Eseuri

The Concept of Civil Society and the Viability of a Global Civil Society
 

DAN STOENESCU

The contemporary processes of global transformations yield calls for structures to cope with changes in international society. This paper argues that the concept of civil society is an ambiguous concept which is differently understood by different authors and theories. These various interpretations, however, share common ideas about the civil society as an intermediate arena between the state, market and family. Civil society exists as a counterbalance to state power. The paper also argues that global civil society has emerged as a counterbalance to another layer of governance in a globalised era, which is the layer of supra-state governance. Supra-state actors such as IMF, WTO, World Bank have an increasing power on global decision-making which affects people worldwide. Hence, global civil society is a response to these new global politics, although there is no global state. The present paper will explain that the viability of this new form of organisation is made possible through the powerful impact of transnational social movements upon global decision making.

This essay will examine the strengths and weaknesses of the concept of global civil society in light of this statement. It will begin with a brief intellectual-historical, discussion of civil society. This first part will continue with analyzing the concept of civil society from two different theoretical perspectives: the civil society that has an antagonistic role in relation to the state and the civil society that is an area of interaction between the market and the nation state. However, the working definition of civil society used in this paper is that it acts as an intermediate arena between the state, market and family, voluntarily formed by citizens for the promotion of their values and interests.

The second section will meet with this question and discuss the viability and the deficits in the concept of global civil society. This second part will analyse the emergence of new transnational social movements that are an important component of global civil society contributing to its creation and viability. The author will point out to the capacity of social movements to hold accountable transnational institutions which implement global decision-making without a mandate from people all over the world who stand to be affected by it.

Defining civil society is a very difficult task since the term that we use today in various contexts has a very long theoretical history and it is still developing. Virtually all scholars concentrated on the two institutional complexes of civil society, the economy and state. Nowadays this approach became inefficient because it transformed the ‘civil society’ in a very abstract notion that needs a more modern redefinition.

According to Mary Kaldor, the historical development of the civil society started in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries around the concept of “individual autonomy, based on security and trust among people who had perhaps never met”.¹ The modern term civil society comes from a nineteen century ideological blend between liberal and radical/leftist principles that recognised the role of class and intelligentsia in constituting agents of action to uphold the appropriate modes and ends of life in the public.² In the twentieth century the re-emergence of the civil society was a reaction to the brutality of the state in the Second World War and the concept of civil society started to represent “self-organised groups and individuals independent from the state and political society.”³ The same understanding of the concept was perpetuated in the processes of democratization in Eastern Europe and Latin America in 1990s.⁴

A first theoretical approach is an antagonistic view which sees civil society minus the state. Authors such as Hegel argued that the state is a ‘precondition’ for the existence of a civil society⁵ but civil society is a separate entity from the state while the state does not have to interfere with the economy.⁶ Marx went further ahead and argued that true freedom might be attained only through the negation of the distinction between civil society and the state and the ‘dissolution‘of the state.⁷ Marx accepted Hegel‘s description of civil society but did not agree with his concept of two other spheres of social life, namely the family and the state.⁸ The ideas of Hegel and Marx are still important for understanding the concept of civil society in the nineteenth century.⁹ As opposed to Hegel and Marx, Gramsci considers that civil society’s role is to integrate the state with everyday life.¹⁰ For him, the civil society either incorporates liberal ideology or offers a space for critical consciousness to expand. However this paper favours a more inclusive definition of civil society, which recognizes the importance of state in interaction with civil society and not necessarily in antagonism.¹¹

A more inclusive definition is given by the second theoretical approach that is a pluralist perspective of civil society plus the state. The main components of civil society are the intimate sphere, where the family unit plays an important role, the sphere of associations, especially charitable associations, social movements, forms of civic communication and the state.¹² This broader usage could include also ‘uncivil’ entities like the Mafia¹³, terrorist organisations, as well as professional organisations. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are an important part of this modern state-based civil society. Many times the civil society is strengthened by NGOs that act on behalf of citizens as brokers with the government thus creating a communicational bridge. Neera Chandhoke observes that few NGOs carry out development work without the assistance of the state that provides resources, personnel and management.¹⁴ In the same time NGOs need the state to promote sensitive policies and sometimes even fund projects, such as literacy or health programs.¹⁵

Although they come from different theoretical perspectives, the authors mentioned above, share a several modern features that are essential to understanding the concept of civil society. The main idea that is common to most uses of the ‘civil society’ term as an “intermediate associational realm, that is, comprised by a set of institutions, organisations and behaviour, situated between the state, the business world, and family”.¹⁶ This set is populated by organisations which are separate from the state, enjoy independence in relation to the state and are formed voluntarily by members of society to look after or extend their interests or values. Moreover the paper favours a more pluralist understanding of civil society since this would be more appropriate to approach the analysis of a global civil society as well. In a globalised era, we witness a diffusion of political power. State no longer has its monopoly.

