home.....approach.....civil society.....definitions of civil society
Defining civil society |
|
|
home.....approach.....civil society.....definitions of civil society |
A PDF version of this section is available for download from here.
There are many definitions for the term "civil society" which differ significantly. The following list is of course not a complete one. More interesting than a complete catalogue is to understand the "why" and "what for" of relevant differences.
Before we take a closer look at the individual definitions, let us briefly consider a few interesting aspects.
First, the traditional meaning of civil society is connected to the idea of free expression of ideas. So the term has a positive connotation, just the way in which "mafia" has a negative one. When using this term we should therefore be aware that for many people - especially inside civil society - it contains hope for a better future. Usually they haven't studied political science and have no other word for it. When we discuss definitions of this term, we should therefore attempt at least to preserve this hope inside the term. We will call this aspect the "ideal" part of definitions.
The second aspect is the practical implication of the definition in the context of development aid in general, and of democracy aid in particular. This aspect, which we will call the "instrumental" part of a definition, usually specifies who is and who is not part of civil society, as defined. It is most important to people from outside the civil society, who need to understand and communicate to other people from outside the civil society facts and opinions about civil society. It is also important to you as part of the public opinion, interested in understanding aid programs. If an aid strategy is based on a definition of civil society which is, let's say, too broad, there is a risc for programs to end up aiding other groups than you were told. The instrumental purpose of a good, precise definition of civil society is to communicate exactly who is going to be the recipient of aid in this sector.
Example 1: Juan J. Linz & A. Stepan in "Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation", 1996
This book was very popular in a time when the democracy wave was at its height. It attempted to bring various cases of transition in a theoretical framework. Full of data from various countries from all around the world, it started lots of debates and is still very readable today.
"By civil society we refer to that arena [...] 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 (women's groups, neighbourhood associations, religious groupings, and intellectual organizations) and civic associations from all strata (such as trade unions, entrepreneurial groups, journalists, or lawyers)."
Discussion:
Linz & Stepan point right from the start at the arena-like character of civil society, something many definitions don't catch. Their definition also copes with the fact that prominent individuals and unorganized movements are important actors of civil society as often as NGOs in a western sense, with statutes and boards and offices. Furthermore this definition underlines the fact that civil society is usually about values, associations and solidarities, and interests. It is not about fun in free time. From an instrumental point of view, the definition is precise enough for the authors' purposes: to have a close look at what civil society is in a wide variety of countries.
Example 2: the site of a west european development agency, 2004.
Generally [the term "civil society"] covers all non-governmental organizations as well as citizens. In development cooperation work one distinguishes between three dominant players whose activities overlap: state institutions, the economic sector (private sector) and finally civil society, i.e. civilian social organizations. Belonging to the latter are so-called non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as well as other non-profit associations representing certain citizen interests, for example consumer associations, labour unions, human rights groups and grassroots movements, non-governmental media and environmental organizations.
Discussion:
This definition has some obvious logic flaws (it is composed of two parts which don't match together). Additionally "civilian social organizations" is either a linguistic confusion ("civic social organizations ?") in which case it is tautologic, or excluding "military social organizations" from civil society, which leaves us still with almost all "social organizations". Several are given as an example in the rest of the definition, part of which are considered to be NGOs and part of which not, for mysterious reasons.
But aside from that, this definition has the advantage that it clearly states what - for the authors of the definition - civil society is NOT: state institutions and commercial companies. This technique is quite useful because the wide diversity of components of civil society in different countries makes an enumerating definition awkward.
A substantial weak spot is in our view the idea to consider all social organisations as part of civil society. This is too broad. By most definitions, civil society is a political factor, i.e. its components have to represent general citizens' interests, as opposed to, e.g. a stamp collectors association, which is also a social organisation. Without this advocacy element, the definition is incomplete from an "ideal" point of view. Instrumentally it is useless in a development aid context. Aid programmes directed to the civil society and based upon this definition can end up aiding anything which is not state institution or commercial companies, from political parties to football clubs to religious communities big and small1.
Example 3: Thomas Carothers in "Aiding Democracy Abroad - The Learning Curve", 1999.
To our knowledge, this book fills more or less by itself the space where a broad critical debate about methods of democracy aid should have been. It offers two, compatible definitions of civil society, the latter of which is cited from Gordon White, "Civil Society, Democratization and Development: Clearing the analytical ground", Democratization, vol. 1, no. 3 (Autumn 1994).
"[...] there is a fair amount of consensus around a view of civil society that excludes private business and the formal political sector (what some call "political society") but is otherwise fairly inclusive."
"an associational realm between state and family, populated by organizations which are separate from the state, enjoy autonomy in relation to the state and are formed voluntarily by members of society to protect or extend their interests or values."
Discussion:
The first definition distinguishes civil society not only from state institutions, but also from the "formal political sector". Political parties are thus separated from civil society, an important aspect which is missing in the definition of Example 2. This distinction has obvious "ideal" and "instrumental" importance.
From an "ideal" point of view, two important goals of civil society are to formulate publicly demands from the population and to monitor the activity of the "political society". Political parties on the other hand are in a competition for influence and power. This competition places upon parties constraints of which civil society is free. Therefore it would be abusive to include political parties in the civil society.
From an "instrumental" point of view, drawing a line between political parties and civil society is even more important. Most of the situations when one wants to support civil society, there is also a strong interest to clearly not support political parties. The latter is an approach which is generally regarded as acceptable only in very special situations (e.g. a country emerging from a long totalitarian period when no parties were allowed) and for a limited period of time.
Apart from this important distinction between political and civil society, we sadly agree that many definitions are "otherwise fairly inclusive". We believe there are strong reasons - as we have mentioned above - to use less inclusionary definitions.
Summing it up:
We have pointed at the risc of too general definitions of civil society in a development aid context, from the point of view of what an aid organisation promises to the public in its home country.
The term "civil society" cannot be well dissociated from its "public arena" sense. This suggests "interests and values" which are widely shared, if possible publicly stated, and directed at some form of common good.
Additionally, we connect the term with an interest in the general conditions in a society (rights, freedoms, fairness, minorities) as opposed to special and limited topics (e.g. repainting the gym hall of the local school). We are aware that there is currently no consensus in this area.
1 This is not a philosophic concern, it is what really happened with at least one major "civil society" aid program for Eastern Europe: it ended up in humanitarian projects, just because the projects were implemented by local associations, which were considered by the donor part of the civil society.
P22E