by Dorothe de Nve

Civil Society and Governance

Pluralizing the State
Author:
Dorothe de Nve
Proof-Reading:
Ira Martina Drupardy
Designed by:
HotFusion Singapore
First published in May 2012 by
Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung
Ofce for Regional Cooperation in Asia
7500A Beach Road #12-320/321/322 The Plaza
Singapore 199591
Copyright 2011 All rights reserved. No part of this publication
may be reprinted or reproduced without the prior permission
of the publisher. The, ndings, interpretations and conclusions
expressed in this paper do not necessarily reect the views
of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
3
Civil Society and Governance
Pluralising the State
PD Dr. Dorothe de Nve
T
he perception of civil society in Europe has fundamentally changed in society and
social sciences since the beginning of the 1990s. In this article, the development
process as well as the relevance of civil society will be illustrated. First, I want
to demonstrate which roles have been and which roles are now ascribed to civil
society in the European polity in general and in Germany in particular. Moreover, the
notion of civil society will be dened and the functions of the arenas of civil society will
be discussed. With the help of selected examples, concrete forms of interaction of civil
society organisations will be identied. The question will then be addressed of how civil
society organisations seek to inuence policy making processes and to shape their own
role in community building in Europe.
1. Political Perspectives on the Role of Civil Society
The concept of governance describes certain forms of interaction between the state and
society. This mode of politics is considered modern in which the plurality of actors is
acknowledged. Societal problems are not solved by state institutions only; rather, the
state interacts with other actors, for example, with private companies or civil society
organisations. This interaction is necessary because among other reasons the quality
of these problems exceeds the capacity of the state. This holds true for social problems,
for example, in the context of poverty reduction or demographic change, as well as for
environmental problems, climate change and so forth.
Therefore the governance perspective has not only changed the perception of civil
society organisations, but has also contributed to a revaluation of this sphere. Political
science research on civil society has also observed this development, but at the same time
has identied contradictory, inconsistent and problematic tendencies.
While civil society was considered a dangerous and even suspicious actor in Western
Europe until the 1980s, it is now seen as an important and relevant partner of the state
and the economy. This change is for instance noticeable in speeches delivered by many
German politicians.
At a time when the student movement and accordingly the 1968 movement was
very active in Germany, Bruno Brandes (1969), a well-known politician of the Christian
Democratic Union, commented on the character of parliamentary democracy, In
parliamentary democracy there is, by its very nature, no extra parliamentary opposition
intended (FAZ 1969). So from his point of view, there is no need for the existence of a
civil society in a parliamentary system. However, the Social Democratic German Minister
of Foreign Affairs, Willy Brandt (1966 to 1969), held a different view on parliamentary
opposition. His criticism only targeted anti-parliamentarian and anti-democratic
opposition pursuing their objectives by illegal means. He did not doubt the oppositions
right to exist in general (SPD Pressemitteilungen und Informationen Nr. 198/68,
Apr 1968).
In a contribution for Frankfurter Hefte, Gerhard Schrder, a Social Democrat and German
Federal Chancellor from 1998 to 2005, describes the role of the state in relation to civil
society, The state and civil society are in a relationship of mutual tension, but they are
not irreconcilably opposed. Civil society needs a better, a more active and activating
4
state (Schrder 2000). Therefore, from his point of
view, the state bears an important responsibility in
enabling civil society to develop. At the same time
he describes a new quality in the relations between
civil society and the state, bridging the gap
of earlier times. The incumbent Chancellor
Angela Merkel even goes one step further in her
argumentation regarding the role of the state in
dealing with civil society, namely, The state must
assist and must not constrain. In this sense, it must
be the gardener, not the fence. We should put
trust when people are willing to get involved and
take responsibility (Sddeutsche Zeitung 2006).
