The primary inclusion of civil society organizations or CSOs is virtuous but premature at this time because they brought the negotiations to a deadlock and proved only to distract attention.
Mohamed El Shabik in his opinion on the role of civil society CRN obtained on Monday, dated November 23 argued that there is ‘a perpetual dilemma about exactly what CSOs are, who they represent and who can decide on the substance of their constituencies’.
He added that the CSOs are highly politicized and some of them raise doubts about their legitimacy and impartiality as they take funds from and serve the government.
Mr El Shabik discovered that CSOs power to decide was unpersuasive and that during the peace talks they lack an understanding of their real power and became part of the problem.
The opinionist said individuals in the CSOs have their own agendas and lack internal democratic practices, contradicting their democratic contentions while advocating for better governance and democracy.
Mr El Shabik pointed out that the effective civil society that emerged after independence is Western dominated, having more affinities with their counterparts in Western organizations than with their host society, casting doubts about the real representation and their intentions.