CIVIL SOCIETY

Introduction
"Civil society" has become a popular term in global discussions, endorsed by presidents and
political scientists as the key to political, economic and societal success. However, its
conceptual worth has been overly inflated when compared to its demonstrated returns, similar
to the contemporary popularity of Internet stocks. To prevent future disillusionment,
prospective supporters must carefully examine its true potential, akin to scrutinizing a
financial prospectus.
-by Thomas Carothers, Vice-President for global policy at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace and author of "Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve."
In this context, it is important to understand that public spheres are places that constitute
meeting grounds, outside the private sphere. Spaces like coffee shops and salons, which are
outside the private sphere, were used as places of interaction and discussion of citizens. In the
countries of the global South, tribal gatherings were also considered to be a part of “public
sphere”. Civil society is part of the same public sphere, and it does not operate in abstraction.
In today’s time, social media constitutes a part of the public sphere. Public sphere in this
context, acts as a network for communicating information and the resulting opinions are
synthesized, in an attempt to consider all opinions equally. (Habermas).
The first form of disseminating information through print media, which has gradually
evolved into information-sharing through social media. However, governments may choose
not to hear from these opinionated statements. This is precisely where the difference
between the state and the public sphere arises. The sole purpose of the market is economic
in nature. The government’s public sphere is very much political. The democratic public
sphere’s central idea lies in eliminating poverty and structuring the force and politics,
besides being participatory in nature.
Civil society can act and gain voices from the grassroots, especially to influence the public
sphere. This can further lead to civil society movement ( social movements, environmental
movements, LGBTQ movements). Therefore, they are not really motivated by power or
politics. The state is not directly a public sphere, although it entails the propensity to
become one. Media channels greatly influence the state , which is in turn, influenced by the
civil society. The private actors are the citizens. But the question is why public sphere acts as
a threat to civil society? It is because the government has to listen to the public sphere and
the presence of too many opinions which may become a threat.

The Concept of Civil Society Is a Recent Invention

The term "civil society" has a long history, with roots traced back to Cicero and other
Romans to the ancient Greek philosophers of the classical times, wherein it was initially
equated with the state. However, the modern idea of “civil society” evolved during the
Scottish and Continental Enlightenment of the late 18th century, thanks to political theorists
like Thomas Paine and Georg Hegel. They redefined civil society as a domain parallel to but
separate from the state, a realm where citizens could associate freely based on their interests
and wishes.
This reimagining of civil society was influenced by changing economic realities, including
the rise of private property, market competition and the bourgeoisie. It also coincided with the
growing demand for liberty, as exemplified by the American and French revolutions. In the
mid-19th century, however, the term fell into disuse as the social and political consequences
of the Industrial Revolution took centre stage in political philosophy.
However, discussions around civil society made a bounce-back after World War II, especially
through the writings of Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci. He revived the term to portray civil
society as a special nucleus for independent political activity and a crucial sphere of struggle
against tyranny. Although Gramsci was concerned about dictatorships of the right, the ideas
in his books gained traction in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in Eastern Europe and Latin
America, where activists were fighting against dictatorships of all political stripes. To add to
this, even the Czech, Hungarian and Polish activists embraced the banner of civil society as a
heroic cause during the fall of the Berlin Wall.
In the 1990s, civil society experienced a resurgence, becoming a "mantra" for political
scientists and scholars worldwide. The global trend towards democracy created opportunities
for civil society to flourish in the previously dictatorial countries. In the United States and
Western Europe, public fatigue with tired party systems led to revived interest in civil society
as a means of social renewal. Developing countries, undergoing privatization and market
reforms, also saw civil society filling the void left by retreating governments. The
information revolution further empowered citizens, providing new tools for forging
connections. Consequently, civil society became a defining element of the post-Cold War era.

NGOs Are the Heart of Civil Society

In contemporary discourse, the prevailing enthusiasm for civil society is closely tied to the
proliferation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), particularly those advocating for
noble causes such as environmental protection, human rights, gender equality, fair elections,
and anti-corruption initiatives. This current surge in NGOs is particularly noticeable in
nations undergoing transitions towards democracy. However, it is essential to avoid
conflating civil society exclusively with NGOs.
Civil society, when comprehensively considered, extends beyond the realm of NGOs. Being a
broader concept, it encompasses a wider spectrum of organizations and associations existing
independently of the state, the political parties and the market sectors. This encompasses what
political scientists traditionally categorize as interest groups, comprising not only advocacy-
oriented NGOs but also labour unions, professional bodies (e.g., medical and legal
associations), chambers of commerce, ethnic associations, and various other groups.
Additionally, it incorporates diverse associations formed for non-political or non-social
agendas, such as religious institutions, student organizations, cultural clubs (ranging from
choral societies to bird-watching enthusiasts), sports clubs and informal community groups.
NGOs undoubtedly hold significant and expanding roles in both developed and developing
nations. They influence policy formulation by exerting pressure on governments and offering
technical expertise to policymakers. They stimulate citizen participation and civic education,
as well as provide leadership training for youth who aspire to engage in civil life without
affiliating with political parties. Nevertheless, in numerous countries, NGOs are outweighed
by more traditional elements of civil society. Religious institutions, labour unions and other
entities often possess deep-rooted connections with the populace and secure funding from
domestic sources, characteristics that advocacy-focused groups, particularly the numerous
nascent NGOs in democratizing countries, typically lack.
In these burgeoning NGO sectors of certain countries, elite-led organizations often
predominate, maintaining tenuous connections with the citizens they purport to represent and
relying heavily on international funding to sustain their operations, as domestic financial
support remains insufficient.

