Advertisement

The Quest for Government Accountability and Rule of Law: Conflicting Strategies of State and Civil Society in Cambodia and Serbia

  • Danilo Vuković
Original Paper
  • 130 Downloads

Abstract

This article deals with the social accountability activities of civil society organizations in Serbia and Cambodia. In both countries, they emerged with the conceptual and financial support of international development agencies; yet, the outputs were mediated by the social and political contexts. Still, these activities have some joint features: they (1) boost both understanding and awareness rather than solely mobilizing social interests; (2) target the interests of individual citizens rather than the interests of social-based groups or classes; (3) promote state cooperation instead of confrontation and (3) insist on the use of technical policy-related tools and mechanisms instead of political mobilization. The social accountability initiatives analyzed here have followed a policy-not-politics or depoliticized approach. As a consequence, they were ineffective in mobilizing citizens and social groups in a manner that would efficiently demand more accountability. On the other hand, governments contested civil society and appropriated its accountability discourses and strategies in an effort that can be read as an attempt to resist imposing government accountability and rule of law and pacifying present and future civic activism.

Keywords

Civil society Social accountability Government accountability Depoliticization Cambodia Serbia 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research has been supported by the Asian Foundation (TAF) and the London School of Economics and Political Sciences (LSE) within the framework of the LSE Justice and Security Research Program. As a TAF & LSE Research Fellow, I conducted research on SA in Cambodia—during 2014 and 2015—with Professor Dr. Marija Babović. The first set of results from the research was published in Babović and Vuković 2014. The research carried out in Serbia and its subsequent results were published in Vuković 2015. This research and this article were prepared at the University of the Belgrade Faculty of Law under the framework of the project: “Identity Transformation of Contemporary Serbia.”