Whereas Schrder and Merkel placed emphasis on
the relations and the interdependency between
the state and civil society, the Social Democratic
party Chairman Sigmar Gabriel, points out that a
distance or even an alienation of the two spheres
still exists. Ever fewer people in Germany have the
impression to be accounted for in the established
interpretations of the political agents not even
as objects, let alone as subjects. () That is why
the loss of trust is not put down to a single party,
but to the politicians in general. In opposition to
them, many people get involved in cultural and
environmental initiatives, neighbourly help, community foundations, agenda-based
groups or in the development of municipal concepts. This civic engagement serves public
interest, though it is often perceives itself as private. It also distances itself deliberately
from the traditional organisational forms of institutionalised democracy (Gabriel 2000,
p. 26). Gabriels remarks make clear that roles might have changed by now. Whereas in
earlier times, the state sought to distance itself from civil society, which was perceived as
chaotic, and sometimes even as threatening and illegal, today; civil society agents tend
to separate their activities systematically from state-run and other political institutions.
Civil society intends to resist the danger of appropriation and instrumentalisation by
ofcial politics in times of the post-democratic crisis (Crouch 2008).
On another note, in the German Democratic Republic, there existed a different
understanding regarding the role of the social organisations belonging to civil society
until 1989, for example, relating to the Free German Trade Union Federation or the Freier
Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (FDGB); the Free German Youth or the Freie Deutsche
Jugend (FDJ); or the Democratic Womens League of Germany or the Demokratischer
Frauenbund Deutschlands (DFD). These mass organisations were expected to accept a
subordinate role to the leadership of the prevailing Marxist-Leninist party, namely, the
Socialist Unity Party of Germany or the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (SED).
Their members were to be organised for the willful and active assistance in fullling
social and state tasks and should help to form the socialist consciousness of the
workers (Bhme and Schtz 1978, p. 294f.). Therefore, in this logic of the state socialist
system, social organisations also played an important role. However, this role was dened
as supporters in a hierarchical system to which they had to subordinate themselves.
The differing statements of popular German politicians quoted above illustrate the
signicant change in the perception of civil society by (the political) society. Nowadays,
the importance of civil society organisations has increased by shifting the perspective
of analysis from traditional governmental studies to the perspective of governance or
good governance. In fact, civil society organisations now play an important role in the
national and international political arena. The relations between the state and civil
society have changed.
5
The European Commission points out in its white paper on European governance that
civil society plays an important role in the elaboration of community policies. It therefore
wants to bring forward the participation of non-governmental organisations, social
partners and civil society. However, at the same time, the Commission demands from
these organisations constituting civil society to act in compliance with the principles
of good governance themselves, in particular through ensuring accountability and
openness (Europisches Regieren Ein Weibuch 2001). The European Union pursues the
strategy to include not only national administrations and governments, but also business
enterprises, associations and civil society organisations in political decision processes.
This new partnership with civil society is reected, for example, in the new compacts
between the state and civil society which have been agreed on in numerous European
Union member countries since the turn of the millennium. With the help of these written
agreements, better, more structured, and more systematised relations between the state
and civil society are possible as both parties must approve of the document and sign it.
This issue is about fundamental principles of co-operation and the promise of support
for civil society.
However, recent research on civil society also points to the problem of idealisation and
exaggerated expectations. Civil society is idealised as a spontaneous, free, proactive
and autonomous sphere where citizens participate in all elds of political processes and
decision-making. The peaceful revolutions in East and Southeast Europe have contributed
signicantly to the fact that civil society has been (and still is) idealised in politics and
social sciences. The expectations concerning the productivity of civil society organisations
and their positive impacts on the political systems grow constantly. Hitherto, we may
have developed rather unrealistic expectations considering the benets that our political
systems and societies are deriving from civil society. This is particularly true for young
democracies and for post-democratic crises in established democracies, where civil society
is expected to perform compensatory services, to mobilise apathetic citizens, and to raise
their trust in the political system. At the same time, another dilemma becomes obvious.
A strong civil society is the product of successful state building, the consolidation of the
political system, and the support of other stakeholders in the political system. Yet, on the
other hand, actions of civil society are an important precondition for this. Therefore, in
the relationship of civil society and the state, there is a clear dilemma of interdependency.
Civil society functions as democratic grass root organisations with a high level of
democratic culture, equality, inclusiveness, and equal rights and opportunities. In this
context, autonomy and independence play an important role. On the other hand, a rapid
increase in professionalism can be observed. This includes the adoption of organisational
structures and decision-taking processes which show similarities to those of the state
administration, political parties and businesses. This development sometimes seems to
promote the establishment of hierarchical structures, prot orientation and competitive
behaviour. Something like a new civil society market has developed.
