Tag: access to information

Practical guide on using video to combat corruption out now

Vanessa Malila

How video can empower communities and be a tool for change

“Three hundred people have been invited?” I repeated, trying to keep the surprise out of my voice. “Yes, it’s mainly going to be local leaders and decision makers, as well as representatives of local citizen groups and journalists…”

This community screening event — organised by a group of local women — was turning into something much more ambitious than expected. “Have you ever put on an event like this?” I checked, hopefully. “No nothing like this,” she said. “We want to get people talking together and thinking about the impacts of corruption on women here, and get them to commit to actions that will change this situation”.

This was the culmination of a project in which 11 women from south west Madagascar created films highlighting injustices that deprive women of land. InsightShare had been training them to use a powerful communication tool to tackle endemic corruption and deeply ingrained cultural norms, that held that women should not own land.

What if there was a tool that could help groups work together better to create change — whilst still having some fun? Perhaps it’s not fun all the time, but there can be great joy in the solidarity of struggling together to make a difference, and this tool does tend to generate a lot of laughter.

And what if that tool could be used by literate or illiterate, educated or not, putting everyone on the same playing field? Wouldn’t it be great if that tool could be used to open ears and minds, to help other ordinary citizens, chiefs, business leaders and politicians move out of their bubbles and into the realities of those they rarely meet, let alone listen to? This creates a deeper understanding of issues and motivation to tackle them.

These are some of the magic ingredients of the participatory video process. It is within all of our reach and looks very much like the smartphone in our pockets.

Everybody has a video cameras these days, but crucially participatory video is about a collective process: working together to explore, prioritise and investigate community concerns, issues and experiences. Facilitators help the group to learn simple video-making skills through games and exercises. Participants work together to plan and produce their video collectively, screening-back regularly to their wider community to test ideas and refine messages. Participants own the video and control the content, allowing direct control over how they are represented. The resulting videos are used to communicate with chosen audiences, sharing stories, building a new image of what can be and working together with all key actors to make that happen.

Participatory video is used around the world to empower communities and hold those in power accountable.

Today, InsightShare and Transparency International launched a guidebook on how to plan, produce and create impact with participatory video. Combatting Corruption Through Participatory Video: A Guide for Practitioners is the result of 10 years of collaboration between the two organisations on projects with citizens worldwide, and it’s free to download now.

The project in Madagascar was the final road test before launching the guide.

The local team of trainees filmed over 120 stories of women who had experienced corruption or been victim of cultural practices that leave widows and divorcees destitute and put thousands of children at risk.

(Image: InsightShare)

“One of the biggest barriers to women speaking out against corruption is shame.” — Participatory video trainee team statement after an analysis of all the collected stories

Bénédicte was one of these women, and she shared her experience for the first time. The other trainees carried out a process of empathic listening combined with roleplay to help her bring her story into words. She described how her husband had paid corrupt officials to change the title deeds of their house and that one day she and her daughters came home to find a locked door and a bailiff telling them to leave. Bénédicte, together with her peers, decided scene by scene where they would shoot, what to say and who should be included in her film.

At first Bénédicte was scared to share her message, but her confidence grew. Hundreds of people came to community screenings to watch her story and the testimonies of other local men and women. The local team then facilitated talking circles where everyone could share their perspective, their emotions and what actions they would take.

Watch Bénédicte’s story in this video. For a playlist of four participatory videos focusing on land and corruption click here

The participatory video women’s group have all they need to carry on their work, screening the videos around the region, making new ones and gaining support from local judges, senators and prefects, as well as traditional leaders and chiefs. The winds of change are blowing in south west Madagascar and the work with participatory video is highlighting the role of corruption and harmful cultural practices in oppressing women’s rights.

As for Bénédicte, having heard the testimonies and stories of so many others and feeling supported by this broader network of women, she said: “I decided to take my ex-husband to court and fight this out. My daughters deserve to share in the property that I developed over so many years with him.”

Participatory video enabled each group to investigate and document their issues. With this tool they can reach stakeholders and decision-makers, inform them and pressure them to be accountable.

Download the guidebook — Combatting Corruption Through Participatory Video: a Guide for Practitioners.

 

This article was first posted by Chris Lunch on the Voices for Transparency website

What is civil society for? Reflection from one of Tanzania’s leading CSO thinkers

Vanessa Malila

A recent civil society and government jamboree in Tanzania prompted some interesting reflections from Aidan Eyakuze, Executive Director of Twaweza.