Civil Society Is Warm and Fuzzy

In discussing the multifaceted nature of civil society, David Rieff highlights the
misconception that it solely consists of noble causes and well-intentioned actors, especially in
relation to Bosnia. They emphasize that civil society encompasses a wide spectrum, including
associations with questionable affiliations such as the Russian mafia and Montana militia
groups, alongside more conventional organizations like parent-teacher associations. To truly
understand civil society, it is essential to acknowledge its diversity, which becomes apparent
when navigating the vast array of web pages on the internet. Civil society everywhere is thus,
a bewildering array of the good, the bad and the outright bizarre.
Rieff's perspective underscores that civil society should not be restricted to high-minded
pursuits; it must encompass the full spectrum of human motivations and interests.
Recognizing that people in any society associate and work together to advance nefarious as
well as worthy ends is critical to demystifying the concept of civil society. This perspective
becomes evident when comparing figures like Vaclav Havel (an exemplar of civil society)
with Radovan Karadzic (reflecting the aspirations of ordinary serfs), revealing that both could
be seen as representatives of civil society, despite their disparate intentions. For Rieff, any
limitation of civil society to those actors who pursue high-minded aims makes the concept a
theological notion, not a political or sociological one.
Furthermore, the authors challenge the notion that civil society inherently serves the public
good. They argue that the public interest is a contested terrain, with conflicting priorities such
as clean air versus low energy costs or free trade versus job security or free speech versus
libel protection. Single-issue NGOS like the National Rifle Association and some
environmental groups seem to be intensely focussed on their own agendas. This contention
within civil society extends beyond mere dichotomies of good and bad, as it often involves
competing visions of the public good within the civil society itself.
Moreover, the authors emphasize the private economic dimension of civil society, where non-
profit organizations, including labour unions and tenants' associations, vigorously pursue
their members' economic interests. While some civil society groups align with “higher” non-
material principles and values, much of civil society is engrossed in pursuing private,
sometimes parochial and less noble objectives. In essence, civil society is a complex and
multifaceted arena where diverse interests and motivations coexist, challenging simplistic
notions of its nature and purpose.

A Strong Civil Society Ensures Democracy

In contemplating the role of civil society in advancing democracy, it is enticing to
acknowledge the benefits it often brings. Diverse and active civil societies have been known
to discipline the state, champion citizens' interests, and promote greater civic and political
participation. Notably, Harvard's political scientist, Robert Putnam, in his influential 1995
work "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital," shed light on the apparent
decline of community-oriented associations in the U.S., linking the formation of a weak civil
society to reduced civic engagement and social trust.
However, a more nuanced perspective emerges to highlight that a strong civil society can
actually reflect dangerous political weaknesses. In 1997, Princeton's Sheri Berman, in what
some refer to as "Bowling With Hitler," analysed civil society's role in the Weimar Germany
of 1920s-1930s, a period marked by abundant associational life. People belonging to all sorts
of professional and cultural organizations were therefore, thought to be the mainstays of pro-
democratic civil society. Surprisingly, Burman found out that this robust civil society failed to
fortify democracy and liberal values but instead undermined it. Weak political institutions
could not meet the demands of numerous citizens’ organizations, prompting a shift towards
nationalist and populist groups, ultimately culminating in support for the Nazi Party. Thus,
the density of this civil society facilitated the Nazis' rise as an instrumental political
machinery.
Even in well-established democracies with robust political institutions, the simplistic notion
that more of a civil society is better faces scrutiny. Since the 1960s, scholars have cautioned
against the proliferation of interest groups in mature democracies, warning of its potential to
stifle representative institutions and skew policy outcomes in favour of the affluent or well-
organized/connected. In the 1990s, concerns about "demosclerosis" have grown as advocacy
and lobbying groups continue to multiply.

