“I do not think we have a real civil society independent from the state ... If you are not somehow connected to the regime, they will not establish you.” These are the words of Abdullah al-Faqih, Professor of Political Science at Sana’a University, quoted in yesterday's Financial Times. 

Developing civil society organisations is increasingly seen as a way to undermine the Middle East's autocratic regimes – which is why most of the regimes try either to stifle independent initiatives or harness them for their own purposes.

The FT article, by Abigail Fielding-Smith, looks at the state's grip on civil society in Yemen, whether through licensing systems, the control of access to funding, or setting up rival organisations with similar names – a practice known as istinsakh, or cloning.

“Most Yemenis are able to diagnose the problems faced by their country, but the real sticking point is in implementing the necessary solutions, and in navigating the opaque power networks necessary to get things moving,” Sarah Phillips, an academic at Sydney University’s Centre for International Security Studies, is quoted as saying.

Of course, the problems faced by civil society are not peculiar to Yemen; they are found to varying degrees in almost all the Arab countries (as I explain in my book, What's Really Wrong with the Middle East). But the issue has assumed international importance in Yemen because of the recent conference aimed at saving it from turning into a failed state: donor countries want to know where their money is going.

Billions of dollars in aid originally promised to Yemen back in 2006 have still not been disbursed, largely because of Yemeni bureaucracy and donors' fears about corruption. 

As elsewhere in the region, there are hopes that increased use of IT can help to overcome corruption and inefficiency by tracking administrative procedures and the flow of money. In Yemen, the article says, the Social Fund for Development, a quasi-independent body, is doing just that – though on a fairly small scale. 

The fund has its own financial management system using IT to provide an accurate record of transactions. "It is audited by KPMG, the professional services group, and hires independent consultants to evaluate performance," the article adds.

Unsurprisingly, this causes some resentment among those who prefer the old, more opaque, way of doing things and the fund has been accused of "attempting to create a parallel bureaucracy". To which its managing director replies: "You have to serve the poor, no matter how. Do you want to wait until you have reformed the civil service?”