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ackerman, J. (2004). Co-governance for accountability: Beyond “Exit” and “Voice”. World Development, 32(3), 447–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonić, S. (2006). Elites, citizens and weak state. Beograd: Službeni glasnik. (in Serbian).Google Scholar
  3. Arandarenko, M. (2000). Economic reality of Serbia. In M. Lazić (Ed.), Clams’ walk. Beograd: Filip Višnjić. (in Serbian).Google Scholar
  4. Babović, M., & Vuković, D. (2014). Social accountability in Cambodia. LSE Justice and Security Research Programme Paper 19, ISSN 2051-0926.Google Scholar
  5. Babović, M., & Vuković, D. (2015a). Political competition and socio-economic drivers of political accountability in Cambodia. unpublished paper.Google Scholar
  6. Babović, M., & Vuković, D. (2015b). Cambodia: A survey of livelihood strategies and expectations for the future. Phnom Penh, Cambodia, The Asian Foundation, available at www.asiafoundation.org.
  7. Baldwin, P. (1990). The politics of social solidarity. Class bases of the European welfare state 1875–1975. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Banks, N., & Hulme, D. (2012). The role of NGOs and civil society in development and poverty reduction. Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper No 171.Google Scholar
  9. Bebbington, A. J. (1997). New states, new NGOs? Crises and transitions among rural development NGOs in the Andean Region. World Development, 25(11), 1755–1765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bebbington, A. J., Hickey, S., & Mitlin, D. (2008). Introduction: Can NGOs make a difference? The challenge of development alternatives. In A. J. Bebbington, S. Hickey, & D. C. Mitlin (Eds.), Can NGOs make a difference? The challenge of development alternatives (pp. 3–37). London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  11. Berlin, I. (1958). Two concepts of liberty. In I. Berlin (Ed.) (1969) Four essays on liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bolnick, J. (2008). Development as reform and counter-reform: paths travelled by Slum/Shack Dwellers International. In A. Bebbington, S. Hickey, & D. Mitlin (Eds.), Can NGOs make a difference? The challenge of development alternatives (pp. 316–333). London and New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  13. Bovens, M. (2010). Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics, 33(5), 946–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buttigieg, J. (1999). Gramsci on civil society. Boundary2, 22(3), 1–32.Google Scholar
  15. CCC. (2013). CSO contributions to the development of Cambodia 2012: Opportunities and challenges. Phnom Penh: Cooperation Committee for Cambodia.Google Scholar
  16. Chandhoke, N. (1995). State and civil society: Explorations in political theory. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, L. J., & Lampe, J. R. (2011). Embracing democracy in the Western Balkans from postconflict struggles toward European integration, Washington. D.C. and Baltimore: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cvejić, S. (Ed.). (2016). Informal power networks, political patronage and clientelism in Serbia and Kosovo*. Belgrade: SeConS.Google Scholar
  19. Deacon, B. (2007). Global social policy and governance. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  20. EC. (2014). Republic of Serbia. Progress Report, Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  21. Edwards, M. (2004). Civil society. London: Polity.Google Scholar
  22. Edwards, M. (2008). Have NGOs “made a difference?” From Manchester to Birmingham with an elephant in the room. In A. Bebbington, S. Hickey, & D. Mitlin (Eds.), Can NGOs make a difference? The challenge of development alternatives (pp. 38–52). London and New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  23. Ehrenberg, J. (1999). Civil society: The critical history of an idea. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Fox, J. (2007). Accountability politics: Power and voice in rural Mexico. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fox, J. (2014). Social accountability: What does evidence really say? Global Partnership for Social Accountability Working Paper 1. Washington DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  26. Gaventa, J., & McGee, R. (2013). The Impact of transparency and accountability initiatives. Development Policy Review, 31(S1), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Godfrey, M., et al. (2000). Technical assistance and capacity development in an aid-dependent economy: The experience of Cambodia. Phnom Penh: Cambodia Development Resource Institute.Google Scholar
  28. GS. (2010). Decree on office for cooperation with civil society. Official Gazette 26/2010 (in Serbian).Google Scholar
  29. GS. (2011). GOCCS Strategic framework 20112014. Government of Serbia (in Serbian).Google Scholar
  30. Harriss, J. (2001). Depoliticizing development. The World Bank and social capital. New Delhi: LeftWord.Google Scholar
  31. Heller, P. (1996). Social capital as a product of class mobilization and state intervention: Industrial workers in Kerala, India. World Development, 24(6), 1055–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Henke, R. (2011). NGOs, people’s movements and natural resource management. In C. Hughes & K. Un (Eds.), Cambodia’s economic transformation (pp. 288–310). Copenhagen: NIAS Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hughes, C. (2003). The political economy of Cambodia’s transition 1991–2001. London: Routledge Curzon.Google Scholar
  34. Jordan, B. (2006). Social policy for the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  35. Joshi, A. (2013). Do they work? Assessing the impact of transparency and accountability initiatives in service delivery. Development Policy Review, 31(S1), 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Joshi, A., & Houtzager, P. (2012). Widgets or watchdogs? Conceptual explorations in SA. Public Management Review, 14(2), 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kamat, S. (2004). The privatization of public interests: Theorizing NGO discourse in a neoliberal era. Review of International Political Economy, 11(1), 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kimchoeun, P., et al. (2007). Accountability and neopatrimonialism in Cambodia: A critical literature review. Phnom Penh: Cambodia Development Resource Institute.Google Scholar
  39. Korpi, W. (1983). The democratic class struggle. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  40. Kostovicova, D. (2006). Civil society and post-communist democratization: Facing a double challenge in post-Milošević Serbia. Journal of Civil Society, 2(1), 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lazić, M., & Pešić, J. (2012). Making and unmaking state-centered capitalism in Serbia. Beograd: Čigoja.Google Scholar
