Civil society is a term which covers the totality
of voluntary civic and social organizations,
media, interest groups and institutions that form
the basis of a functioning society as distinct from
the force-backed structures of a State (regardless
of that state’s political system) and commercial
institutions of the Market.
The presence of a healthy and vibrant civil
society is the hallmark of a healthy democracy.
It is the nursery in which new ideas take their
roots and grow, which are the basis of a dynamic
democratic society. It is also the forum where
we brainstorm and find solutions to complex
questions. Civil society institutions also act as
alternatives to the State in delivering welfare and
developmental services to the community. But
most importantly they serve as institutions which
enforce accountability and control to the
activities of the State by means of developing a
public opinion which decides as to what
direction the society and the institutions of the
society should be moving.
Even the State and the Market are institutions
churned out of the civil society, however in the
present context civil society is understood as
extra-State and extra-Market institutions.
The role of civil society has been extensively
discussed and have hogged the limelight in
contemporary times because of the across the
spectrum acceptability and appreciation of the
participatory approach as a valuable instrument
in delivering sustainable results in almost all the
activities of the State and also the Market.
Moreover some experts also believe that the role
of civil society in the present context is bigger
than that of a partner to the State and the Market
rather it has been increasingly seen as an
alternative to them out of the disillusionment
from the institutions of the State and the Market.
Barry Knight, Hope Chigudu, and Rajesh
Tandon in their book ‘Reviving democracy’:
Citizens at the heart of Governance write that
the progenitor of the concept of civil society is
the global collapse of confidence in politics,
evidenced by falling turnouts in elections,
increasing and towering inequalities between the
rich and poor and the alienation of billions of
ordinary people visible in their apathetic
withdrawal or in violence and disorder. The
findings from the first world to the third world
countries amply confirm that, people are
demanding better and decent lives for themselves
and others and despite their criticism of failing,
incompetent and corrupt governments, they
want their governments to meet basic needs and
to administer the processes of the State fairly and
lawfully, it is here that the civil society emerges
as an alternative.
However the most important issue in this
section is as to whether civil society institutions
are free from the dysfunctionalities plaguing the
State and the Markets. Are they free from the
malaise of corruption and inequality? Could they
be presumed as absolutely fair and neutral
institutions?
International NGOs are criticized for
preaching democracy and failing to practice the
same internally, and for simply not listening to
the people very people whom they purport to
help. Privately locally recruited staff often
complain about the latter’s attitude of racial and
cultural superiority. Further civil society groups
have also been seen to be mired by double
standards. For example, no mention has been
made in the media about that the Danish
newspaper ‘Jyllands–Posten’ which had
provoked so much controversy with cartoons of
the Prophet Mohammad some years ago had
earlier decided not to publish a cartoon
lampooning the Christ. Moreover, there have
been numerous allegations of corruption and
money laundering associated with the NGOs,
involved in developmental and welfare activities,
all over the world. Thus we can conclude and
say that civil society groups are yet another stock
of the inefficient institutions similar to the State
which are nothing but a reflection of the
inefficiencies and negativities prevalent in the
nursery of the society itself.
This viewpoint is not acceptable to the civil
society groups. They attribute the allegations of
inefficiencies and corruption to the environment
in which they operate and the role of the other
actors with whom they interact. They believe
that the area of influence of the civil society
groups is limited due to their limited access to
money and power. For example civil society
groups are often constrained by the paucity of
the funds due to their limited indulgence in
commercial activities, further their activities are
curtailed by the oppressive authority of the state,
which under the guise of regulation and
upholding of public interests not only interferes
with the normal functioning of the civil society
but also actually obstructs it. For example, expert
observers acknowledge that the campaigners
against arms trade have far less influence than
the arms corporations, who have almost
unlimited access to the governments. Moreover,
everybody knows how the efforts of the
environmental groups like Green Peace on
whaling or global warming have been time and
again trumped by the powerful vested interests
within the governments and also beyond them.
In case of India, civil society groups accuse the
rich and powerful lobbies of hijacking the draft
of the Recognition of the Forests Rights Bill to
shift the benefits from the Scheduled Tribes and
other traditional dwellers to the elites who
happen to control the administering apparatus
and industrial setup.
Thus, it needs to be acknowledged that civil
society groups like any other structure coming
out of the society inherits its strengths and
limitations from the society which are manifested
in different hues and colors under different
contexts. What needs to be done is not wage an
academic debate over whether civil society
groups are efficient and useful but to accept the
accompanying positives and negatives as
realities which come with the package, and work
to create an atmosphere in which they can assert
themselves freely and honestly without any
pressures and constraints, and contribute in their
own way in fighting the challenges which the
process of change has to offer.
of voluntary civic and social organizations,
media, interest groups and institutions that form
the basis of a functioning society as distinct from
the force-backed structures of a State (regardless
of that state’s political system) and commercial
institutions of the Market.
