Defining "Civil Society"
The term civil
society has a range of meanings in contemporary usage. It is sometimes
considered to include the family and the private sphere, and referred to as the
"third sector" of society, distinct from
government and business.
The term civil society
was used by writers such as Locke and Rousseau to describe civil government as
differentiated from natural society or the state of nature.
The Marxist concept
derives from Hegel. In Hegel civil or bourgeoise society as the realm of
individuals who have left the unity of the family to enter into economic
competition is contrasted with the state or political society. Marx uses the
concept of civil society in his critique of Hegel. It is used as a yardstick of
the change from feudal to bourgeoisie society. Civil society arose, Marx
insists from the destruction of medieval society. Previously individuals were
part of many different societies such as guilds or estates each of which had a
political role so that there was no separate civil realm. As these partial
societies broke down, civil society arose in which the individual became all
important. The old bonds of privilege were replaced by the selfish needs of
atomistic individuals separated from each other and from the community.
Contemplorary Civil societies: A pluralistic
Civil society is not a colourless or odourless gas. Civil
society is not an abstract academic concept anymore. Civil societies
have colours and cultures, contexts and contours, gender and grounds,
and politics and passion.
Civil society is plural. The theory and practice of civil
society is plural in concept, genealogy, history, form, locations,
content and politics. Its validity is partly due to this plurality at
its conceptual core and the sheer diversity in its praxis. There is no
single theory of civil society. And no single politics of civil society.
This fluidity and fuzziness of the term is, paradoxically, what makes it
significant.
Civil society signifies diverse arenas and spaces of
contested power relations. So the contradictions and contestations of
power, culture and economy are reflected in the civil society discourse
of a particular country or political context. Civil society has now
become an arena of praxis wherein theory is continually negotiated and
re-negotiated based on the evolving practice in multiple social,
economic and cultural contexts.
The idea of civil society is used for political subversion,
political reform as well as political transformation. Proponents of
various ideological streams from conservatism to neo-liberalism and from
liberal reformists to radical socialists have been using the idea and
practice of civil society to legitimise their respective political projects
and programmes.
This dynamism, pluralism and diversity to a large extent
shape the emerging civil society discourse across the world. In South
Asia, civil society may reflect the feudal and post-colonial tendencies
within its own power spaces. In many countries of Africa, community
differentiations based on tribal identities may influence and shape
civil society discourse as well.
How civil society has changed the world
If we consider civil society discourse as a pluralist
network of citizens and associational spaces for social and political
action, then one can begin to appreciate the contribution of such
discourse in shaping and influencing the politics and policy processes
in many countries and the world.
There are five specific areas where civil society discourse
and initiatives have made very important political and social
contributions.
These are:
a) women’s rights
b) ecological justice and
environment protection
c) human rights of ethnic,religious, race, and
sexual minorities
d) movements for citizens’ participation and
accountable governance and e) resistance and protest against unjust
economic globalisation and unilateral militarisation.
In fact, even in
these specific areas there is a multiplicity of civil society discourse.
However, over the last 30 years, if women’s rights and
green politics are at the centre of all political and policy discourse,
it is indeed due to the consistent mobilisation and advocacy by
thousands of organisations and millions of people across the world. On
February 15, 2003, more than 11 million people across the world marched
against the war in Iraq and unilateral militarisation. In fact, the
unprecedented, coordinated global mobilisation happened on the same day
largely due to digital mobilisation and partly due to the rather
spontaneous coordination among social movements and civil society actors
who met during the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre in January 2003.
In India too, in the last 25 years, most of the innovative
policy framework and legislation happened due to consistent campaigning
and advocacy by civil society organisations. It is the people-centred
advocacy, campaigning and mobilisation by hundreds of civil society
organisations in India that prompted the Indian government to enact the
Right to Information (RTI) Act, the National Rural Employment Guarantee
Act, Right to Education, the new Act to stop domestic violence, and the
one aimed at protecting the land rights of tribal communities. It is due
to the efforts of women’s rights organisations and civil society
initiatives that women’s political participation and 33% reservation for
women in Parliament are at the centre of political discourse in India.
In many countries of Asia and Africa, civil society
activism has become a countervailing political force against
authoritarian governments. It has also sought to challenge unjust
economic globalisation. This was evident in the citizens’ and civil
society struggle against monarchy in Nepal and authoritarian regimes in
many parts of the world. In many countries of Latin America, civil
society became the common ground for diverse interest groups and political
formations to act together to challenge authoritarian regimes. In fact, civil society played a key role in shaping the political process in Brazil, where social movements, progressive NGOs, progressive factions
of the church, trade unions and public intellectuals came together for
political and policy transformation. The World Social Forum process
originated in Brazil partly due to these historical and political conditions,
and it helped the transformation of state power in Brazil.
With the advent of the Internet, digital mobilisation and
relatively cheap air travel there is an increasing interconnectedness
between civil society initiatives and movements across the world. The
unprecedented mobilisation and campaigns against the unjust WTO regime
and for trade justice and fair trade demonstrated the power of citizens’
action and mobilisation beyond the state and market. The diverse range
of mobilisation against the World Trade Organisation in Seattle, Cancun,
and Hong Kong influenced the political and policy choices of many
countries and the G20 process. The Jubilee campaign for cancelling the
unjust debt of poor countries attracted the support of millions of
people both in rich and poor countries and in remote villages and
megacities. The successful campaign against landmines proved to be
another example of civil society mobilisation and action across the
world. The World Social Forum emerged as an open space and platform for
the exchange of ideas, coordination of action, and collective envisioning
beyond narrow ideological and political divides. The emergence of a
global justice solidarity movement influenced the political process
in many countries in many ways.
A time for change: Civil society and
international
relations
In the last 15 years, there has been a resurgence of
political consciousness in civil society. A whole range of new
associations, citizens’ formations, new social movements,
knowledge-action networks and policy advocacy groups have emerged at the
national and international level.
This was partly due to the shift in international politics
in the aftermath of the Cold War and a consequent shift in the
aid-architecture, with a stress on local ownership in the development
process. The new stress on human rights in the aftermath of the Vienna
Human Rights Summit, in 1993, gave new spaces and international
legitimacy to new human rights movements, integrating civil, political,
economic, social and cultural rights. A series of United Nations conferences,
starting with the Rio Summit in 1992, created an enabling global space
for civil society processes and organisations. The Beijing Summit in
1995 on women’s rights, the Copenhagen Summit on social development
in 1996, and the Durban Summit on racism provided a global platform
for civil society movements to advance a new discourse on politics and
public policy. The exchange of knowledge, linkages and resources began
to create a new synergy between countries and communities in the South
as well as in the North. In fact, the United Nations became a key
mediating ground between civil society and various governments.
Such a mediating role between civil society and state
provided a new legitimacy and role for the United Nations. The new
stress on human development, human rights and global poverty created a
legitimate space for global action and campaigns for civil society. New
technological and financial resources helped international networking and
a new trend of globalisation from below. As the new hegemony of power
politics driven by unilateral militarism, conservative politics and a
neoliberal policy paradigm began to dominate the world, the new social
movements and consequent civil society process became the arena for a
new politics of protest and resistance against unjust globalisation.
Such a new civil society process was driven by communities, communications
and creativity. New modes of communication, networking, campaigning
and mobilisation made civil society discourse one of the most
influential political and policy discourses in the 21st century.
There is a significant difference between the civil society
discourse of the 1980s, 1990s and that of the last 10 years. Unless we
understand and appreciate the multiple political shifts at the national
and international levels, it might be difficult to understand the
consequent shifts in the practice and theory of civil society. In the
1980s, civil society was more of a conceptual tool to legitimise and
organise the protest movement against authoritarian governments in Latin
America and Central Europe. In the 1990s, the term ‘civil society’
became an instrument of policy and politics at the international level,
supported by both aid and trade. And in the last 10 years, the idea of
civil society has been increasingly contextualised to become a plural
arena of political praxis for transformative politics in multiple
contexts. The old civil society discourse was submerged in new movements
for radical democratisation, feminist politics, and ecological, social
and economic justice. It is the new emerging discourse on civil society
that seeks to address the issue of democratic deficit, and crisis of
governance.
So it is important to reclaim civil societies -->> as plural
and diverse spaces for collective human action -- as an arena for
transformative politics. The reclaiming of civil societies would mean a
reassertion of the dignity, sovereignty and human rights of all peoples.
- The ethics and politics of the idea of civil society need to be reclaimed to humanise the state, market and the political process.
- There is the need to reclaim a new political consciousness driven by freedom -- freedom from fear and freedom from want; freedom of association and freedom of beliefs.
- The idea of civil society needs to be reinforced by new civil values and virtues: the values of equality and justice; values that would help us fight all kinds of injustice and discrimination -- based on gender, race, caste or creed.
- Civil society can be transformative when it combines the politics of protest and the politics of proposal. Civil society will become an arena that can help combine the politics of people and the politics of knowledge.
- Civil society becomes a transformative space when it can help to create the politics of dissent, politics of association and citizens’ action against monopoly of power and spaces for counter-discourse and counter-hegemony.
State of Civil Society in India
Civil society in India seems defined by
exclusion. It is crowded with human rights lawyers and activists, NGO leaders,
academics and intellectuals, high-profile journalists, celebrities and think
tank-hirelings. Mass media debates never see landless labourers, displaced
people, nurses, trade union workers, bus conductors being asked to speak for
‘civil society.' Though, indeed they should.
