There was a time when the phrase “civil society” evoked images of selfless men and women bridging the gap for the voiceless, advocating for justice, and holding those in power accountable. They were the nation’s conscience; the watchful eyes and clear voices that prevented governments and corporations from losing their moral compass. They were not perfect, but they bore the weight of public trust.

Today, that trust is fraying. Too many civil society organisations (CSOs) have lost sight of their founding ethos. Instead of being impartial arbiters of public good, some have drifted into the role of mouthpieces for narrow interests, political, commercial, or personal. The very credibility that once lent them influence is slowly bleeding away.

The public is noticing, and once suspicion sets in, it is hard to reverse.

Advocacy as Commerce

Public interest litigation, one of the most powerful tools available to CSOs, is meant to be a weapon of principle, a means for ordinary citizens to tilt the scales against entrenched injustice. Increasingly, it is being used for more transactional purposes: to align with donor funding cycles, to provide demonstrable “impact” for reports, or to maintain a steady revenue stream.

This shift is subtle but corrosive. When litigation is chosen because it is marketable rather than because it is just, the cause is no longer about the people but about the optics. Courtrooms risk becoming stages for brand positioning rather than arenas for defending the public interest. And once that perception takes hold, every CSO, even the most principled, gets caught in the same cloud of mistrust.

The Danger of Perpetual Enmity

Part of the problem is the outdated “us versus them” mindset that pits civil society against the state and private sector as if these were inherently opposing forces. That posture might have made sense in eras where state excesses or corporate abuses were unchecked. However, today’s challenges are more complex, including climate change, digital rights, and economic inequality, and they cannot be solved by one sector acting alone.

The truth is uncomfortable for some activists: progress often requires working with the very institutions they once defined themselves against. Refusing to engage may preserve a sense of moral purity, but it rarely changes anything on the ground. Opposition without engagement is theatre, and engagement without principle is capitulation. The real skill lies in striking a balance between both.

Need for a Shift? Towards Shared Prosperity

African philosophy offers a more constructive model in the spirit of Ubuntu: “I am because we are.” The principle is simple: human dignity and prosperity are collective endeavours. Civil society should be less about defeating adversaries and more about securing wins for the collective good.

That means shifting from confrontation as the first instinct to collaboration as a strategic choice. It means using litigation as a bridge to consensus, not just as a weapon. It means recognising that in a shared society, victories for one set of stakeholders that come at the cost of others are not victories at all.

There is no denying that vigilance is necessary. Governments overreach. Corporations cut corners. Citizens need protection, but when the posture becomes one of permanent suspicion and perpetual hostility, the result is a destructive cycle. Potential allies are alienated. Resources are drained. Energy is wasted on point-scoring rather than problem-solving.

Most damaging of all, the public begins to see activism as a game of personal agendas rather than a fight for the common good. They notice when cases appear timed for political drama. They see when campaigns prioritise donors over community needs. The more people feel they are being taken advantage of, the faster trust disintegrates.

Shared prosperity is not a feel-good slogan but the hard recognition that no sector thrives in a failing society. The activist, the bureaucrat, the entrepreneur, and the citizen all depend on justice, stability, and opportunity to flourish. That shared interest is the starting point for a different kind of civil society practice: one that convenes as often as it confronts, that builds coalitions as well as cases, that treats problem-solving as a collective investment.

This will require uncomfortable adjustments. CSOs will need to measure success not just by the number of petitions filed, letters written or protests staged, but by the depth of reforms secured. Governments will need to resist the reflex of treating CSOs as adversaries. Businesses will need to see activism as a source of accountability that strengthens markets rather than a hindrance to growth. Donors will need to stop rewarding short-term noise and start funding long-term solutions.

Returning to First Principles

For civil society to reclaim its place as a trusted moral force, it ought to return to the values that made it relevant in the first place, including truth, impartiality, solidarity, and service. This is not about a branding refresh; it is about an ethical reset. Internal accountability must match external advocacy. Self-scrutiny must be as rigorous as the scrutiny applied to others.

Citizens can forgive mistakes when they are followed by transparency and course correction. What they cannot forgive is hypocrisy, preaching openness while hiding inconvenient truths, or demanding integrity while tolerating corruption within their ranks. Without that ethical consistency, the credibility gap will continue to widen until the sector’s voice becomes just another background noise in the national conversation.

Choosing the Higher Ground

We live in a moment where national challenges demand collective solutions. Civil society can be the great integrator; the convener that unites diverse players around shared goals. But it cannot do so if it is locked into a posture of permanent war.

The choice before CSOs is clear. They can continue to define themselves by who they oppose and remain trapped in cycles of mistrust. Or they can embrace the more complex, slower, and more meaningful work of building together, across sectors and divides, anchored in principle but open to partnership.

That is the realism our times demand. That is the Ubuntu our continent teaches. And that is the legacy worth fighting for, not the fleeting satisfaction of a courtroom win or a donor headline, but the enduring reward of a society that works for everyone.