Between civil advocacy, the government and corporate organizations
Dividends
refer to the portion of profit stakeholders (shareholders) get from an
enterprise for their stakes (shares) in the business. With continuous
evolution, everything, including state – the nation state has acquired the
status of enterprise.
So, such
things as dividends of democracy have become commonplace. What do people particularly
ordinary citizens get for their stakes in the state? That is their dividend
from the state enterprise because they hold shares in the state. It is an
inalienable right. And where it is not given or partially given or in any way
denied, the people put their feet down in demand for what they know is their
right.
From the
business of state let us progress to the state of business. Citizens are
beginning to ask for dividends in ordinary businesses, particularly if the
businesses happen reside in the same neighbourhood as they. Businesses are
citizens and instead of the strongest stifling the weakest, a sense of
community or brotherhood must prevail. So from he that has much, it must be
taken and given to he that has less. An effort to strike at equilibrium sounds
right and logical.
Social
responsibility, mostly at corporate level has become an integral part of
business. Thriving enterprises are now required to support the environment,
host communities, and other stakeholders in the ecosystem. CSR has become
central to business. Stakeholders demand it, often in bizarre and forceful
manner. This demand has given rise to advocacy groups in several shades.
The
burden of CSR has given rise to a peculiar kind of business, otherwise called
not for profit evolving in the bid to enforce the rights of the weaker segment
of the society and help them obtain from their more successful neighbours.
Several
issues come to mind here. What manner of business can survive year on year
without profit? What kind of business can make it its business to compel the
strongest to take care of the weakest by letting go a part of what it has legally
earned? Yet the not for profits, commonly called nongovernmental organisations
try to make people believe they exist solely for others.
Curiously,
this branch of business would not have come up without the callous posturing of
successful businesses that resist giving back to society as CSR is referred to
in some quarters. This stance has opened an avenue for musketeers to parade
themselves in different shades for the purpose of obtaining from the successful
for the less successful. What is of concern is ‘what portion of what is
obtained is passed on to the weakest of the society for whom it is meant?’ Yet
this astute set of business people maintain, boldly so that they are in
business just to help others, often referred to as less privileged.
Often
proponents of these rights groups traverse every aspect of business including
government. In government circles, they are often referred to as civil society.
These pressure groups are making some impact. Observers note that the civil
society played a leading role in the struggle for the return of leadership from
military to civilian in Nigeria in what is commonly referred to as the third
republic in 1999.
What is
of concern is that this group of ‘civilised people’ also tends to be feeding
fat from what they obtain from the strongest meant for the weakest. Being
enlightened in their trade, they mount sophisticated campaigns, bring a feeling
of guilt on businesses in the process, compelling them to hand out to them as
they demand, because ‘it is for common good.’
Survival
is important to all businesses. Be it conventional business or not for profit.
It becomes imperative to seek the place of these pressure groups as they appear
to quickly play the parasite, ever keen at obtaining from businesses in what is
commonly referred to as grants. What is the place of ethics in this segment of
business?
Given the
skillful operation of advocacy groups, often with international networks,
government and businesses can no longer ignore them. With their experience at
advocacy, organised not for profit organisations are the preferred candidates
for social or community mobilisation. Conscious therefore that they have this
endowment, some of them now tend to commercialise it by trading loyalty from
the weakest to the strongest, in tandem with the popular adage ‘he who pays the
piper and dictates the tune’.
Perhaps,
it is imperative to point out that those who hand out grants might be right in
considering what they hand out as investment for which they expect yields. The
expected yields can only be gotten if they keep an eye on the investment by
keeping close alliance with the advocacy groups that seek the grants. Could
knowledge that more grants are endangered except those who hand out the grants
are satisfied with usage of what was already granted influence what comes out
of the mouths of the advocates? This is a tough call.
However,
the mere thought of it tends to paint a gloomy picture for the future of
citizens’ rights as the resonating effect of the commercialisation of civil
advocacy is the weakening of citizens’ voices and the strengthening of an
already repressive hold of businesses on the environment and other
stakeholders.
Granted
that commercialisation of advocacy has the capacity to dilute and distract from
a commitment to balance the influence wielded by businesses that are by their
very nature collective as against common citizens whose individual voices can
easily be drowned, questions must be asked. The grave danger in this trend is
that without advocacy, collective stand, at grassroots level could be easily
taken away with individual liberty severely curtailed, giving rise to an
unchallenged reign by mindless profiteers in business.
To sum up
this takes, it should be noted that Nnamdi Azikiwe is credited with the saying
that “conscience and history are the best judges of human action.” As civil
advocacy tends to go commercial in Nigeria, it is pertinent to point out that
the promoters are businessmen, though they be branded not for profit, history
and conscience will have the duty of assessing their actions over time.
0 comments: