Politics and civil society in Mozambique: challenges for a democratic developmental state

I. Introduction Mozambique is a country in southeastern Africa bordered by the Indian Ocean to the east, Tanzania to the north, Malawi and Zambia to the northwest, Zimbabwe to the west and Swaziland and South Africa to the southwest. Mozambique became independent in 1975, to which it became the People's Republic of Mozambique shortly after, and was the scene of an intense civil war lasting from 1977 to 1992. The country is a member of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), Portuguese Language Countries and the Commonwealth of Nations and an observer of the Francophonie. 1.2. Statement of the problem This paper presents a qualitative research in which the author has the purpose of analyzing the dynamics of politics in Mozambique and the need of strong partnership between the State and Civil Society Organizations in the process of policymaking for the building of a democratic developmental state. It seems that policies are only made by the ruling parties in Mozambique. II. Politics of Mozambique Politics of Mozambique takes place in a framework of a presidential representative democratic republic, whereby the President of Mozambique is both head of state and head of government, and of a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the Assembly of the Republic. In 1994 the country held its first democratic elections. Joaquim Chissano was elected President with 53% of the vote, and a 250-member National Assembly was voted in with 129 FRELIMO deputies, 112 RENAMO deputies, and 9 representatives of three smaller parties that formed the Democratic Union (UD). After some delays, in 1998 the country held its first local elections to provide for local representation and some budgetary authority at the municipal level. The principal opposition party, RENAMO, boycotted the local elections, citing flaws in the registration process. Independent slates contested the elections and won seats in municipal assemblies. The second general elections were held in 1999. President Chissano won the presidency with a margin of 4% points over the RENAMO-Electoral Union coalition candidate, Afonso Dhlakama, and began his 5-year term in January 2000. FRELIMO increased its majority in the National Assembly with 133 out of 250 seats. RENAMO-UE coalition won 116 seats, one went independent, and no third parties are represented. The second local elections, involving 33 municipalities with some 2.4 million registered voters, took place in November 2003. This was the first time that FRELIMO, RENAMO-UE, and independent parties competed without significant boycotts. The 24% turnout was well above the 15% turnout in the first municipal elections. FRELIMO won 28 mayoral positions and the majority in 29 municipal assemblies, while RENAMO won 5 mayoral positions and the majority in 4 municipal assemblies. The third Presidential and National Assembly elections took place in 2004. FRELIMO candidate Armando Guebuza won with 64% of the popular vote. His opponent, Afonso Dhlakama of RENAMO, received 32% of the popular vote. FRELIMO won 160 seats in Parliament. A coalition of RENAMO and several small parties won the 90 remaining seats. III. Civil Society in Mozambique The operational definition of civil society used in this research is the definition proposed by CIVICUS and understood as the arena outside of the family, the state and the market, where people associate to advance common interests (Heinrich, 2004). Virtually all the sub-dimensions show that the Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) structure is extremely weak. Part of the weakness in the structure of civil society is organizational and in the financial and human resources available to CSOs. According to the Civil Society Index (2007: 7) “Mozambicans are frequently called upon to participate in the exercise of their citizenship rights, but in practice their power to influence policies, relevant decisions or even economic and political power ends up being limited. On the scale of participation in the exercise of power, the citizen usually lies between the levels of, on the one hand manipulation and therapy and on the other hand ad hoc, informal consultation and sounding out, without the kind of mutual commitment and responsibility inherent to different types of partnership. The data brought together in this report also make it possible to dispel some misconceptions on the CSO situation, namely, their geographical spread throughout the country and the most common kind of organization in civil society. Contrary to the prevailing notion, most CSOs are located in districts and local communities, not in the main urban centers. This means that most CSOs are not visible in broad media circles, in influential networks with access to sources of funds, the best technologies and the mass media. This situation presents a major challenge for three kinds of entities. Firstly, the CSOs with national coverage and in particular foundations that have the most capacity, can use the results of this study to work to improve the structure of civil society, expanding networks and forms of collaboration with grass roots CSOs at district and community level. Secondly, international agencies and donors interested in supporting the development of Mozambican civil society must seek ways of expanding their support beyond the minority of organizations that have benefited so far. According to data provided by the INE survey, in 2003 the budgeted income of CSOs was around 300 million American dollars. Of this amount, at least 70% were financial transfers from overseas, while 25% were transfers from the private and family/individual sector. Consequently, foreign funding entities face the challenge of finding ways to access a broader range of CSOs in Mozambique in order to help build a strong Mozambican civil society.” IV. State and Civil Society: challenges for a democratic developmental state building According to the Civil Society Index (2007: 58) “relations that exist between civil society and the state (…) are between weak and moderate.” There is a need to establish a partnership between Civil Society Organizations and the State. Civil Society Organizations will help State in settling, analyzing, monitoring and evaluating public policies. The State must see CSOs as good partners. The State must also support CSOs by giving them information, financing them and taking seriously their recommendations. CEMO , for example has been writing many articles aiming to help the State in correcting its policies and also in development new public policies to transform Mozambique in a democratic developmental state. According to Ebrahim Fakir (2005: 2) “democratic developmental state emphasizes performance, managerialism, technical and bureaucratic efficiency and effectiveness, and institutional rationalization and transformation (and) creates a voice for the poor and marginalized, that promotes, enhances and protects the rights that accrue but pursues the obligations owed to it by citizens, and which inculcates diversity, responsiveness and representation and representativity, the institutional separation of powers and functions, transparent decision-making, accountability and effective oversight. (…) A democratic developmental state may be its exclusive focus on rights, responsiveness, representation, consultation, accountability, oversight, participation (...).” The author is really talking about the need of inclusiveness of the CSOs in policymaking, monitoring and evaluation as they represent masses.