Democracy Ensures a Strong Civil Society

In various established democracies like Japan, France, and Spain, the strength of civil society
organizations, particularly those focusing on issues like the environment, consumer
protection, human rights, and women's rights, remains relatively weak. While these nations
have enjoyed stable democracies for decades, they differ from the American and European
models, where robust civic activism is commonplace.
In Japan, despite its democratic stability, independent civic groups tackling the
aforementioned issues are not as prevalent as in the United States and Europe. France, often
considered a pillar of Western liberal democracy, has a dominant state that overshadows civil
society. Spain, while celebrated for its recent democratic transitions, lacks a strong
associational life.
Critics from the United States often argue that countries like Japan, France, and Spain, with
limited civic participation, fall short of being genuine democracies. They believe that a higher
level of citizen engagement, akin to the American model, is necessary for true democracy.
However, many in these countries defend their systems, asserting that they align better with
their historical traditions regarding the individual's relationship with the state. They argue that
their governance allows for more rational and unimpeded allocation of public resources.
It is crucial to recognize that branding a democracy as legitimate only when it adheres to an
American-style civil society is both erroneous and perilous. A strong belief in civil society
should not lead to intolerance toward diverse forms of democratic governance.

Possibility of a Virtual Civil Society

Critics of political scientist Robert Putnam challenge his views on the decline of associational
life in America in light of the Internet's rise. They argue that for the Internet to create a
meaningful virtual civil society, it must generate "social capital," akin to traditional
associations, fostering networks, norms, and trust among citizens. It's not merely about
organizing groups, but ensuring online associations emulate real-world interactions, like
those in a church or conference centre. Cyberspace should be more than a tool; it should be a
place.
According to William Barndt from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the
Internet undeniably serves as a potent communication tool. For instance, the International
Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) leverages it to connect with like-minded non-
governmental groups, facilitating information exchange. Even traditional elements of civil
society, such as the Roman Catholic Church, now broadcast masses online.
Moreover, cyberspace can foster associations around issues. Catholic priests not only hold
online masses but engage devout followers in chat rooms. By 1999, the ICBL evolved from a
relay service to a coalition of over 1,300 organizations, influencing 89 nations to ratify the
Land Mine Treaty and earning a Nobel Peace Prize. When cyber-based associations unite
individuals around shared interests or goals, the Internet transforms from a mere telephone
upgrade into a place where social capital thrives.
Nevertheless, the crucial link between virtual civil society and social capital theory hinges on
individuals' commitment to their "online communities." These bonds' strength remains
untested, leaving the implications of virtual civil society, much like cyberspace itself,
somewhat uncertain.

Civil Society Is Crucial for Economic Success

Enthusiasts often champion civil society as a linchpin for both political virtue and economic
prosperity, asserting that an active civil society can provide valuable input on economic
policies, foster private enterprise, and prevent government interference in the economy.
However, the connection between economic growth and civil society is more complex than it
seems. A comparison of two cases illustrates this complexity.
In South Korea, economic success initially thrived despite a repressed civil society,
particularly a constrained labour sector. Only in the 1980s, when the military regime relaxed
its grip, did civil society gain room to flourish, eventually contributing to democratization.
However, this late resurgence of civil society cannot be solely credited for South Korea's
rapid economic growth.
In contrast, Bangladesh boasts a rich civil society with numerous NGOs and advocacy groups
operating nationwide. Surprisingly, this abundance of civil society organizations has not
translated into economic prosperity for its people, as Bangladesh remains one of the world's
poorest nations.
While a well-developed civil society can complement a successful market economy by
encouraging sound policies and facilitating the flow of knowledge, causality is not
straightforward. Economic success doesn't necessarily hinge on civil society, and a strong
civil society can coexist with a weak economy. Moreover, an excessive or inappropriate civil
society can be detrimental, as seen in Latin America, where some argue that labour unions, a
core part of civil society, hindered economic growth and stability.
Thus, while civil society can be a partner to a thriving economy, its role is nuanced, and
simplistic assumptions about its direct impact on economic success should be avoided.

Real Civil Society Doesn't Take Money from the Government

In the realm of civil society advocacy, the question of government funding sparks intriguing
distinctions. When operating against authoritarian regimes, maintaining absolute autonomy
from governmental influence stands as a vital credential. Yet, in democratic and evolving
nations, a different paradigm emerges. Here, numerous civil society organizations benefit
from government support. Western Europe, for instance, exemplifies this trend, with even
government-critical groups like human rights and environmental organizations enjoying state
backing. Surprisingly, the United States mirrors this pattern more extensively than commonly
recognized. A comprehensive comparative study of nonprofit sectors, under the aegis of
Johns Hopkins University, reveals that governmental funding plays a pivotal role.
Astonishingly, government contributions nearly double the significance of private donations
for American nonprofit entities, despite the presence of substantial foundations and corporate
giving initiatives.

