The AWARE Saga and Political ‘Capture’: Lessons for Civil Society

The AWARE Saga and Political ‘Capture’: Lessons for Civil Society

The AWARE saga, where a new leadership emerged unexpectedly and displaced the old guard, represents a case of ‘political capture’. While some commentators have labelled it as a ‘coup’, a more accurate way of looking at the proceedings would be to see it as the ‘capture’ of power, made possible by distinct flaws of a democratic system. A ‘coup’ implies that the old leadership was forcefully removed from their positions and a new leadership was installed without the consent of constituents. That is not the case. The new members came to power via constitutional means and did nothing that overstepped the lines drawn by the organization’s constitution. In other words, the new leadership, by any democratic measure, is legitimate and has a right to lead the organization in the direction of their choosing, constrained only by Aware’s constitution, rules and to a lesser extent, norms.

In political science literature, political ‘capture’ occurs when a dominant person, or group, manages to attain an overwhelming degree of influence in an organization. The way this occurs, ironically, is made possible by the democratic process. NGOs are known to be transparent and democratic and AWARE is no different. Where heads and votes matter, the person, or persons, who get the most votes are legitimate holders of powers for that particular round of elections. Whether the elected office-bearers derive support, or votes, from an existing pool of members or from an outside pool of people who can be made eligible to vote by the simple act of signing up, is immaterial. The democratic process has been adhered to, and in a civic society, losers of an election have to be gracious, while winners have to be accepted( Provisions for a vote of ‘No Confidence’ is, fortunately, part of the deal).

The tone of the previous paragraph may imply that political ‘capture’ should be condoned but that is not its intention. The intention is to show that a democratic system produces democratically-elected representatives who are legitimate, as far as the constitution of the organization goes. Whether ‘capture’ is to be condoned, or to be seen as a manifestation of dirty politicking, is a matter of individual opinion. But of concern in this AWARE saga is the extent to which ‘capture’ can occur in other civil society organizations.

Organizations such as NGOs and sports associations regularly elect members to sit on their boards and who are entrusted with the task of leading the organization. It is not uncommon in Singapore to see organizations, especially sports associations, that have been led by the same person for numerous years. The reason for such a phenomenon is simply because the ‘electorate’, or the pool of members who are eligible to vote, is usually small and they usually have close connections to the elected member. However, when an electorate is allowed to grow in size overnight, as what presumably happened in AWARE, this system of democratic elections is open to abuse. A member running for a post can simply ask his/her friends to join the organization(usually having to pay a nominal fee) and appear in the AGM to vote him/her in. Implications? Members can buy votes from complete strangers who are indifferent to the aims of an organization, but are motivated by monetary, or other kinds of rewards.

The danger for civil society actors is clearly apparent here. Political ‘capture’ can occur should there be no countervailing system to prevent ‘new strangers’ from voting. A sudden influx of people paying the nominal membership due of $16 a year is all it takes to get a sudden surge of votes. Furthermore, any and every voluntary, open-door, organization is exposed to this risk. The potential political manipulation of an organization, by any group whether they are Christians,Marxists or Tree-huggers, is there to be exploited.

It’s time civil society actors revisit their constitutions and analyze the possibilities. It seems that AWARE is paying for its inability to forsee such a ‘capture’.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27517.1