 

This article was originally published on the ‘From Poverty to Power’ blog.

 

Who needs civil society organizations (CSOs)? If government does its job well, responding to citizens’ needs, delivering good quality services, safe communities and a booming economy, then what is the purpose of the diverse range of NGOs, trade unions, religious groups, community groups and others that make up civil society?

I was one of more than 600 people at CSO Week 2018 in Dodoma (Tanzania’s capital). We were there to both celebrate and debate the role of civil society in Tanzania. Lots of speakers from within and outside government spoke with almost universal praise for the role civil society plays. But not far below the collegial surface lurked a significant divergence of views.

The most important was conflicting views on the primary purpose of civil society. Government officials acknowledged the positive role of CSOs, but with a strong whiff of ambiguity about their value and scepticism about their integrity.

Government ministers and senior officials revealed a clear preference for CSOs focused on uncontroversial service delivery activities (providing healthcare or education or clean water), over those working on raising citizen voices and advocating for better policies. They said that CSOs that focus on service delivery are supporting the government as the people’s legitimately elected representative. They are giving people the help they need, and can attract additional aid dollars into the country for development. However, those CSOs that monitor and critique government, advocate for civic space and promote human rights, may in fact be pursuing foreign agendas or wasting resources by working in areas that do not resonate with citizens’ needs, such as public services and livelihoods.

I also heard many CSOs worrying that limiting their activities to providing services makes them little more than handmaids to government and reduces citizens to mere subjects. Championing the causes of social justice, equality, shared responsibility and rewards has them working to ensure people are free citizens.

But this is a simplistic, though long-standing distinction, and I think it misses the point. For the ‘uncontroversial’ services to be delivered well to those needing them most, civic space must, crucially and contentiously, be open.

Without freedom of information and expression, people will not know what they are entitled to. Nor will they be able to voice their opinion on the quality of services or bring other problems to the attention of decision makers. Without freedom of assembly and association, the gap between a distant and powerful government and an atomised population becomes almost unbridgeable. Without citizen participation, services rarely meet citizen needs and citizens feel increasingly powerless and disconnected. Without inclusion, marginalised people are left even further behind. Without human rights and the rule of law, citizens have little protection from corrupt or bullying officials. Those who no longer trust that the game is fair stop trying to play and withdraw to the fringes.

CSOs that work to protect and promote open civic space are also working to strengthen public services and improve people’s lives. We may be doing so indirectly, but our contribution is just as valuable and necessary.

I would go further to argue that even delivering services is a political undertaking. When people are healthier, better educated and have access to water, shelter and can make a decent living, they are more likely to ask for more and expect better. And delivering services has an impact on local power relations. A new well, for example, increases the availability of water for some, changes time allocation, especially for women, and alters patterns of ownership, income and social interaction in a village. Choices are inherently political.

So the question is not ‘are we for services or for social justice?’ The two are inseparable.

Bishop Stephen Munga, of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tanzania (ELCT) and Chancellor at Sebastian Kolowa Memorial University expressed this point powerfully last week when he argued that “civil society gives rise to government itself.” “It is civil society that legitimately says whether government is good or bad, laws are good or bad. It is not for government or those in power to assess itself!”

His assertions were both attractive, and unsettling. Who assesses us CSOs? I confess to leaving Dodoma with a nagging feeling that, as CSOs, we did not engage in some important self-reflection. Are we well-placed to deliver a vision of a healthy, wealthy, wise and just Tanzania? Are we trusted by those who we claim to represent and speak for? Are we legitimate in their eyes? How much are citizens engaged in our work, in shaping our priorities and activities, or are we distant, disconnected and self-righteous? And how much are we really contributing to improving social justice overall? Could we do more?

These questions warrant really good answers. Such deep self-reflection can only be healthy for the sector, and for the wider community which we serve. We should not shy away from it.

It should come as no surprise that government and civil society have different views on what the sector should look like, or on the relationship between services and rights. It is only proper that a combination of tension and collaboration should exist, as one party seeks to maintain social order and the other to promote social justice. A society without such tension would slide into decline and decay.

So what is civil society for? It is to improve public services and people’s livelihoods. It is also to raise citizen voices and protect civic space. And it is even, on occasion, for disagreeing with government. I am sure that doing these things makes us all stronger. We will all be better off as a result.

This article was originally published here