity gaps, priority capacity needs for civil society in addressing human rights and democracy issues
both in Zimbabwe’s transitional era and in the long-term
4 The status, challenges and possibilities for civil society to address internal and external challenges, engage external stakeholders
and enhance credibility and legitimacy
Skill sets required to enhance civil society interventions in human rights, democracy and governance
Possibilities, opportunities and limitations of the project to be developed to address the identified capacity gaps and needs,
including strategies to create linkages with other ongoing capacity initiative as well as monitoring and evaluation of progress
2. Methodology
2.1 Needs Assessment
In order to ensure relevance and effectiveness, an assessment system was designed based on collaborative research processes.
Given the goal of evaluating the current state, needs and perceptions of civil society, and the most appropriate areas for capacity
building, as well as existing support available in terms of resources and know-how, the team decided to use different data
gathering methods. Accordingly, the process included a standard questionnaire, a series of focus groups, a set of interviews
and preliminary online research. All tools were selected in order to speedily obtain as much information from the most diverse
range of CSOs possible across the democracy and human rights arenas.
2.1.1 Questionnaire
The first needs assessment instrument selected was a questionnaire, which was distributed through NANGO’s membership
and regional structures. The questionnaire format was selected as an appropriate methodology for gathering feedback on a
wide array of topics and in reaching out to a diverse set of organizations all around the country. Respondents were asked to
comment on their organization’s current skills; skill sets needed given the current political and social environment; and the
impact of current legislation and political limitations on their work. The questionnaire also probed perceptions of civil society’s
role both currently and in a possible transition environment (See Annex 1).
2.1.2 Interviews
Interviews were carried out with 16 individuals –primarily directors of their respective organizations– who have the potential
to offer major contributions given their status and the organizations they represent. These individual interviews targeted
people who were unlikely to have participated in other aspects of the assessment process and the less structured format
allowed for deeper discussions and more substantial exchanges of ideas. These individuals have been active in civil society
over sustained periods of time and this experience combined with the central positioning of their respective organizations
gives them comprehensive and highly nuanced perspectives. As with the questionnaires and the focus groups, the guiding
questions involved sought to explore the different opportunities to support capacity building within their organizations and
for civil society as a whole (see Annex 2).
The focus groups were not intended to produce generalizations about trends in civil society but rather to explore the thinking,
responses and attitudes behind current challenges and approaches, and to open up space for creative thinking around
civil society responses and future possibilities. Moreover it became clear from the discussions that many of the participant
organizations had been frustrated by difficulties in coordination in the past. Providing this focus group space for communication 5
and exchange clearly created an environment conducive for networking (see Annex 3).
2.3 Review
Reviews after conclusion of each individual research methodology and an overall debriefing helped the team to generate
guidelines for future assessment and monitoring processes, which are expected to integrate some of the same methodologies
as this initial assessment (see Annex 7).
The information obtained through the various methods has contributed a broad programmatic vision of current priorities,
capacity and capacity building needs. In doing so it has helped lay the foundations for appropriate programs and activities
6 that will help define and sustain definitive roles for civil society, engage external stakeholders and strengthen credibility,
accountability and positioning within the sector. See Annex 8 for a brief summary of findings.
and legal reform, media access, good governance and gender equality. However, as is the case with civil society in many
countries worldwide, particularly where civil society suffers repression and restrictions on its activities, the combination of
environment and a failure to link these concerns effectively to citizens’ everyday realities have resulted in limited popular
participation. As a result civil society still struggles with enhancing its relevance, credibility and legitimacy to the general
public as well as in the political arena. Among the major issues with regard to the structure of civil society highlighted by the
assessment exercise are the following:
Due to resourcing patterns and limited access, especially in the rural areas, civil society has become generally (although by
no means universally) middle-class, urban-based and lacking in grassroots representation.
Linkages between the different facets of civil society (e.g. NGOs, faith-based organizations, labour and community-based
organizations) have sometimes been weak or even at cross-purposes.
Weaker and marginalised civil society constituencies such as youth, women and rural residents have relatively less space,
institutional capacity and voice compared to other dominant civil society constituencies
Lines of fragmentation reflect sectoral divisions, funding biases, ideological differences and personal leadership
disagreements
3.3.1 Resources 7
The depleted human, structural and financial resource base for civil society coupled with an expanding mandate and rising
stakeholder expectations requires on the one hand skills to mobilize increased resources and on the other the realignment of
civil society sharing and coordination structures to maximize benefits and impact from existing resources.
Civil society organizations suffer not only from collective brain drain –as trained personnel leave the sector in the face of
logistical, financial and operating obstacles– but also from movement of individuals within the sector as funding is gained and
lost, and as priorities shift constantly in the unstable socio-political environment. This deficit is exacerbated by poor investment
in staff capacity for a variety of reasons, and by internal systems that impede institutional memory and institutional retention of
capacity. Organizations also struggle to source core funding and consistently fail to share resources across the sector.
In terms of financial resources, participants consistently commented on their perceptions that over-reliance on foreign donors
has affected both priority-setting and patterns of institutional development, reducing accountability to grassroots concerns.
Behind these commentaries lies recognition of the limitations in civil society capacity to source alternative financial resources
or to make the most of existing financial resources. Skill sets for the creation of a sustainable resource base for civil society
through diversification, innovation and improved financial management are pivotal for the financial sustainability of civil
society. In addition, fundraising strategies will need to respond to the realities of shifting funding patterns during a possible
transition – including an expected trend toward funding government to perform functions formerly taken on by civil society.
Poor infrastructural and asset Lack of core funding due to project Training in income-generating approaches for
base based granting development or social entrepreneurship
Limited outreach capacities and Development of focal points/central resource centres,
urban bias e.g. for internet access, printing, meeting rooms
Promotion of long-term resource-sharing initiatives
(e.g. shared office building)
Lack of sustainable funding Narrow sources of income and lack of Training in resource mobilization
sources innovation about potential new sources Networking with potential funding sources including
Dependence on the international the business community
8 donor community Advocacy for guaranteed civil society funding support
Potential reductions in donor funding (e.g. from government)
in future Advocacy for funding to civil society in a transition arena
and beyond
3.3.2 Management
Overall there is a clear deficit in terms of management tools that help resolve the tensions between achieving social change
and meeting project responsibilities. As a result general management skills are an unexpectedly high priority for many civil
society organizations, with areas of interest focused on improving management models and staff development. Areas such as
monitoring and evaluation are particularly crucial and difficult to manage given external factors such as the economic crisis
and restrictions on civil society activity in the democracy and human rights arena.
A lack of clarity over organizational roles and responsibilities reflects the need to improve strategic planning, particularly
as CSOs work to adapt to the changing realities of their country. Both long-term organizational planning and strategically
positioning within the sector will be improved through strengthening of planning skills and introduction of new models.
Leadership development was also highlighted (see 4.4.2: Leadership Skills below).
Management for social Adoption of outside models of resource heavy Development of alternative management tools and
change and top-down forms of institutionalization and techniques
programming
Lack of citizens awareness and/ Weak and poorly targeted mass information Training in communications and
or understanding of civil society dissemination capacities awareness raising including alternative
prerogatives Limited outreach efforts and capacities media, public information campaigns
particularly towards rural and marginalised Training in strategy development to
sections of society improve consistency
Low downward accountability by civil society
to citizens
Poor popular understanding of motivations for
participation in civil society initiatives
Inconsistent civil society messaging and
approaches leading to popular confusion and
failure to participate
3.3.3.2 Advocacy/Communications
Advocacy and communications skills are relevant to a broad range of civil society activities and areas of focus, and are already
playing a crucial role in civil society’s engagement with the emerging transition arena. The capacity of civil society to influence
aspects ranging from negotiation processes to human rights procedures to policymaking and reform depends on both
advocacy and lobbying skills and strategies, and communications and media management. A decade of state monopolies
over policy development processes has impeded civil society efforts to counter repressive legislation, disastrous policies and
twisted international perceptions. Capacity building needs to equip civil society both to lobby and campaign more effectively
in this restrictive environment, and to be ready to take advantage of future openings as they emerge.
