he Civil 20—one of the official engagement groups of the G20 established in 2013—has been an important way for civil society representatives from across the world to advocate for and provide recommendations on critical transnational issues, ranging from global health to financial crime to climate change. It has also played a critical watchdog role, pushing for greater accountability for commitments made by G20 member countries each year.
Transparency, independence, collaboration, continuity, and predictability are some of the principles that underpin the C20's core values. These principles are necessary for the C20 to maintain its ability to influence global policies that impact people’s lives worldwide.
Unfortunately the G20, while acknowledging the role of civil society, has not yet taken the role of the C20 seriously and does not currently meaningfully respond to civil society demands. This is evident from the "narrowed," "obstructed," or "repressive" civic space in most G20 countries. For instance, according to the CIVICUS civic space monitoring tool, only Canada and Germany of the G20 group are ranked as "open." C20-G20 interactions reflect these dynamics. Previously, the G20 limited civil society engagement in meaningful conversations happening within the G20. This year, the process has been almost entirely co-opted by the G20 Indian Presidency. This poses significant risks for civil society and government accountability everywhere and must be corrected moving forward.
Lost in Transition
Each year the G20 Presidency transitions from one member country to another. The C20 follows a similar transition process whereby the host country's civil society, which has been part of the previous C20 structure, chairs the overall process. A “troika” of civil society groups from the previous, present, and next countries hosting the G20 come together to put in place the C20 process for any given year. The C20 structure is essential for maintaining this continuity, including the transfer of the domain of the C20 website and social media to the incoming C20 Chairs to allow for continued communication with civil society and citizens.
The current G20 Presidency has failed to adhere to C20 principles. India set up C20 structures and processes that were led by the host government, not by civil society. This included the appointment of the C20 Chair by the Modi administration. Members of the previous Troika have since tried to engage in the C20 structure to ensure continuity, but with limited success. Their efforts to align C20 working groups with the previous ones have not been successful. This year, there are 14 working groups in the C20—twice the number as last year—and priority topics such as corruption have been excluded from this year’s working groups. Similarly, this year the official www.civil-20.org domain has been suspended as the Indian C20 has set up a new website-https://civil20.net. This has created confusion and frustration among national and international civil society.
The Indian government’s actions set a harmful precedent by willfully misinterpreting the purpose of the C20, illustrating that India’s goal as G20 President is not to support democracy or stability globally, but rather to push the Modi administration’s political goals. This threatens civil society's independence and legitimacy in many ways.
- This reverses decades of advocacy efforts that gave civil society actors a forum where world leaders can hear their voices, especially concerning given the current context of shrinking civic space.
- This makes engagement by local civil society organizations less likely, as they may no longer see value in participating. This could also lead to further mistrust in other government-led consultative processes.
- International civil society organizations may boycott G20 summits if they view the processes as illegitimate. Boycotts would hinder meaningful consultation, undermining the validity of policy recommendations by C20.
- Discarding the “troika process” and work from previous years means losing institutional knowledge and momentum on critical issues. This is always a danger in transitions, but the less formal setup of C20 makes solid transitions more critical.
Moving Forward
Maintaining integrity and rebuilding trust in the C20 process will require several changes moving forward:
- The C20 principles need an additional provision limiting state intervention in any C20 processes and structures, considering such processes and structures as illegitimate.
- G20 countries keen to support meaningful civil society engagement in the C20 should provide financial and technical support for a permanent C20 secretariat with at least one focal point while maintaining non-interference.
- Civil society needs to proactively protect the C20 space by engaging with the G20 host for the following year as early as possible and gathering data (including citizen-generated data) and case studies to inform policy recommendations.
- The C20 needs a permanent online platform to house C20 documents, stories, learnings, and best practices from civil society. A list of C20 documents can be found here, but the C20 needs to own and lead its own platform.
The collective challenges that we face globally and that G20 governments must address—the cost of living crisis, global insecurity, including the war in Ukraine, the rise of anti-democratic forces, and others—all require collective approaches and inputs from citizens. Ordinary people, after all, are most affected by these issues and are the constituency to whom governments are ultimately accountable. Continuity, consistency, and independence of the C20 will be key to ensuring this.
a global affairs media network
India’s G20 Presidency Proves Need for Better Civil Society Engagement
Central Secretariat in New Delhi, India. Photo by Pixels Street on Unsplash.