Non-state actors such as transnational corporations (TNCs) or transnational social movements (TSMs) have an increasingly important role in political decision making. Consequently, to what extent can this concept be analyzed at a global level? Non-state actors such as TSMs reach beyond state borders and contribute to the extension of the traditional civil society to the global arena. In order to understand if global civil society is a viable concept one has to analyse these new reach of social movements as an important component of global civil society and their impact. In order to asses their impact it is necessary to see if social movements have been able to hold accountable transnational economic organizations. This process will be analysed from five different perspectives: why the new social movements are more important than the old ones, how can GSMs hold transnational economic institutions accountable, why are social movements becoming global, what are the focuses of INGO activity and in what ways can social movements be effective.

Mary Kaldor argues that the concept of civil society is no longer confined to the borders of the territorial state since it is now possible for social movements to link up with other like-minded groups in different parts of the world and to address demands not just to national governments but to international institutions as well.¹⁷ This has opened up new opportunities for human development, and, in particular, for promoting peace in international affairs, thus demonstrating the viability of the global society concept. But this concept also involves new risks such as transnational terrorism.

Moreover, according to Kriesberg, the move of the traditional civil society towards global concerns was influenced by factors such as growing democratization, increasing global integration, convergence and diffusion of values, proliferation of transnational organizations.¹⁸ These factors helped the TSMOs (transnational social movement organizations) to flourish and give the hope that in the future a global civil society formed of these organizations will be the driving force for global democracy.¹⁹

Wilson defines social movements as “a conscious, collective, organized attempt to bring about or resist large-scale change in the social order by non-institutionalized means”.²⁰ We can find them under the form of religious organizations, pressure groups, youth groups, unorganized sections of society (such as taxpayers or the economic elite).²¹

To understand the viability of the global civil society concept it is also necessary to make the differentiation between the new social movements that created and maintain this society and the old social movements. According to Cohen and Rai, old social movements, such as traditional labour movements for example, practice emancipatory politics within the existing political system speaking mainly to or against the state and sharing ideas of universal values.²² As opposed to the old ones, the new social movements, such as indigenous rights or environmental movements, are more global reaching beyond state borders. They practice identity politics, and seek to change the existing political system, based on ideas of locally-derived values.²³ Nowadays, the majority of social movements are concerned with both emancipatory and identity politics, and focus on equally universal and particular values.²⁴

The viability of the global society concept is also evident when analysing the way global social movements hold transnational economic institutions accountable. The TSMs activity work at many levels, complement one another. TSMs can mobilize support or oppose particular policies and are able to help widen public participation in international policy processes, sustain attention on critical global problems, frame issues, set the policy agenda and can also help carry out policy.²⁵ They can influence the government, thus empowering the civil society in many different ways. TSMs can influence political decisions through focusing their attention on the elites and the general public, assisting the government and getting involved in the debate, since their mere presence increases government accountability.²⁶

The activities of INGOs could have two kinds of strategies that give further importance to the global civil society. According to Newel the first strategy adopted is through liberal governance measures, a set of strategies used by INGOs that support responsible policies rather than ideological confrontation. Such examples are supporting “good business practice”, codes of conduct, private regimes and, project collaboration. The second strategy is implemented through critical governance measures which consist of campaigns specifically targeted at IGOs and TNCs to expose what the INGO considers malpractice. Often these approaches highlight an ideological struggle, rather than a wish to change current policy (counter information, TNC monitoring, shareholder activism and organized protest).²⁷

Furthermore, Falk recognizes five general areas in which global social movements can be efficient to bring reform in the contemporary world: resistance²⁸ politics, deligitimation, accountability, religious politics and, empowering transnational areas.²⁹

This section has argued that TSMs may play a significant role in a viable global civil society since their impact is extremely powerful. They are the ones pushing for democratization, support ‘good business’ practice, widen public participation in international policy processes and sustain attention on critical global problems.

As the engine of the global civil society, transnational social movements have a many resources available to them to influence transnational economic actors. As part of the global civil society, they have also emerged as a counterbalance to another layer of governance in our globalised world, that is, the layer of supra-state governance.

This essay concludes that global civil society, through global social movements and their various affiliated organizations do play a major role in holding transnational economic organizations accountable for their actions. The viability of the global civil society is demonstrated through its strong response to these new global politics, although there is no global state and, on its greater influence upon global decision making.