  42. Lewis, D. (2004). On the difficulty of studying civil society: Reflections on NGOs, state and democracy in Bangladesh. Contributions to Indian sociology, 38(3), 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lewis, D., & Kanji, N. (2009). Non-governmental organizations and development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Malena, C., Forster, R., & Singh, J. (2004). Social accountability: An introduction to the concept and emerging practice. social development papers, participation and civic engagement. Paper No. 76. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  45. Mandel, R. (2002). Seeding civil society. In C. Hann (Ed.), Post-socialism: Ideal, ideologies and practices in Eurasia. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Marinković, T. (2009). On the Constitutionality O ustavnosti opšteg reizbora sudija. Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, 57(1), 283–291.Google Scholar
  47. Marković, R. (2011). Frightened constitutional court and arrogant supreme court. Pečat, 28(4), 2011. (in Serbian).Google Scholar
  48. Mendelski, M. (2013). They have failed again! Donor-driven promotion of the rule of law in Serbia. Südosteuropa, 61, 79–113.Google Scholar
  49. Mikuš, M. (2013). What reform? “Civil societies,” state and social antagonism in “European Serbia. Doctoral thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  50. Mosse, D., & Lewis, D. (Eds.). (2006). The aid effect: Giving and governing in international development. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  51. Netra, E., Mun, V., & Navy, H. (2015). Social accountability in service delivery in Cambodia. CDRI Working Paper Series No. 115. Phnom Penh: Cambodia Development Resource Institute.Google Scholar
  52. Ninh, K., & Henke, R. (2005). Commune councils in Cambodia: A national survey on their functions and performance, with a special focus on conflict resolution. Phnom Penh: The Asia Foundation.Google Scholar
  53. Norman, D. (2015). From shouting to counting: Civil society and good governance agenda in Cambodia. Pacific Review, 27(2), 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. O’Donnell, G. (1999). Horizontal accountability in new democracies. In A. Schedler, L. Diamond, & M. F. Plattner (Eds.), The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies (pp. 29–52). Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.Google Scholar
  55. O’Donnell, G. (2004). Why the rule of law matters. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 32–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Öjendal, J., & Sedara, K. (2012). Is your ground as common and mine? A critical review of the role of civil society in local governance in Cambodia. Phnom Penh: The Asia Foundation.Google Scholar
  57. Ou, S. (2013). Sub-national civil society in Cambodia: A Gramscian perspective. CDRI Working Paper Series # 84, Phnom Penh: CDRI.Google Scholar
  58. Ou, S., & Sedara, K. (2013). 20 years’ strengthening of Cambodian civil society: Time for reflection. Phnom Penh: Cambodia Development Resource Institute.Google Scholar
  59. Peou, S. (2005). International democracy assistance for peacebuilding: Cambodia and beyond. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  60. Peruzzotti, E., & Smulovitz, C. (Eds.). (2006). Enforcing the rule of law: SA in the new Latin American democracies. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  61. Plummer, J., & Tritt, G. (Eds.). (2011). Voice, choice and decision: A study of local governance processes in Cambodia. Phnom Penh: The World Bank and The Asian Foundation.Google Scholar
  62. Richmond, O. P., & Franks, J. (2007). Liberal hubris? Virtual peace in Cambodia. Security Dialogue, 38(1), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rodan, G., & Hughes, C. (2012). Ideological coalitions and the international promotion of social accountability: The Philippines and Cambodia compared. International Studies Quarterly, 56(2), 367–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Roy, I. (2008). Civil society and good governance: (Re-) Conceptualizing the interface. World Development, 36(4), 677–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sampson, S. (2004). Too much civil society? Donor-driven NGOs in the Balkans. In L. Dhundale & E. Andersen (Eds.), Revisiting the role of civil society in the promotion of human rights. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Human Rights.Google Scholar
  66. Scott, J. (1972). Patron-client politics and political change in southeast Asia. The American Political Science Review, 66(1), 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Springer, S. (2010). Cambodia’s neoliberal order violence, authoritarianism, and the contestation of public space. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Tamanaha, B. Z. (2004). On the rule of law: History, politics, theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Un, K. (2005). Patronage politics and hybrid democracy: Political change in Cambodia, 1993–2003. Asian Perspective, 29(2), 203–230.Google Scholar
  70. Un, K. (2006). State, society and democratic consolidation: The case of Cambodia. Pacific Affairs, 79(2), 225–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. UNDP. (2013). Reflections on SA: Catalyzing democratic governance to accelerate progress towards the Millennium Development Goals. New York: UNDP.Google Scholar
  72. Unger, R. M. (1976). Law in modern societies. Towards a criticism of social theory. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  73. van Duyne, P. C. (2013). Serbian anti-corruption policy. Welcome to Potemkin’s village? Filozofija i društvo, 24(1), 81–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vetta, T. (2009). ‘Democracy building’ in Serbia: The NGO effect. Southeastern Europe, 33(1), 26–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vuković, D. (2011). Societal foundations of the rule of law: The case of Serbia. Sociološki pregled, 45(3), 421–451. (in Serbian).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vuković, D. (2015). The role of civil society in fostering government accountability in contemporary Serbia: On the limits of depoliticized social activism. Sociologija, 57(4), 637–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vuković, D., & Babović, M. (2016). The trap of neo-patrimonialism. Social accountability and good governance in Cambodia. unpublished paper.Google Scholar
  78. World Bank. (2004). From shouting to counting: A new frontier in social development. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  79. World Bank. (2009). Cambodia. Linking citizens and the state: An assessment of civil society contribution to the good governance. Phnom Penh: The World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations