John Samuel
Civil Society is not a colourless or odorless gas. Civil Society is not an abstract academic concept anymore. Civil Societies do have coloures 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 terms of its concept, genealogy, history, form, locations, content and politics. The validity of civil society is partly due to this plurality at its very conceptual core and the sheer diversity in its praxis. There is not one single theory of civil society. There are many. There is not one single politics of civil society. There are many. This fluidity and fuzziness of the term is what paradoxically makes it significant. Civil Society signifies diverse arena and spaces of contested power-relationships. So the contradictions and contestations of power, culture and economy get reflected in the civil society discourse of a particular country or political context. In South Asia, civil society may reflect the feudal and post-colonial tendencies within its own power-spaces. In many countries of Africa, the community differentiations based on tribal identities may influence and shape civil society discourses as well.
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. This dynamism, pluralism and diversity to a large extent shape the emerging civil society discourse across the world. Hence, it is indeed difficult to ignore the civil society discourse –for such a discourse is one of the most crucial elements in the new political and policy paradigm of a world in the midst of profound political, technological, economic, cultural and social transformations. The idea of civil society is used for political subversion, political reform as well 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 legitimize their respective political projects and programmes.
This note seeks to stress the validity of civil society as a web of diverse spaces and linkages for transformative politics to promote human rights as well ecological, economic and social justice. The transformative civil society discourse is deeply political- a politics of people that seeks to challenge unjust and unequal power-relationships; a politics that challenges all kinds of discriminations based on gender, cast, race and creed; and politics of citizens that seeks to restrain the unbridled powers of the state apparatus and market forces.
Though the term Civil Society has its pre-modern, modern and post-modern connotations in different social and political contexts, the idea of civil society has acquired new meaning and role in the changing political, social and economic contexts. There has been a series of serious critique of the very term Civil Society, particularly its dominant euro-centric political assumptions and conceptual genealogy. While the idea of Civil society played a key role in shaping the citizens politics against authoritarian governments in Latin America and Central Europe in the 1980s, Civil society as an idea was also used to create a subversive political and social conditions for a new hegemonic neo-liberal political and policy order.
So, many of the social activists in the global south were rather skeptical about the subversive content of civil society as a social and political legitimizing mechanism for the free market ideology. The theoretical and political assumptions behind the idea and practice of civil society in Europe and America evolved over a period of two hundred years of the formations of the nation-state and corollary political discourse. This made the idea of Civil Society valid and validated in such a socio-cultural context. However, there have been conceptual and political disconsonance when such a seemingly universal idea and practice of civil society was super-imposed on socio-political and historical contexts divergent from that of the European and American contexts. The universalization and valorization of the Euro-centric genealogy of civil society is that made it a highly contested concept and political project in the global south. Most of the countries that emerged out of the colonial domination and suppression have an entirely different cultural, religious, social and political context. The very political discourse and social contexts in many of the countries in the global south was shaped by the post-colonial international politics of influence through subversive ideas, aid and trade. During the cold-war period, the international political process was highly contested by the two global power-blocks. And during the post-cold war period, a set of new ideas and praxis replaced the cold-war international ideological paradigm. It is in such a context the born-again idea of civil society was challenged by many social movements and activists.
However, over a period of the last twenty years the very idea and practice of Civil Society evolved – and in many ways outgrew its dominant euro-centric ideological genealogy. The idea of civil society is now owned, reshaped and redefined through a diversity of praxis across the world- from a village in Africa or Asia to global arena. The idea of civil society is increasingly becoming a new metaphor for citizens’ mobilization and people’s struggle for human rights, ecological and socio-economic justice and democratization. The very fluidity and plurality of the idea of civil society ironically make it a broad arena of multiplicity of collective actions across the world. There is no longer one civil society or one civil society discourse. It is an arena of political contestation- and arena of countervailing power to seek accountability from the state as well as market. Civil society with all its diversity and chaos also become a metaphor for transformative politics- a politics that challenges injustice, discrimination and the monopoly of power of the state as well as that of the market. Such a civil society discourse- promoted by people’s movements, citizens networks, progressive non-governmental organizations, network of public intellectuals and media practitioners- seek to transform unjust power-relationships and to seek accountability from the governments and powerful trans-national and multinational corporations in the market place. Such a civil society discourse is local and global at the same time- because such discourse questions and seek to transform unjust power-relationships, discrimination and domination every where- from villages to the global arena; from the local self-government to powerful transnational business corporations or multilateral institutions.
The civil society discourse to a large extent emerged as a corollary discourse to the politics of the nation- state. The nature and character of the civil society in given context is negotiated through historical, cultural and social process and predominant power-paradigm within such a context. The predominant power paradigm and political process of a country is largely determined by the politics of the state. It is often the politics of the state that determine the character and content of democracy. Such state-centric power paradigm tends to be driven by the self-preserving nature of bureaucracy, control mechanism and coercive arms of the state. So even in the democratic political context, the politics of the state often make instrumental use of democratic forms- such as regular election, representative politics- without necessarily promoting the content, process and culture of democratization within the society. For example, a politically democratic country like India can have a political party system and society devoid of significant content and culture of democratization. It is in such a context, the political role of civil society becomes crucial as multiple process and spaces for substantive democratization of people and communities. From the perspective democratization, the idea of civil society signifies the notion of citizenship, the limits of state power and the regulation of market economies. Conceptually Civil Society is supposed to be a public sphere located between the state and market, strong enough to keep both the sate and market in check. Civil society as space for transformative politics is based on the idea of the freedom, dignity and sovereignty of people.