2. Characteristics of Civil Society
In political science literature, there are a great number of different explanations
of the notion of civil society, reecting the controversies in civil society research and
the different political and cultural contexts. Therefore there is no generally accepted
denition of this term.
Civil society organisations are differentiated, among other criteria, by their content
orientation (i.e. charitable, service-based, participatory, and empowering organisations
are distinguished from each other). In reports on the civil society sector in a certain region,
often only key contents of the commitment are listed, for example, culture, ecology,
health, social issues, occupational unions, religion and so forth. Furthermore, civil society
organisations are categorised with respect to their scope of inuence, differentiating
organisations acting within a community, those acting within the whole of a city, and
6
others which are active on the national or international level. Moreover, numerous
abbreviations circulate, which partly describe the aforementioned criteria regarding
orientation and spatial scope, but sometimes also refer to the relation between civil
society and other actors.
First of all, the abbreviation NGO for Non-governmental Organisation is widespread and
also used in various word compositions, for example, INGO, BINGO or MANGO. All these
classications and notions are quite suitable for describing developments and civil society
organisations. However, they are not necessarily useful for scientic analyses since these
categories are not dened precisely enough and since they are not separated accurately.
Political science also has difculties with giving clear denitions. Even though the
multiplicity of existing attempts to dene civil society may be confusing at rst sight,
there can be identied shared basic assumptions which are quite consensual (cf. Kaelble
2003 and Simsa 2001):
1. Civil society includes all public associations, movements, informal groups, and
conventions which are open to every actor and in which citizens become involved on
a voluntary basis. Civil society is always connected to the public. For the inuence of
civil society on politics and society, this connection to the public is essential (Kaelble
2003, p. 269).
2. The different denitions also emphasise the importance of a non-prot orientation
in civil society activities.
3. At the same time, the denitions attach great importance to the autonomy of civil
society institutions. That is, it is assumed that civil society enjoys the highest possible
independence from other power centres, for example, from business companies or
from the bureaucratic state apparatus.
4. Civil society is legally organised. Institutionalised human rights, such as the freedom
of assembly and the freedom of opinion and thought, are materialised in these
structures.
5. Civil society follows normative standards such as non-violence, solidarity and tolerance.
The compliance with these (self-imposed) standards is ensured by institutions and
mechanisms of self-control.
Table 1: Abbreviations for Civil Society Organisations
BINGO Business-friendly International NGO/ Big International NGO
CSO Civil Society Organisation
DONGO Donor-organised NGO
ENGO Environmental NGO
GONGO Government-operated NGO
GSO Grassroots Support Organisation
INGO International NGO
MANGO Market Advocacy NGO
NGDO Non-governmental Development Organisation
NGO Non-governmental Organisation
NPO Non-prot Organisation
QUAGO Quasi-governmental Organisation
QUANGO Quasi-non-governmental Organisation
SCO Social Change Organisation
TANGO Technical Assistance NGO
TNGO Transnational NGO
7
6. Civil society is said to have a high capacity for innovation, sometimes even a utopian
potential or subversive function (Borstel 2008, p. 23).
7. Civil society itself is pluralistic, in that it consists of many organisations, movements,
projects, networks and individuals. At the same time, highly different political
positions and preferences are articulated in civil society. This plurality nourishes the
social discourse.
8. Numerous denitions also mention the ideal of a pluralistic regulation of society
which is made possible by the interaction with civil society.
9. Moreover, in most cases it is assumed that civil society has a positive effect on the level
of democracy in a society (Meyer 2009, 139f.). Civil society is therefore also called a
school of democracy.
However, beyond these aforementioned aspects, which are relatively undisputed in
political science discourse, there are also facets in the discussion of this concept which
are seen very differently:
1. Among others, there are controversies about the political contents of civil society.
Here, of course, the underlying question is how to dene the notion of politics itself
(Meyer 2010, p. 37ff.). Are further considerations based on a narrow understanding
of politics as xated on institutions, or is politics understood as Patzelt argues as
that kind of human action aiming at the establishing and enforcing of generally-
binding regulations and decisions [] within and between groups of people (Patzelt
2003, p. 23). From this differentiation, it can then be inferred, whether civil society
should be localised as a part of the polity or rather outside the political sphere in a
space antecedent to politics and to the state.
