Civil society |
|
|
A PDF version of this section is available for download from here.
There are several definitions for the term "civil society" which differ significantly, but there is little agreement about which one is the best.
AREDA uses following definition:
|
The Civil Society is the totality of groups (NGOs) and individuals in a country, who show a regular concern for the social and political context in that country, without fulfilling the function of political parties, who are autonomous from the government, and to whose goals also belongs to monitor the activity of the government or certain specific consequences of it, as well as to resist - if possible peacefully - any unlawful, dangerous or abusive government activity. |
Of course such a definition needs some explanations:
groups and individuals: often in the past committed individuals like Andrei Sakharov or Paul Goma have given civil society in their countries a voice in times when formation of independent groups was forbidden.
in a country: civil society in Eastern Europe has been and is an essentially local phenomenon.
regular concern: one-time participation in a protest march doesn't meet this definition of civil society, which needs a certain continuity in time.
for the social and political context: we deal only with people who are concerned explicitly with social and political institutions or events. A folklore band wouldn't fulfil this definition, but an association of soldiers' mothers would: they deal with the human rights of their sons which they think are not respected by certain state institutions.
without fulfilling the function of political parties: i.e. civil society groups don't participate in elections, have no specific representatives in parliament and don't seek any such position. Civil society groups are not a parallel parliament or government, they are a complementary space for citizen to express themselves, help each other defend their rights and stay informed about government activity.
autonomous from the government: this definition doesn't include groups founded or significantly supported by the government. The idea of the government building up a civil society is defended by some authors1. Structures built up by governments generally have a questionable capacity to activate independently of - i.e. at times critical towards - the governments' policy.
to whose goals also belongs to monitor the activity of the government or certain specific consequences of it, as well as to resist - if possible peacefully - any unlawful, dangerous or abusive government activity. The monitoring of government and parliament activity is a fundamental democratic right. The reach of civil society activity in transition countries goes in our opinion further. Its groups may also openly take position when decisions or laws seem to them „wrong“. One central role of civil society is to prevent the insulation of the political society against the rest of the people. The capacity of civil society to play this „safety net“-role is crucial in young or formal democracies. The readiness to protest in cases of need doesn't exclude groups from our definition, on the contrary.
if possible peacefully: as long as peaceful protest is possible, we exclude violent protesters from our definition. In cases when every form of peaceful protest is prohibited, we have a clearly abusive type of government. Our definition considers that in such situations also resistance movements can be viewed as an extreme expression of civil society.
There are at least 2 important questions which can be asked:
how legitimate is the civil society, especially when compared to an elected government ? When they disagree, which voice is more representative ?
is external support of civil society something good or bad ? Read AREDAs answer.
1 E.g. OSMANI S.R.: Participatory Governance, People's Empowerment and Poverty Reduction. SEPED Conference Paper Series, UNDP/SEPED. Internet http://www.undp.org/seped/publications/conf_pub.htm, 31.07.2002. Osmani states that „creating a civil society where none exists and strengthening it where it does” increasingly became a goal for UNDP and some governments. He also notes the counter-argument of M.L. Gray: „what is really a civil society [...] if the state wants to be their handmaiden ?”. Citing studies about Vietnam and Kyrgystan, Osmani explains that local NGOs „are in most cases the instrument of the state”. The controversy wether government founded and government supported groups can be considered part of a civil society, is still open.
P08E