Nonetheless, in terms of global governance, global civil society does not have the power needed to be the only actor to hold transnational economic organizations accountable. Although the components of the global civil society, human rights groups, peace activists, workers‘ organizations, women‘s networks, indigenous organizations, environmental groups and economic justice advocates are communicating and collaborating with their counterparts in other countries, their resources at their disposal are quite limited compared to actors such as TNCs, and IGOs. But the effectiveness of global civil actors may be the topic for a different paper.

NOTES
¹ Mary Kaldor,’ Transnational civil society’, in Tim Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheeler, eds. Human Rights in Global Politics. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p.196.
² Cecelia Lynch, ‘Social Movements and the problems of Globalization in the International Policy Process’ in Richard Higgott and Anthony Payne (eds.) The New Political Economy of Globalization, Vol. II (Cheltenham: Edward Edgar Publishing Limited, 2000), p.441.
³ Mary Kaldor,’ Transnational civil society’, in Tim Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheeler, eds. Human Rights in Global Politics. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p.198.
⁴ Gideon Baker ‘The Taming of the Idea of Civil Society’, Democratization, Autumn 1999, p.1.
⁵ Neera Chandhoke ‘ The “Civil” and “the Political” in Civil Society’, Democratization, Summer 2001, p.8.
⁶ Mary Kaldor,’ Transnational civil society’, in Tim Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheeler, eds. Human Rights in Global Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p.197.
⁷ Karl Marx, ‘On the Jewish Question’, in: idem, Selected Writings, ed. by David McLellan, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977) p.54.
⁸ Karl Marx, ‘Towards a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Rights: Introduction’, in: idem, Selected Writings, ed. by David McLellan, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977) p.73.
⁹ Adam Seligman, ‘The Fragile Ethical Vision of Civil Society’, in Bryan S. Turner (ed.), Citizenship and Social Theory (London: Sage Publications, 1993)
¹⁰ Cecelia Lynch, ‘Social Movements and the problems of Globalization in the International Policy Process’ in Richard Higgott and Anthony Payne (eds.) The New Political Economy of Globalization, Vol. II (Cheltenham: Edward Edgar Publishing Limited, 2000), p.442.
¹¹ The adepts of the civil society-state integration approach, such as Gordon White, argue that a weak civic society is not necessarily conducive to democratisation, as it was the case of former Soviet Union where the push for reform came from within the Communist Party system (White, 1994: 380). This move was similar in many Eastern European countries like Romania, Hungary or Bulgaria, where although the former communists came in power in 1990 or soon after, they still pushed for reforms. Following the same argument, Seligman is sceptical about the utility of the concept of civic society for explaining the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe. He argues that the concept of civil society lost its original meaning thus is tactical rather than substantive in explaining the events in Eastern Europe. (Seligman, 1992: 7-8)
¹² Jean L. Cohen and Andrew Arato, Civil Society and political Theory (London: MIT Press, 1994), p.ix.
¹³ Gordon White, ‘Civil Society, Democratization and Development I’, Democratization, Vol.1, No. 3, autumn 1994, p.377.
¹⁴ Neera Chandhoke ‘The “Civil” and “the Political” in Civil Society’, Democratization, Summer 2001, p.11.
¹⁵ In order to understand this two sided view of the civil society it is enough to analyse the changes in Eastern Europe. The term civil society became again important in late 1970s and in the 1980s with the rise of anti-communist social movements in Eastern Europe. (White, 1994: 376) Scholars such as Baker, Hedman and, Kaldor, that sustain the antagonistic approach, believe that civil society was revived in the 1980s because it played a crucial role in overthrowing Communism and then supported the democratization process. (Baker, 1999: 1) These scholars see the civil society (comprised from intellectuals, activists and, trade union leaders) in Communist Eastern Europe as a societal space autonomous from the state that promotes freedom and democracy. (Baker, 1999: 3) Although in Eastern Europe the civil public transformed itself into a political public (Chandhoke, 2001: 3) it can not be said that civil society was the force that overthrew Communism since the reformation process came from the Communist elite itself and although the civil society was in the spotlight, it was weak.
¹⁶ Gordon White, ‘Civil Society, Democratization and Development I’, Democratization, Vol.1, No. 3, autumn 1994, p.379.
¹⁷ Mary Kaldor, ’Transnational civil society’, in Tim Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheeler, eds. Human Rights in Global Politics. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p.209.