2. There are highly different conceptions regarding the question which organisational
properties characterise civil society. This question is also closely connected to the legal
status and nancial resources of civil society organisations.
3. Another aspect of the debate on the notion of civil society is associated with this
question, exhibiting considerable differences and seeming especially relevant in the
context of the research on governance. The multifaceted denition attempts reveal
signicant differences concerning the localisation of civil society within the political
system. Depending on where civil society is localised in the political system, different
functions are ascribed to it.
This last aspect, the localisation of civil society and the functions ascribed to it, plays a
central role in the research on governance. Civil society is located within the institutional
setting of political systems in different ways.
3. Arena of Civil Society
One approach, for example, is to understand civil society as citizens movements
standing in opposition to state institutions and commercial enterprises. These movements
are spontaneously organised in the beginning, their identities being primarily
constructed by the confrontation with and the dissociation of other institutions. The
workers movement, the womens movement, the peace movement and the anti-nuclear
movement are examples of such citizens movements which played an important role
in the 20th century. In the course of time, a hard core group of activists manifested
themselves, surrounded by a circle of sympathisers. From these movements nally
emanated numerous new organisations, associations or parties, for example, the German
Green Party (Bndnis 90/Die Grnen). A new international citizens movement arose in
2011, the so-called Occupy Movement, which opposes social inequality and plutocracy
in other words, rule by the wealthy (http://occupywallst.org/). Such citizens movements,
according to the logic of political systems, particularly fulll the functions of agenda-
setting, supervision of other actors and mobilisation of citizens.
8
Graph 1: Citizens Movement

In political science research, another model of localisation is much more common.
Civil society organisations are described as intermediary organisations mediating
between the citizens and the state. Civil society organisations are expected to have
good and strong relations with the citizens and the state at the same time. They fulll
important functions in mediation and community building. The intermediate sphere
between the state and citizens is not only territory to civil society. It is rather a shared
space between different actors. Therefore it seems very interesting to observe the
relations between civil society organisations and other intermediate actors, such as
parties or the mass media.
Graph 2: Intermediate Actors

These two models of localisation separate civil society from the state and ascribe
specic functions to the former in its interaction with the state. It also becomes obvious,
though, that this is a hierarchical relation, with the state playing a dominant role.
This dichotomy in the relation between civil society and the state is disintegrated in
another model of localisation which seems to be important especially with regard
to governance, in other words, the interaction between the state and society and the
interdependence of different actors. Here, the emphasis lies on the ideal of a pluralistic
regulation of society.
Linz and Stepan dene the notion of civil society as follows By civil society we refer
to that arena of the polity where self-organizing groups, movements, and individuals,
relatively autonomous from the state, attempt to articulate values, create associations
and solidarities, and advance their interests. Civil society can include manifold social
movements () and civic associations from all social strata (). (Linz and Stepan 1996,
p. 8). In this understanding, there is a high organisational diversity. Not only formally
registered associations, but also loose groups and individuals are assigned to civil
society if they fulll specic functions.
9
Graph 3: Arena of the Civil Society

The model is based on the assumption that there are ve arenas in a political system.
These arenas are separated from each other, each one following its own logic of
action. The interesting thing about this model is that it overrides the above-mentioned
dichotomy between the state and society. Rather, there are interdependent relations
between the different arenas of the political system. Civil society is just one arena
with equal rights and duties within the whole system. Civil society is dependent on the
functioning of other arenas of the political system: the transfer of resources from the
economic arena, the development of a legal framework by the political arena, and the
implementation of these formal rules by the rule of law and the state apparatus. At the
same, time civil society is expected to fulll important functions in the arenas of the
political system. Civil society is expected to:
Develop interests and preferences;
establish and nurture values and norms;
legitimise other actors and arenas of the political system;
develop new ideas and problem solving strategies; and
control other actors and arenas of the political system.