The Rise of Civil Society means the Decline of the State

In most of the discourse presented on civil society, there is a prevailing notion that the ascent
of civil society might usher in a stateless future, where robust non-governmental entities
dictate a virtuous civic order, leaving feeble states in the background. However, this vision,
they argue, is but a mirage. The authors contend that civil society can wield more influence
over state policies when the state possesses the authority to formulate and enforce these
policies coherently.
A compelling illustration of this concept can be found in the realm of U.S. environmental
policy. Here, active civic engagement in environmental issues has driven the establishment of
governmental agencies, the enactment of environmental laws, and the implementation of
enforcement mechanisms. Paradoxically, rather than weakening the state, effective non-
governmental advocacy often bolsters state capacity.
Taking Eastern Europe as an example, the progress of civil society since 1989 has been
notably divergent. In countries with capable and efficient governments, such as Poland and
Hungary, civil society has thrived. Conversely, where states have been mired in inefficiency
and incompetence, such as Romania and, at times, Bulgaria, civil society development has
languished.
The authors emphasize that, outside of autocratic contexts, states can actively contribute to
the growth of a robust civil society. They propose that states can achieve this by establishing
clear and functional regulatory frameworks for the non-governmental sector, offering tax
incentives to support nonprofit organizations, embracing transparency in their procedures,
and fostering partnerships with non-governmental entities. It is crucial, they assert, for civil
society to challenge and even antagonize the state when necessary. However, they stress that
civil society and the state are not adversaries but rather interdependent forces. In an ideal
scenario, they evolve hand in hand, mutually reinforcing each other's roles and contributions.

Civil Society Has Gone Global

The recent success of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, led by a coalition of
NGOs with notable support from Canada, brought attention to the concept of transnational
civil society. This phenomenon, marked by advocacy across borders, gained momentum due
to factors like the post-Cold War era's lowered political barriers, advances in information
technology, reduced transportation costs, and the spread of democracy. Over 5,000
transnational NGOs, operating in multiple countries, underscored its significance.
However, it's crucial to temper enthusiasm with caution. Transnational civil society isn't
entirely novel; examples like the Roman Catholic Church have wielded international
influence for centuries. Additionally, many contemporary transnational actors are Western
groups extending their reach into developing and transitional nations, often promoting their
own agendas and values. While it appears "global," it can reflect the projection of Western
political and economic power, echoing the concerns of civil society activists.
Moreover, like domestic civil society, transnational civil society has its dark facets. Hate
groups form international alliances, amplifying their destructive ideologies across time zones,
while organized crime thrives on transnational networks, showcasing flexible and
sophisticated global operations.
In essence, transnational civil society mirrors domestic civil society, evolving rapidly in the
context of globalization. It possesses the potential to reshape the world, but idealizing its
intentions or overestimating its power would be unwise. Whether operating locally or
globally, a realistic assessment of civil society should remain a guiding principle.

Helping Out Is Hard to Do

The United States endeavours to bolster global civil society, a key facet of its democracy
support initiative. However, this seemingly uncontroversial concept encounters complexities
and contradictions in practice. In Egypt, a fraction of the annual $2 billion U.S. aid budget for
democracy promotion is directed towards civil society, but there's a catch. Only organizations
meeting Egypt's stringent NGO criteria receive support, sidelining prominent elements of the
nation's civil society like professional groups, human-rights organizations, and moderate
Islamist factions. The U.S. refrains from aiding these groups, fearing repercussions from a
friendly but authoritarian government and due to concerns related to regional policies.
Regrettably, U.S. support for Egyptian civil society inadvertently becomes tainted with
partisanship, hypocrisy, and self-interest, undermining the very principles civil society
champions. Consequently, many Egyptians perceive it as another instance of political
meddling disguised as noble intent. While well-intentioned training and grants may hold
limited sway in Egypt's deeply entrenched sociopolitical landscape, the crucial need is for
these civic groups to exercise their freedom of expression, a commitment Egypt made by
ratifying major UN human rights conventions.
According to Mustapha Kamel AI-Sayyid of Cairo University, encouraging President Hosni
Mubarak's administration to uphold civil and political rights aligns with established
international standards. Western powers, including the United States, can facilitate an
environment conducive to civil society growth without jeopardizing regional security
interests or imposing their own political preferences. This approach aims to harmonize
support for civil society with broader democratic ideals while respecting the nuances of local
contexts.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the intricate complexities of international efforts to nurture civil society,
exemplified by the United States' democracy support initiatives, reveal a paradoxical
landscape where the pursuit of democratic ideals often becomes entangled in geopolitical
considerations, selective support, and deviations from the pure principles of civil society.
However, amidst this complexity, the fundamental need for civil society to exercise its
freedom of expression emerges as a beacon of hope. Encouraging adherence to established
international standards of civil and political rights by Western powers offers a path to
cultivate an environment conducive to civil society's growth, emphasizing the delicate
balance between ideals and pragmatism in the pursuit of democracy on a global scale.