Communications Limited information/campaign dissemination Training in use of alternative and new media
options Training and/or skill sharing/mentoring in use of ICTs
Limited awareness/use of ICTs for outreach for communications
Difficulties drawing public celebrity support for
campaigns
10 Campaigning Poorly structured and under-resourced Training in issue based campaign development and
campaigns, sometimes sending conflicting implementation
messages Growth and development/ mentoring of pool of
Limited pool of activists willing and able to activist mentors
spearhead campaigns and failure to structure
campaigns to be more inclusive
Expanding dialogue processes Limited CSO capacity to engage critical platforms such as Strengthening of
and strengthening existing Parliamentary committees and government taskforces coordinating capacities of
engagement mechanisms Lack of understanding of policy processes and how to influence networks and membership-
them (consultation, formulation, implementation, monitoring and based organizations to
evaluation) facilitate CSO participation in
Uncoordinated and sometimes conflicting engagement dialogue and engagement
processes by different CSOs or groupings processes
Passive response to State divide and rule strategies to prevent Training to support
collaboration between CSOs engagement in specific
CSO failure to manage and take advantage of existing arenas (e.g. policy
opportunities offered by structures such as Ward and Village development/reform,
Development Committees advocacy)
Linking support services to Weak strategic collaboration between human rights and Promotion of multi-sectoral 11
human rights, democracy and democracy CSOs and support service/humanitarian CSOs initiatives to seek dialogue
governance CSO failure to link socioeconomic and humanitarian issues with and advocacy opportunities
the human rights and democracy arena
CSOs servicing local government technical and Lack of CSO understanding of technical Training on CSO participation in
policy gaps and policy information needs of local local level policy processes and
government officials structures
CSO technical capacities at the local Setting up mechanisms/establishing
level limited to a few individuals and a hub to support linkages between
organizations local CSOs and specialist CSOs
Weak linkages between local CSOs and
specialist CSOs based in other areas
Expanding dialogue processes and CSO failure to manage and take Training of local multi-sectoral CSO
strengthening existing structures for advantage of existing opportunities teams to participate in advocacy/
engagement offered by structures such as Ward and dialogue processes with local
Village Development Committees government structures
therefore outside the human rights and democracy framework. Other efforts to bring elements of civil society together with
business, such as the Tripartite Negotiating Forum, which aimed to bring business, labour and the state together, have collapsed
in the face of business cooption by government elites – a problem civil society consistently faces in engaging business around
human rights and democracy issues. Civil society has also consistently campaigned on issues such as privatization that clash
directly with business interests, thereby increasing private sector distrust and unwillingness to engage. There are, however,
opportunities for stronger civil society-private sector relationships around points of convergence within the Corporate Social
Responsibility sphere, as well as on consensus issues such as anticorruption campaigns. In addition, civil society could benefit
from a diversified resource base and access to technical capacities in the private sector.
Defining a common agenda for Control of private sector agenda by political Training in high level engagement
sustainable civil society–private elites in government Support in strategy development for
sector engagement and Polarization and escalation of conflict due to engagement with the private sector
cooperation economic crisis, rule of law and other political
dimensions
Long-standing contestation with business
over privatization, high pricing and the neo-
liberal agenda
CSO access to Private sector Business mistrust/misconceptions about CSOs Training in resource mobilization
resources CSO failure to demonstrate returns for Capacity building in Corporate
12 investment Governance
CSO failure to inspire private sector confidence
as a sustainable strategic partner to fulfil
Corporate Social Responsibility obligations
3.4.1.4 Media
Media in Zimbabwe is deeply polarized along political lines, with state media following government directives and positioning
to the letter, while the few elements of private or ‘independent’ media that have survived recent repression fall behind the
opposition and are, as a result, generally supportive of the pro-democracy and human rights agenda. While the private media
regularly reports on civil society activities, the state media tends to comment only on the activities and agendas of pro-
government civil society organizations, referring to more autonomous CSOS critically if at all. The result of this divide is that
civil society requires two different skill sets to engage both sides of the media divide, and this dynamic is likely to become
more significant as a possible transition phase increases the openness of state media reporting. Priorities for human rights and
democracy CSOs are to promote conditions that allow greater access to information and greater media freedoms.
3.4.2.1 Diplomacy
Two major facets of diplomacy predominate at present. Skill sets around negotiation skills are a vital aspect of effective
13
civil society engagement with other major stakeholders, particularly in the political arena and particularly in a transition
environment. Equally, the capacity to judge and manage relationships based on an understanding of multi-faceted (as
opposed to antagonistic) approaches can have a major impact on advocacy achievements.
3.4.2.2 Representation
CSOs are often challenged to legitimise their interest in or participation in issues by proving the mandate from the
constituencies they represent. For membership based organisations proving representativeness is often not as difficult as it is
for technical organisations such as think tanks. Improving representativeness of CSOs may entail interventions aimed towards
strengthening civic activism and hence a stronger pool of citizens willing to engage with CSOs, and strengthening the ties
between membership-based organisations and the organisations with the technical competencies to carry out functions (e.g.
legal representation) on behalf of constituencies.
Inter-Civil Society linkages Lack of appropriate Training in, and facilitation of inter-sectoral networking
mechanisms to promote the
collaboration of technical
and membership based
organisations
Limited knowledge about
the information needs of
different stakeholders
Expansion of CSO stakeholder base Limited skills to engage Training in mass mobilisation and membership
and expand constituent development
groups
Inadequate
accountability and
participation frameworks
to include stakeholders
Skills transfer Inadequate information about where capacities Capacity building in intra- and inter-organisation
mechanisms are located or required mentoring
Lack of a comprehensive framework for skills Establishment of mechanisms to promote
14 transfer with built in incentives monitoring processes
Leadership Small and static group of individuals occupy Opportunities for exchange among different regions/
leadership positions organizations
Lack of opportunities to train young individuals Inclusion of new individuals in existing training
programs
3.4.3.1 Credibility
Credibility is generally a product of positive accountability processes and the moral authority that stakeholders ascribe to
particular civil society roles. For human rights and democracy programming, the credibility of CSOs derives from processes
that are inclusive, participatory, transparent, consultative, embedded in local realities and where possible owned by their
beneficiaries. This depends not only on ingraining mechanisms for downward accountability in CSO processes but also
strengthening CSO communications, “branding” or image, and engagement with key stakeholders. It also depends on civil
society adherence to baseline standards of quality service provision.
Downward accountability Weak mechanisms for consultation and inclusion Capacity building in citizens’ engagement,
of marginalised stakeholders consultation and mass mobilization
“Branding” Lack of proactive strategies to gain and maintain Training in communications and marketing
public confidence Support in developing strategies for
stakeholder engagement
Service delivery standards Lack of awareness and adherence to good Capacity building in corporate governance and
corporate governance and service delivery social service delivery standards
standards Self-regulation for civil society
Lack of consequences for “bad apples” or reward
mechanisms for good practice
3.4.3.2 Coordination
Coordination is widely regarded as the worst weakness and strongest opportunity for Zimbabwean civil society. Weak structural
mechanisms and the marked ideological and strategic fissures impede formalized inter-organizational cooperation, leading to
duplication, competition and weak stakeholder mobilization. Stronger coordination would support civil society across the full
spectrum of its agendas and activity patterns.
Critical areas for investment in coordination include addressing the divide between urban and rural organizations, building
links between centralized or specialist organizations and those of a grassroots nature, supporting engagement between the
service provision and human rights and democracy sectors, and promoting inclusion of marginalised groups. Coordination
will also help to counter operating environment difficulties such as the shrinking resource base and aspects of State repression
and restriction on civil society activity.
15
Capacity Gap Challenges Capacity Interventions
Strengthening umbrella networking Inadequate coordinating capacities within Capacity building for coordinating
and coordinating bodies sector and national umbrella coordinating bodies in management of membership
bodies based organizations and promotion of
Lack of buy-in/interest from potential coordination mechanisms
participants in coordinated activities
Lack of conflict resolution mechanisms to
address competition for resources and space for
activities
Bridging ideological, financial and Limited platforms for information-sharing Training in Information dissemination and
other divides within civil society Competition for external resources communication
Inadequate incentives for information Development of information-sharing and
disclosure to avoid duplication coordination platforms
Weak inter-sectoral networking capacities Training in networking and coalition
building
3.4.3.3 Consistency
The tendency for CSO interventions to be episodic and transient reflects limited long-term strategic planning and an over-
dependence on external resources. The influence of donor priorities is in no doubt a factor in the changing priorities of
CSOs but more important is the failure of CSOs to define and remain consistent with their visions and values. In this context,
consistency depends on organizational structures that can respond to external pressures without compromising internal
principles.
Clarity of agenda and defined Absence of long-term accountability for plans Training in Results Based Management
niche/constituency base and actions Capacity building in strategic planning for
Tendency to prioritize short-term fundraising fundraising and organizational direction
agendas
Long-term planning Lack of strategic planning leading to short- Training in planning and strategy
term responses formulation
3.4.4 Accountability
In recent years, concern has been raised by governments, the public and donors about CSO accountability in so far as this
affects their legitimacy and credibility. Growth in the civil society sector in response to a variety of challenges has come
brought with it negative perceptions about the role and work of CSOs; weak corporate governance and organizational
management frameworks; and competition for space and resources resulting in unethical behaviours, short cuts and in some
cases non-transparent and unaccountable tendencies. The main allegations against CSOs from the ZANU PF government over
the years have been that the sector is only accountable to donors, has deviated from its core mandates, has been delving into
political activities and has no proper checks and balances. These concerns, although not substantiated and in many cases over
exaggerated, should not be ignored. In fact, failing to self-regulate or to commit to keeping CSO houses in order will not only
affect the sector’s image but will inevitably give the government enough justification to interfere with CSO work in the name
of ‘regulating’ the sector.