This model of localising civil society by Linz and Stepan has several advantages:
First, with this model, it is possible to systematically analyse diverse civil society
organisations. This is important, since it is denitely not true to say that all civil society
organisations are identical and fulll the same functions. Certainly there are relevant
differences in the roles played by organisations like the football club FC Bayern, the
Catholic Church, Reporters Without Borders, Attac, and a bee-keeping association. This
model allows the comparing of different organisations in one system. And we can also
analyse the effects of malfunctions and defects, for example the effects on the functional
logic of the democratic system if a civil society organisation is corrupt.
Second, we can draw comparisons with the help of this model, for example, what role
did civil society organisations like trade unions play in the German Democratic Republic
and in the Federal Republic of Germany; in Egypt and in Russia; and in North and South
Korea? Thus, the model allows us to describe the functions of civil society more precisely.
Civil society actors who are involved in co-operation relations fulll different functions
than those who pursue a policy of confrontation or damage limitation. The model makes
it possible to describe these functions more exactly.
Third, the citizen/civil society-state dichotomy, which is widely established in scientic
research, disintegrates in this model. Civil society interacts with all arenas, each one
featuring its own noticeable logic of action. What is interesting about this is that citizens
10
are located between these arenas and adapt themselves to their logics of action. For
example, one person can be an employer and at the same time can be involved in
voluntary work for a civil society organisation. With this model, we can describe if and
how people act differently in different contexts.
And fourth, we can also point out interdependencies. For example, one can show the
connections between economic development, the rule of law and the development of
civil society.
3. Interactions of Civil Society
Regarding the interaction of civil society with other arenas of the political system,
different types can be distinguished. In the following, four basic types of interaction are
differentiated and illustrated with the help of selected examples (cf. Simsa 2001).
1. In co-operation relationships, specic problem areas are identied. In this process,
the intention of the civil society arena and the other arenas do not necessarily have
to be the same, but should at least be partially similar in order to make co-operation
possible. In other words, they should pursue similar or compatible objectives.
Therefore the initial point is a certain problem situation or criticism. Co-operation
comes about because both sides strive for changes.
An interesting example of an established and institutionalised co-operation relationship
in the European Union is the so-called Economic and Social Committee. This committee is
an advisory organ. The committees function is to bridge the European Commission, the
Council of the European Union and the European Parliament on the one hand; and civil
society on the other hand. Concretely, the committee prepares, for example, opinions on
legislative projects and pursues other topics which are considered pertinent. The members
of the committee represent a broad range of economic, social and cultural interests.
They belong to one of three groups: employers, employees and various interests. This
example illustrates co-operation between many actors as 344 members from 27 European
countries belong to the committee. Why are the two partners the civil society and the
European Union willing to be involved in this co-operation relationship? The European
Union expects to be able to harness the expertise of civil society from this co-operation.
A further aim is to increase social inclusion and, in the course of this, legitimacy. In turn,
civil society actors expect greater possibilities to inuence political processes. In the end,
both partners therefore anticipate better output and outcomes respectively.
11
However, there are also co-operation relationships in which only two partners participate.
A well-known but disputed example is the campaign for rainforest conservation in
which the World Wide Fund for Nature and the brewery, Krombacher, were involved.
Krombacher made Gnther Jauch, a popular German TV host, the spokesperson for
the campaign for rainforest conservation in Central Africa. This was a new form of
environmental campaigning in which Krombacher committed itself to donate a certain
amount of money for each sold crate of beer and environmental activists pledged to
conserve one square meter of rain forest for each beer crate. The co-operation partners
were said to have conserved 96.7 million square metres of rain forest within six years.
This information was doubted in a TV-report later on, and the partnership was discussed
controversially in public (see ARD Pakt mit dem Panda). Nevertheless, in June 2011, a
new period of partnership began. This time, it dealt with climate protection. On the
Indonesian island, Borneo, efforts were made to preserve peat swamp forests in order to
avoid extensive green house gas emissions.
There are numerous examples of partnerships between civil society organisations and
other stakeholders, for example, those between political parties and foundations
(registered associations), trade unions and federations, or between business companies
and sports clubs. Sometimes these relations also operate through third parties. Similar
forms of co-operation exist between the police and civil society. In many European
countries, for example, there is often close relations between the police and human
right organisations in the struggle against human trafcking or in the enforcement
of sentences.
Partnerships can also be designed for a short or for a long time. In part, such relationships
only exist for a short time and are related to a special purpose. However, others are
relationship structures that have evolved over a long period of time, which are even
agreed on by contract. In this case, both partners commit themselves to long-term co-
operation. In such co-operation between stakeholders, a transfer of resources takes place
(of tangible goods and immaterial items), bringing about advantages for both sides.
Co-operations are not riskless, especially for civil society organisations. The organisations
autonomy can be constricted, e.g. when donors make their donations subject to certain
conditions or when they want to take inuence on the organisations agenda. The civil
society organisations credibility can possibly be diminished, because critics may see the
organisation as henchman to corporations and state institutions. On the other hand, it
is also possible, that corporations and state institutions are badly affected, for example,
when the agreed attainment of the co-operation does not meet the quality expectations.
2. The second type of interaction relations refers to confrontations between civil society
and other stakeholders. The starting point is the criticism or rather the rejection
of the existent state of things. The aim is to establish a critical public opinion. A
confrontation with values, objections and content takes place. Besides the mere
publication of information and sometimes its classication as scandalous, the forms
in which this confrontation is articulated include different forms of protest such as
campaigns, strikes or boycotts. Civil society organisations seek such a confrontation
in the political and economic arenas, and with the state apparatus, when for instance
fundamental civil and human rights or childrens rights are concerned.
A current example of such a confrontation unfolded after the nuclear catastrophe
in Fukushima. The European Commission raised the tolerable radiation level for
food products from Japan on short notice. This decision was criticised by a consumer
watchdog, the Munich Environmental Institute (Umweltinstitut Mnchen e.V.), and
also by Greenpeace (see Foodwatch Strahlen Grenzwerte). The criticism targeted the
European Commission, but also the German Consumer Protection Minister, Ilse Aigner
(CSU), who was accused of not informing the public sufciently. In this example, we
see that both co-operation here between different civil society organisations and
12
confrontation, are relevant. The confrontation is aimed at actors on the national and
supranational level. In this dynamic, media coverage plays a decisive role.
The example illustrates that confrontational relations do not necessarily result in mass
protests. Occasionally, though, civil society organisations appeal for demonstrations and
mass protests. For example, trade unions called for demonstrations against European
Union services directives. Often, however, confrontation is simply about information
and the force of the better argument. The objective of the confrontation is often to
push for change of behaviour from another stakeholder. Such confrontational relations
also exist among civil society organisations themselves. This was the case, for example,
when Transparency International (TI) passed criticism on the nancial conduct of other
civil society organisations. TI has again and again critisised the use of donations and
problems with corruption in the context of development work. It has warned that
civil society is threatened by a loss of trust comparable to the one in politics and the
economy, if there is no rigorous action against corrupt organisations (see Transparent
civil society). The state, too, sometimes interacts with civil society in a confrontational
way. For example, state institutions act in a confrontational way regarding religious
organisations. The Federal Ofce for the Protection of the Constitution in Germany, for
instance, monitors and controls the Scientology Church. The Ofce justies this with
the Church of Scientologys efforts against the free democratic order. This is why it
is deemed necessary to have the organisation observed by the Federal Ofce for the
Protection of the Constitution (see Federal Ofce for the Protection of the Constitution;
see also de Nve 2011, 177).
3. The third form of interaction is competition. In relations of competition, a
divergence between civil society and other arenas as well as a rivalry with respect
to values, objectives, contents and strategies exists. The interaction or coexistence of
stakeholders is governed by competing and complementary offers, forms of action,
and operating modes. Self-perception, situation analysis, and the development of
strategies, objectives and contents take place in front of the mirror, the reection,
and observation of the other. In this context, for example, competitive relations in
the area of education are of interest, that is to say between state-run educational
and childcare institutions on the one hand and competing institutions which are
privately organised on the other hand. Ideally, this competition brings about the
chance that best practices win recognition and that good ideas take over. For
example, the modern and ecologically friendly approaches of business companies
and public authorities in many countries in the European Union has been stimulated
signicantly through the initiative civil society. For instance, encouraged by
environmental organisations, waste separation, which was the domain by civil
society before, was nally enacted nationwide in Germany. Such incentives for
social, political, as well as technical changes and reforms in the past have often
originated from the arena of civil society.