April 3, 2023
The G20 has yet to take the role of civil society-particularly that of the C20-as seriously as it deserves. This problem is compounded by how the Indian government has approached its G20 Presidency, a serious mistake if we want governments held accountable, writes Accountability Lab's Sanjeeta Pant.
T
he Civil 20—one of the official engagement groups of the G20 established in 2013—has been an important way for civil society representatives from across the world to advocate for and provide recommendations on critical transnational issues, ranging from global health to financial crime to climate change. It has also played a critical watchdog role, pushing for greater accountability for commitments made by G20 member countries each year.
Transparency, independence, collaboration, continuity, and predictability are some of the principles that underpin the C20's core values. These principles are necessary for the C20 to maintain its ability to influence global policies that impact people’s lives worldwide.
Unfortunately the G20, while acknowledging the role of civil society, has not yet taken the role of the C20 seriously and does not currently meaningfully respond to civil society demands. This is evident from the "narrowed," "obstructed," or "repressive" civic space in most G20 countries. For instance, according to the CIVICUS civic space monitoring tool, only Canada and Germany of the G20 group are ranked as "open." C20-G20 interactions reflect these dynamics. Previously, the G20 limited civil society engagement in meaningful conversations happening within the G20. This year, the process has been almost entirely co-opted by the G20 Indian Presidency. This poses significant risks for civil society and government accountability everywhere and must be corrected moving forward.
Lost in Transition
Each year the G20 Presidency transitions from one member country to another. The C20 follows a similar transition process whereby the host country's civil society, which has been part of the previous C20 structure, chairs the overall process. A “troika” of civil society groups from the previous, present, and next countries hosting the G20 come together to put in place the C20 process for any given year. The C20 structure is essential for maintaining this continuity, including the transfer of the domain of the C20 website and social media to the incoming C20 Chairs to allow for continued communication with civil society and citizens.
The current G20 Presidency has failed to adhere to C20 principles. India set up C20 structures and processes that were led by the host government, not by civil society. This included the appointment of the C20 Chair by the Modi administration. Members of the previous Troika have since tried to engage in the C20 structure to ensure continuity, but with limited success. Their efforts to align C20 working groups with the previous ones have not been successful. This year, there are 14 working groups in the C20—twice the number as last year—and priority topics such as corruption have been excluded from this year’s working groups. Similarly, this year the official www.civil-20.org domain has been suspended as the Indian C20 has set up a new website-https://civil20.net. This has created confusion and frustration among national and international civil society.
The Indian government’s actions set a harmful precedent by willfully misinterpreting the purpose of the C20, illustrating that India’s goal as G20 President is not to support democracy or stability globally, but rather to push the Modi administration’s political goals. This threatens civil society's independence and legitimacy in many ways.
- This reverses decades of advocacy efforts that gave civil society actors a forum where world leaders can hear their voices, especially concerning given the current context of shrinking civic space.
- This makes engagement by local civil society organizations less likely, as they may no longer see value in participating. This could also lead to further mistrust in other government-led consultative processes.
- International civil society organizations may boycott G20 summits if they view the processes as illegitimate. Boycotts would hinder meaningful consultation, undermining the validity of policy recommendations by C20.
- Discarding the “troika process” and work from previous years means losing institutional knowledge and momentum on critical issues. This is always a danger in transitions, but the less formal setup of C20 makes solid transitions more critical.
Moving Forward
Maintaining integrity and rebuilding trust in the C20 process will require several changes moving forward:
- The C20 principles need an additional provision limiting state intervention in any C20 processes and structures, considering such processes and structures as illegitimate.
- G20 countries keen to support meaningful civil society engagement in the C20 should provide financial and technical support for a permanent C20 secretariat with at least one focal point while maintaining non-interference.
- Civil society needs to proactively protect the C20 space by engaging with the G20 host for the following year as early as possible and gathering data (including citizen-generated data) and case studies to inform policy recommendations.
- The C20 needs a permanent online platform to house C20 documents, stories, learnings, and best practices from civil society. A list of C20 documents can be found here, but the C20 needs to own and lead its own platform.
The collective challenges that we face globally and that G20 governments must address—the cost of living crisis, global insecurity, including the war in Ukraine, the rise of anti-democratic forces, and others—all require collective approaches and inputs from citizens. Ordinary people, after all, are most affected by these issues and are the constituency to whom governments are ultimately accountable. Continuity, consistency, and independence of the C20 will be key to ensuring this.