Self-regulation mechanisms not only serves as a buffer against undue state interference but can also demonstrate the
willingness and commitment of the civil society sector to respect and adhere to principles of good corporate governance.
The NGO sector in Zimbabwe is developed enough that it can self-regulate while the State itself lacks the necessary capacity
to effectively monitor and regulate the sector. Self-regulation is important and necessary because in the long term, having in
place a self-regulation system that is respected by NGOs, that is trusted by the public at large, and one that works effectively
will lead to a more effective NGO community that enjoys the confidence trust and support of all the stake holders.
1 In order to avoid undue state interference, NANGO launched a Self-regulation programme in 2004 that culminated in the development of an NGO Code of Conduct and a Corporate Governance Manual.
Accountability Poor image of civil society due to lack of Training/public education on accountability tools including
transparency and perceived accountability codes of conduct/ethics, certification schemes, reporting
Lack of awareness of accountability tools frameworks etc.
and mechanisms Promotion of self-regulation mechanisms for civil society
Challenges and interference from the State Promotion of self-regulation and accountability mechanisms
and other stakeholders between organizations and their constituencies
Public education on the NGO Code of Conduct and
Corporate Governance Manual
An integral component of corporate governance is the clarity of roles and responsibilities of Boards, management and staff.
How these roles are defined and executed determines the power relations, balance of authority and the extent to which an
organization will be run smoothly, effectively and efficiently.
A number of discussion sessions, studies and reports on CSO work by NANGO, culminating in a baseline study on NGO 17
corporate governance in 2006 have revealed weak corporate governance amongst CSOs in Zimbabwe. Weaknesses are often
observable in such key issues as role of Boards vis-a-vis management, financial management, human resources management,
planning, monitoring and evaluation. In some organisations this has created doubts over accountability, transparency and
consequently loss of funding partners.
3.4.5.1 Proactivity
Major political upheavals in Zimbabwe (e.g. Operation Murambatsvina, land reform, post-Election politically motivated violence)
have consistently caught civil society off guard. In light of the emerging prospects for transition civil society needs the skills
to proactively anticipate political developments and adjust its strategic plans accordingly. Skills focused on improving civil
society’s scenario analysis, strategic planning and agenda setting abilities are crucial contributors to changing this dynamic.
Planning for Inadequate scenario analysis leading to failure to Training and support in scenario analysis and
proactivity anticipate change and events strategic planning
Weak alert mechanisms leading to delayed responses Learning and exchange initiatives with civil
on key human rights, democracy and governance societies from similar contexts
indicators Training in environmental scanning and
Difficulty linking immediate developments to monitoring human rights, democracy and
longstanding positions (ideological, consensus-based governance
or principled)
Lack of consistency in appraising developments on
the ground and linking them to policy processes or
advocacy plans
Clarity of agenda Unclear and unjustified positions on critical Training and support in scenario analysis
issues and organizational positioning
Lack of consistency in messaging Training in effective communications/
messaging
Disconnect between specialist/ Specialist organizations tend Strengthening inter-sectoral communication, coordination,
niche based CSOs and broader to avoid cooperation in order to networking and resource sharing mechanisms
initiatives protect their niches Training in sustainable multi-sectoral development
Technical specialist processes
organizations struggle $to
communicate with non-
specialist organizations and vice
versa
Limited understanding of
sustainable multi-sectoral
development processes
Agenda setting Difficulty balancing piecemeal gains on specific issues Awareness raising on the People’s Charter
against the broader framework of a sustainable reform as a consensus-based core framework for
process CSO engagement
Securing interest in marginalised issues/constituencies
in a context of competing priorities
Effective engagement Lack of experience in diplomacy or high level Training in high level diplomacy and
with relevant stakeholders engagement processes lobbying
Condescending attitudes of State officials towards civil Mechanisms to encourage multi-sectoral
society representatives dialogue and engagement teams
Lack of consensus over engagement strategies and Facilitation of linkages between
their pros and cons engagement processes and other advocacy
strategies
19
Harmonising messages, Managing State divide and rule tactics Mechanisms to strengthen inter-sectoral
managing diversity Promoting accountability and representativity of communication, coordination, networking
engagement processes, especially when undertaken on and accountability
behalf of broader civil society or groups of organizations
Conflicting messages by CSOs engaging on different
issues
Difficulty balancing gains by some sectors or groups
within civil society against disadvantages for other
sectors of civil society
Engaging Difficulty separating civil society from political actors given Training in high level diplomacy and
political parties historical links, the role of civil society in the formation of the engagement