4. The last type of interaction is damage limitation. In this type, there are high
divergences between civil society and other stakeholders in that their logics of action
and tendencies of interpretation differ. Decits in the functioning of the other is
identied by civil society and external assistance is offered.
The central focus of strategies of damage limitation is to mitigate negative effects
(Simsa 2001, p. 364). Unlike confrontational interaction, damage limitation does not
only aim at announcing subjectively sensed grievances, but also at an intervention in
the others sphere of inuence with the aim of eliminating the problem. The character
of these offerings varies: The organisation, Weier Ring, for example, supports victims
of crime and assists them in interacting with public authorities. So, in this case, a decit
concerning the state apparatuss approach towards dealing with victims is assumed by
the organisation. In this context, civil society organisations adopt a policy of damage
limitation by supporting the affected persons in demanding their rights. In other cases,
13
though, damage limitation manifests itself in different forms of vigilantism. This is the
case for example, when the animal rights group, Vier Pfoten, liberated animals from a
fattening farm which does not allow them species-appropriate living conditions.
Other interesting examples are projects from regional funds that exist in many
European countries such as Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Austria and Hungary. These
projects offer a type of parallel currency, which is used by civil society organisations,
providers and consumers. The development and stabilisation of the local economy are
the aims of these regional money systems. By interacting only within a small territory
in which the alternative currency is used, the purchasing power stays in the region. The
system is expected to contest negative impacts of globalisation. This type of interaction
leads to a hybridisation of the civil society and the economic arenas.
4. Conclusion
The localisation of civil society and the functions ascribed to it, play a central role in the
research on governance. Civil society is located within the institutional setting of political
systems either in opposition to the state and/or business companies or as intermediate
actors between the citizens and the state. From a perspective of governance especially
the model of civil society as an equitable arena is of interest. On the basis of this
model the various interactions of civil society with other players can systematically
be examined. Especially important are co-operations between state institutions,
business companies and civil society organisations, which after all help to overcome a
conictual confrontation.
Finally we have to ask the question: what hinges on the successful interaction between
the state and civil society? Civil society organisations use manifold instruments in order
to inuence political processes and decisions. The professionalisation of civil society
together with the recognition of civil society as a relevant actor has broadened its
inuence. Today, civil society acts as an agenda-setter and generator of ideas, participates
in decision-making and fullls a function of control at the same time. The repertoire
of political forms of participation has been widened in the course of the involvement
of citizens in civil society organisations. These organisations, however, can only prosper
in the garden of the political system if they keep their autonomy. That is to say, the
subtle border between mutual interdependency and unidirectional dependency has to
be preserved.
Governmental institutions have manifold instruments to regulate, protect and support
civil society. For instance, it is only them who dene the regulatory framework within
which civil society actions are constituted. Following the path from this strict hierarchical
relation to a productive partnership is not necessarily simple but it is worth it.
14
References:
Bhme, Waltraud/Schtz, Gertrud 1978. Kleines politisches Wrterbuch (3rd Edition). Berlin.
Borstel, D. 2008. Engagement als Strategie - Was will der nette Nazi von nebean?
in Forschungsjournal Neue Soziale Bewegungen Nr. 4, 23-28.
Croissant, Aurel/Lauth, Hans-Joachim/Merkel, Wolfgang 2000.
Zivilgesellschaft und Transformation. Ein internationaler Vergleich. Opladen.
Crouch, C. 2008. Postdemokratie. Frankfurt am Main.
de Nve, D. 2011. Grenzen der Religionsfreiheit in Loretan, A. Religionsfreiheit im Kontext
der Grundrechte. Religionsrechtliche Studien 2, Zrich, 163-188.
Gabriel, S. 2000. bergnge ffnen: Synergien zwischen Politik, Wirtschaft und
Zivilgesellschaft in Anhelm, F. E. 36/00 Beteiligt! Aber wie? Unser demokratisches
Jahrhundert. Loccumer Protokoll Nr.36/00, Rehburg-Loccum, 23-32.