The presence of a healthy and vibrant civil
society is the hallmark of a healthy democracy.
It is the nursery in which new ideas take their
roots and grow, which are the basis of a dynamic
democratic society. It is also the forum where
we brainstorm and find solutions to complex
questions. Civil society institutions also act as
alternatives to the State in delivering welfare and
developmental services to the community. But
most importantly they serve as institutions which
enforce accountability and control to the
activities of the State by means of developing a
public opinion which decides as to what
direction the society and the institutions of the
society should be moving.
Even the State and the Market are institutions
churned out of the civil society, however in the
present context civil society is understood as
extra-State and extra-Market institutions.
The role of civil society has been extensively
discussed and have hogged the limelight in
contemporary times because of the across the
spectrum acceptability and appreciation of the
participatory approach as a valuable instrument
in delivering sustainable results in almost all the
activities of the State and also the Market.
Moreover some experts also believe that the role
of civil society in the present context is bigger
than that of a partner to the State and the Market
rather it has been increasingly seen as an
alternative to them out of the disillusionment
from the institutions of the State and the Market.
Barry Knight, Hope Chigudu, and Rajesh
Tandon in their book ‘Reviving democracy’:
Citizens at the heart of Governance write that
the progenitor of the concept of civil society is
the global collapse of confidence in politics,
evidenced by falling turnouts in elections,
increasing and towering inequalities between the
rich and poor and the alienation of billions of
ordinary people visible in their apathetic
withdrawal or in violence and disorder. The
findings from the first world to the third world
countries amply confirm that, people are
demanding better and decent lives for themselves
and others and despite their criticism of failing,
incompetent and corrupt governments, they
want their governments to meet basic needs and
to administer the processes of the State fairly and
lawfully, it is here that the civil society emerges
as an alternative.
However the most important issue in this
section is as to whether civil society institutions
are free from the dysfunctionalities plaguing the
State and the Markets. Are they free from the
malaise of corruption and inequality? Could they
be presumed as absolutely fair and neutral
institutions?
International NGOs are criticized for
preaching democracy and failing to practice the
same internally, and for simply not listening to
the people very people whom they purport to
help. Privately locally recruited staff often
complain about the latter’s attitude of racial and
cultural superiority. Further civil society groups
have also been seen to be mired by double
standards. For example, no mention has been
made in the media about that the Danish
newspaper ‘Jyllands–Posten’ which had
provoked so much controversy with cartoons of
the Prophet Mohammad some years ago had
earlier decided not to publish a cartoon
lampooning the Christ. Moreover, there have
been numerous allegations of corruption and
money laundering associated with the NGOs,
involved in developmental and welfare activities,
all over the world. Thus we can conclude and
say that civil society groups are yet another stock
of the inefficient institutions similar to the State
which are nothing but a reflection of the
inefficiencies and negativities prevalent in the
nursery of the society itself.
This viewpoint is not acceptable to the civil
society groups. They attribute the allegations of
inefficiencies and corruption to the environment
in which they operate and the role of the other
actors with whom they interact. They believe
that the area of influence of the civil society
groups is limited due to their limited access to
money and power. For example civil society
groups are often constrained by the paucity of
the funds due to their limited indulgence in
commercial activities, further their activities are
curtailed by the oppressive authority of the state,
which under the guise of regulation and
upholding of public interests not only interferes
with the normal functioning of the civil society
but also actually obstructs it. For example, expert
observers acknowledge that the campaigners
against arms trade have far less influence than
the arms corporations, who have almost
unlimited access to the governments. Moreover,
everybody knows how the efforts of the
environmental groups like Green Peace on
whaling or global warming have been time and
again trumped by the powerful vested interests
within the governments and also beyond them.
In case of India, civil society groups accuse the
rich and powerful lobbies of hijacking the draft
of the Recognition of the Forests Rights Bill to
shift the benefits from the Scheduled Tribes and
other traditional dwellers to the elites who
happen to control the administering apparatus
and industrial setup.
Thus, it needs to be acknowledged that civil
society groups like any other structure coming
out of the society inherits its strengths and
limitations from the society which are manifested
in different hues and colors under different
contexts. What needs to be done is not wage an
academic debate over whether civil society
groups are efficient and useful but to accept the
accompanying positives and negatives as
realities which come with the package, and work
to create an atmosphere in which they can assert
themselves freely and honestly without any
pressures and constraints, and contribute in their
own way in fighting the challenges which the
process of change has to offer.
No comments:
Post a Comment