opposition MDC, and the role of the State in the formation of Potential for civil society to promote a
some CSOs political party code of conduct to improve
Popular perceptions of linkages – for example that civil society terms of engagement
is a training ground for future politicians
Common agendas between CSOs and some political parties on
some critical issues (e.g. constitutionalism)
Negative State strategies to deal with CSOs including co-option,
repression, patronage and divide and rule
Asserting Lack of consensus on core issues, demands and civil society Strengthening civil society consensus
nonpartisanship positions building and accountability mechanisms
of civil society Limited awareness of international standards, norms and best Training in international standards,
practices on human rights, democracy and governance norms and best practices on human rights,
Poorly coordinated participation in critical policy processes democracy and governance
4. Conclusions
20 This assessment process has delivered a set of comprehensive results which were mostly consistent with preliminary analysis
invested in the initiative, particularly in terms of the areas in which civil society perceives a need for capacity building. Given
the country’s financial crisis as well as the repressive political environment is no surprise that funding constraints and advocacy
were consistent top priorities. More unexpected was the strong interest in organizational development across the diverse
sample of organizations across the country. This confirmation that strengthening of internal structures and capacities is a
high priority for civil society strongly supports the rationale behind the project as a whole and highlights the need for solid
structures that can take future development in these areas further.
Even though advocacy was predictably one of the main topics requiring training and investment, results showed a nuanced
understanding of the role and importance of advocacy at more than one level. In other words, while lobbying for national
policies was a consistent across the board, the call for support this area in relation to local government, extended community
dialogue and engagement with other sectors such as the media, opens up the space for different levels and types of advocacy.
This will allow for diversification and deepening of future training and related activities.
The findings also demonstrate that organizations are in great need of more training and support in order to smooth the
running of programs and overall functions. In terms of organizational development the areas of monitoring and evaluation,
human resources and corporate governance were flagged up as those in which systems are either lacking or fall short of basic
expectations. In the case of human resources, for instance, participants repeatedly complained about the high turnover, brain
drain and human capacity reduction due to the lack of policies that provide appropriate support and incentives for employees
to stay and contribute to the organization’s growth.
At the sectoral level, areas in need of strengthening included coordination and leadership. While the former ranged from
citizen mobilization and participation to coalition building the latter centered on the need for mentoring and exchange. The
two are closely related as leadership skills form the foundation for effective coordination and collaboration to ultimately help
in the bridging the gap between civil society and their local constituencies – another area regularly cited as a major challenge
in terms of mass mobilization and the legitimacy of civil society claims for representativeness.
Engaging with other sectors was highlighted in other areas in addition to coordination. It is apparent that CSOs recognize the
importance of engaging many different types of stakeholders as a legitimacy, advocacy and resource tool. These responses
reinforced the general perception that for CSOs to build their credibility and accountability they must work across the board
with other segments of society while at the same time strengthening their inter-organizational relations. In this vein, participant
organizations emphasized the need to focus on development of umbrella and coalition organization as hubs for resources
and coordination. This realistic appeal was also closely linked to the need to provide space for effective communication and
networking channels to develop new ideas and promote exchanges of information. Organizations demonstrated willingness
and disposition to take ownership of the self-sustainability aspect of the project, not only through active participation in this
assessment phase but also by putting forth new proposals that have the potential to serve as the backbone for future project
activities.
Findings across the different regions did not vary greatly; in fact the main capacity building areas overlapped, leading to
the conclusion the capacity gaps are persistent regardless of the infrastructure, local government or political conditions of
each location. It must be noted however that regional organizations tended to have broader mandates than their urban
counterparts. So, while most organizations in Harare were clearly working on issues of democracy and human rights, provincial
and rural organizations working on service delivery (particularly on HIV/AIDS) also considered democracy and human rights
issues to be on their agendas, primarily due to the humanitarian implications of political mismanagement and resulting high
demand and low delivery capacity for public services.
Overall the picture that emerged from the assessment process was one of widespread recognition, on the part of the vast
majority of civil society actors, that both efficiency and credibility are essential and integral factors in ensuring the sustainability
of both civil society and its initiatives. 21