Kaeble, H. 2004. Gibt es eine europische Zivilgesellschaft? in Gosewinkel, D. et al.
Zivilgesellschaft - national und transnational. Berlin: Ed. Sigma (WZB-Jahrbuch, 2003),
267284.
Kriesi, H. 2008. Social Movements in Caramani, D. Comparative Politics. Oxford. S. 392-418.
Linz, Juan A./Stepan, Alfred 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation:
Southern Europe, Latin America, and Post-communist Europe. Baltimore.
Meyer, T. 2010. Was ist Politik? Wiesbaden.
Meyer, T. 2009. Was ist Demokratie? Wiesbaden.
Patzelt, W. J. 2003. Einfhrung in die Politikwissenschaft. Passau.
Schrder, G. 2000: Die zivile Brgergesellschaft.Anregungen zu einer Neubestimmung der
Aufgaben von Staat und Gesellschaft in Frankfurter Hefte 4/2000
Simsa, R. 2001. Gesellschaftliche Funktionen und Einuformen von Nonprot Organisationen.
Eine systemtheoretische Analyse. Frankfurt/Main, Berlin, Bern, Brssel, New York, Wien.
Press and Internet:
Bundesamt fr Verfassungsschutz: Sientology Organisation. Available at
http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/de/arbeitsfelder/af_scientology/ (accessed 07. May 2012).
Europisches Regieren - Ein Weibuch 2001. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/
cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod! DocNumber&lg=de&type_doc=COMnal&an_
doc=2001&nu_doc=428 [accessed: 20. December 2011].
Occupy Wallstreet. Available at http://occupywallst.org/ [accessed 20 December 2011].
Krombacher. Available at http://www.wwf.de/uploads/pics/260_krombacher_Keyvisuall__c_-
Krombacher_01.jpg [accessed: 20 December 2011].
ARD Pakt mit dem Panda. Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX31mT8j-Gk
[accessed: 20 December 2011)
Foodwatch Strahlen Grenzwerte. Available at http://www.foodwatch.de/presse pressearchiv/
2011/report_kalkulierter_strahlentod/index_ger.html [accessed: 20 December 2011].
SPD Pressemitteilungen und Informationen Nr. 198/68, April 26th, 1968.
FAZ, January 10th, 1969.
Tagesspiegel, January 22nd, 2009. Available at http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/stopp-
schild-vor-scientology/1425644.html [accessed: 20 December 2011].
Transparente Zivilgesellschaft. Available at http://www.transparency.de/2010-06-23-Initiative-
Transpar.1650.0.html?&contUid=3393 (accessed 07. May 2012).
Sddeutsche Zeitung, May 20th, 2006.
Neue Zrcher Zeitung, June 29th, 2011. Available at http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/
wirtschaft/aktuell/niemand_beim_wwf_will_ein_feigenblatt_sein_1.11087668.html [accessed
20 December 2011].
Photos
Gerhard Schrder, http://www. spd.de
Angela Merkel, www.cdu.de
Krombacher Logo Ranger, printed with kind permission by
Krombacher and World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
15
Author:
PD Dr. Dorothe de Nve is the chair for State and Governance of the Institute for
Political Science at Fern Universitt in Hagen. Her research focuses on governance,
political participation, civil society, politics and religion, as well as corruption research in
a comparative perspective, especially between East and West Europe and Japan.
16
ABOUT FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG
Established in 1925, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) is the
oldest German political foundation. It is a private and non-prot
institution, committed to the ideal of Social Democracy and named
after the rst democratically elected German President, Friedrich
Ebert. To this day, the Foundation continues his legacy of shaping
politics in the spirit of freedom, justice and solidarity.
Through its projects in over 100 countries, FES supports building
and strengthening civil society and public institutions. Central
to its work are the promotion of democracy and social justice,
economic and social development, the support of trade unions
and the advocacy of human rights and gender equality.
The socio-political work of FES in South, Southeast and East Asia
began more than 40 years ago. Since the beginning, FES has
focused on promoting democracy and peace while strengthening
social progress. FES has 15 representative ofces in the Asia and
Pacic region. Its headquarters are located in the German cities of
Berlin and Bonn.