Civil society is about politics- politics of people, politics of communication, politics of campaign, politics of network and politics of knowledge. The politics of civil society is not derived from the power of one source or one apparatus. The very power of civil society is in its plural and diverse sources of power- a power of multiple voices, multiple locations and multiple perspectives- a plural source of countervailing power to restrain the monopoly of the state and that of the market.
The civil society discourse in the twenty first century is qualitatively different from that of the twentieth century or that of the post-cold war politics. Civil society is increasingly a coalescence of the local and global, real and virtual and south and north. There is a new sense of global solidarity movement for justice- though such an interconnected process is highly dispersed, poly-centric, and multi-locational. There is a new civil society discourse facilitated by the radical shifts in information and communication technology and the emergence of the new media. In many ways the new discourse of civil society is similar to that of the world wide web- beyond the conventional boarders of the nation-state, or the cultural boundaries. The Internet, global e-lists, social networking sites, you-tube and digital mobilization across the world would have been unimaginable twenty years ago. Today information and campaign process can reach out to millions of people with the single click of a browser. In many ways, it is the civil society action by those who are not active members of the political party that influenced the election of Barack Obama. For the first time in the political history, millions of young people – beyond the space of conventional political parties-got mobilized in the cyber space and they raised millions of dollars from ordinary people. So one can argue that the last America election was fundamentally different from the earlier elections because the civil society reclaimed the political spaces through new modes of mobilization- making use of technology, communication and new discourse on change.
So the critique of civil society should enable us to evolve new idea, new meaning and new praxis to create new poetry and politics: a politics of transformation based on the countervailing power of the people. Civil society as an arena may have to be redefined for inclusive participation, for multiple voices and for plurality of emancipatory politics. In most of the countries, civil society also connotes a new combination of middle class and media. This means there is less space for the voice of the marginalized and excluded – both in terms of socio-economic locations and geographical locations. Civil society is often seen and heard in the urban and digital spaces. This in a way limits the true potential of a new politics of civil society as transformative force. Civil society can be arena of transformation only when the poor, marginalized and excluded can claim such a space- beyond the state, political parties and market- to raise their voices, assert their rights and claim accountability. Civil society can become an important area of democratization when it becomes an arena of associations, voices, and collective advocacy and actions for public good, for participation and for human rights and justice.
Hence, we need to construct a new pluralistic history and politics of civil society based on an ethical and political perspective based on human rights, sustainable development, diversity, pluralism and justice. From such a perspective it is possible to locate new histories of civil society process beyond the European- American political and epistemological history. For example, the efforts of Kabir in India and various social and religious reform movements can be traced to the idea of countervailing power – beyond the dominant modes of power. The various social and political reform movements, for women’s rights, for inclusive participation, and for accountable governance in the 19the century in India can be seen as the emergence of a civil society discourses. The efforts of Brhamo Samaj, Arya Samaj, Servants of India society, and the early years of the Indian National Congress can be seen as civil society initiatives. The reform as well as transformative movements led by Raj Ram Mohan Roy, Birsa Munda, Mahatma Phule, Savitribhai Phule, Mahatma Gandhi, Aurbindo, Tagore, Ayyenkali Narayana Guru , Pandita Ramabhai and Ambedkar can also be located as civil society initiatives as they all helped to create a public sphere and sociopolitical arena beyond the state and the market. In fact, the early work of Gandhi in South Africa- Tolstoy farm- and then in India can be seen an effort to shape and create a new civil society politics. One can argue that at the core of Gandhian Praxis was civil society discourse- as he refused to be a part of formal political or institutional power. This is one of the reasons that Gandhian social and political praxis inspired much civil society discourse including the civil rights movement, led by Martin Luther King- in the USA. We need to reclaim the civil society – as an idea and as a praxis- to transform it in to an arena for transformative politics- for a politics of dissent, a politics of non-violent collective action, a politics of democratization and a politics to claim and reclaim voices, power and state- by the people, for the people and of the people.
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 process in many countries and the world. There are five specific areas where civil society discourse and initiatives made very important political and social contributions. These are : a) Women’s rights b) Ecological justice and Environment protection c) Human Rights of the Marginalized and excluded - to promote the rights of ethnic, religious, race, and sexual minorities d) movement for citizens participation and governance accountability and e) Resistance and protest against unjust economic globalization and unilateral militarization. In fact, even in these specific areas there is a multiplicity of civil society discourse. However, over a period of the last thirty 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 mobilization and advocacy by thousands of organizations and millions of people across the world. On Feb 15, 2003, more than 11 million people across the world marched against the war in Iraq and unilateral militarization. In fact, the unprecedented global mobilization happened on the same days – largely due to the digital mobilization – and partly due to the rather spontaneous coordination process among social movements and civil society actors met during the world social forum in Porto Alegre in January 2003.
In the last twenty years most of the innovative policy framework and legislation happened due to the consistent campaign and advocacy by the civil society organizations. It is due to the people-centred advocacy, campaign and mobilizations by hundreds of civil society organizations in India that the government of India enacted the Right to Information, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Right to Education, the new Act to stop domestic violence and the one for protecting the land rights of tribal communities. It is also due to efforts of women’s rights organization and civil society initiatives that women’s political participation the and the new bill to ensure 33% reservation for women in the parliament got in to the centre of political discourse in India.
In many countries of Asia and Africa, Civil Society discourse became a countervailing political process against authoritarian governments. This was evident in the citizens and civil society struggle against monarchy in Nepal and also authoritarian regimes in many parts of the world. In many countries of Latin America civil society became a common ground for diverse interests groups and political formations to act together to challenge the authoritarian regimes. In fact, civil society played a key role in shaping the political process in Brazil. Civil society became common grounds for social movements, progressive NGOs, progressive factions of the Church, trade unions and public intellectuals to work together for political and policy transformation. The world social forum process originated in Brazil partly due to these historical and political conditions. Such a civil society discourse sought to challenge unjust economic globalization and the unaccountable national governments. So the civil society discourse helped the transformation of the state power in Brazil.
With the advent of internet, digital mobilization and relatively cheap air travel, there is an increasing interconnectedness between the civil society initiatives and movements across the world. The unprecedented mobilization and campaign across the world for trade justice and fair trade – and against the unjust WTO regime demonstrated the power of citizen action and mobilization beyond the state and market. The diverse range of mobilization against the World Trade Organization in Seattle, Cancun, and Hong Kong influence the political and policy choices of many countries and the G-20 process. The Jubilee campaign for cancelling the unjust debt of the poor countries attracted the support of millions of people both in rich countries and poor countries and in remote villages and megacities. The successful campaign against Land Mines proved to be another successful example of civil society mobilization and action across the world. World Social Forum emerged as an open-space and platform for exchange of ideas, coordination of action and collective envisioning – beyond the narrow ideological divided and old political divisions. The emergence of a global justice solidarity movement in many ways influenced the political process in many countries.
In the last fifteen years, there has been a resurgence of the political consciousness with in the civil society. A whole range of new associations, citizens’ formations, new social movements, knowledge-action network, policy advocacy groups emerged both at the national and international level. Such a process was partly due to the shift in the international politics- in the aftermath of the cold-war- and consequent shift in the aid- architecture- with a stress on local ownership for the development process. The new stress on Human Rights, in the aftermath of the Vienna Human Rights Summit in 199, gave new spaces and international legitimacy for new human rights movements, integrating the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. A series of United Nations Conference starting with the Rio Summit in 1992, created enabling global space for civil society process and organizations. The Vienna UN Human Rights Summit in 1993, the Beijing Summit in 1995 on Women’s Rights, the Copenhagen summit on Social Development in 1996 and the Durban Summit on Racism provided global platform for the civil society movements to advance new discourse on politics and public policy. The exchange of knowledge, linkages and resources began to create a new synergy between the countries and communities in the South as well as that of in the North. In fact, United Nations became a key mediating ground between the Civil Society and various Governments. Such a mediating role between the civil society and state provided new legitimacy and role for the United Nations. The new stress of human development, and human rights and global poverty, provided a legitimate space for global action and campaign for the civil society. There have been new technological and financial resources that helped international networking and a new trend of globalization from below. As the new hegemony of power politics driven by unilateral militaralism, conservative politics and neo-liberal policy paradigm began to dominate the world, the new social movements and consequent civil society process became an arena of a new politics of protest and resistance against unjust globalization. Such a new civil society process was driven by communities, communications and creativity. New modes of communications, networking, campaigning and mobilizations made the civil society discourse as one of the most influential political and policy discourse in the twenty first century.
There is a significant difference between the civil society discourse in the 1980s, 1990s and that of the last ten 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 legitimize and to organize the protest movement against authoritarian governments in Latin America and Central Europe. In the 1990s, the term Civil Society has become a more of an instrument in new hegemony of policy and politics at the international level, supported by both aid and trade. However, in the last ten years, the idea of civil society got increasingly contextualized to become a plural arena of political praxis for transformative politics in multiple contexts. The old civil society discourse got submerged in to new movements for radical democratization, 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- plural and diverse spaces for collective human action- as an arena of transformative politics. The reclaiming of civil societies would mean the 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 humanize the state, market and political process. There is a 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 value and virtues: values for equality and justice, values that would help us to fight all kinds of injustice and discriminations- based on gender, race, cast or creed. Civil society can be transformative when it can combine the Politics of Protest and Politics of Proposal. Civil Society will become an arena that can help to combine the Politics of People and Politics of Knowledge. Civil society becomes a transformative space when it can help to create the politics of dissent, politics of association and citizen action against monopoly of power and spaces for counter discourse and counter hegemony.