¹⁸ Louis Kriesberg, 1997, ‘Social Movements and Global Transformation’ in Jackie G. Smith et. Al. (eds) Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity beyond the State (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1997), p. 3.
¹⁹ Ibid., p.18.
²⁰ Robin Cohen and Shirin M. Rai, ‘Global Social Movements: Towards a cosmopolitan politics’ in Robin Cohen and Shirin Rai (eds) Global Social Movements (London: The Athlone Press, 2000), p. 3.
²¹ Nowadays this vast assemblage of groups operates across borders and beyond the reach of governments, thus forming a global society whose viability depends on its ability to become more democratic and better integrated into governance institutions.
²² Robin Cohen and Shirin M. Rai, ‘Global Social Movements: Towards a cosmopolitan politics’ in Robin Cohen and Shirin Rai (eds) Global Social Movements (London: The Athlone Press, 2000), p.6.
²³ Ibid., p.6.
²⁴ According to Cohen and Arato, civil society is differentiated from the economy and the state because of four main characteristics that are of extreme relevance to the global context: plurality (family, voluntary associations), publicity (institutions of culture and communication), privacy (individual self development and moral choice) and legality (general laws and rights) (Cohen and Arato, 1994: 346)
²⁵ Louis Kriesberg, 1997, ‘Social Movements and Global Transformation’ in Jackie G. Smith et. Al. (eds) Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity beyond the State (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1997), pp.16-18.
²⁶ Smith, Jackie and Charles Chatfield, and Ron Pagnucco, ‘Social Movements and World Politics- A Theoretical Framework’ in Jackie G. Smith et. Al. (eds) Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity beyond the State (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 199) pp.73-74.
²⁷ Peter Newell, 2000, ‘Environmental NGOs and Globalisation: the Governance of TNCs’ in Robin Cohen and Shirin Rai (eds.) Global Social Movements, (London: The Athlone Press, 2000), p.124-130.
²⁸ In the first area of resistance Falk sees the future and viability of global social movements because this area creates “action that includes the construction of cultural foundations for politics of the future that lives up to the full range of normative pretension, grounded in an implicit sense that the peoples of the world must assume direct responsibility for the overall stewardship of the planet” (Falk, 1987: 181)
²⁹ Richard Falk, April 1987, ‘The Global Premise of Social Movements: Explorations at the Edge of Time’ Alternatives, vol. 12, no.2, pp. 180-188.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baker, Gideon, ‘The Taming of the Idea of Civil Society’, Democratization, autumn 1999, pp. 1-29.
Chandhoke, Neera, ‘ The “Civil” and “the Political” in Civil Society’, Democratization, summer 2001, pp. 1-24.
Cohen, Jean L. and Andrew Arato, Civil Society and political Theory. London: MIT Press, 1994.
Cohen, Robin and Shirin M. Rai, ‘Global Social Movements: Towards a cosmopolitan politics’ in Robin Cohen and Shirin Rai eds., Global Social Movements, London: The Athlone Press, 2000, pp. 1-17.
Falk, Richard, ‘The Global Premise of Social Movements: Explorations at the Edge of Time’, Alternatives, April 1987, vol. 12, no.2, pp. 173-196.
Kaldor, Mary,’ Transnational civil society’, in Tim Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheeler, eds. Human Rights in Global Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 195-213.
Kriesberg, Louis, ‘Social Movements and Global Transformation’ in Jackie G. Smith et. Al. eds., Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity beyond the State. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1997, pp.3-18.
Lynch, Cecelia, ‘Social Movements and the problems of Globalization in the International Policy Process’ in Richard Higgott and Anthony Payne eds., The New Political Economy of Globalization, Vol. II. Cheltenham: Edward Edgar Publishing Limited, 2000, pp.426-450.
Marx, Karl, ‘On the Jewish Question’, in: idem, Selected Writings, ed. by David McLellan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.
Marx, Karl, ‘Towards a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Rights: Introduction’, in: idem, Selected Writings, ed. by David McLellan, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.
Newell, Peter, ‘Environmental NGOs and Globalisation: the Governance of TNCs’ in Robin Cohen and Shirin Rai eds., Global Social Movements, London: The Athlone Press, 2000, pp. 117-133.
Seligman, Adam B., The Idea of Civil Society. The Free Press, 1992.
Smith, Jackie and Charles Chatfield, and Ron Pagnucco, ‘Social Movements and World Politics- A Theoretical Framework’ in Jackie G. Smith et. Al. eds., Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity beyond the State, Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1997, pp. 59-77.
White, Gordon, ‘Civil Society, Democratization and Development I’, Democratization, Vol.1, No. 3, autumn 1994, pp.375-390

DAN STOENESCU - Graduated from the University of Warwick, United Kingdom, with an MA in Globalisation and Development having as a focus terrorism and the Middle East. He also holds a BA in International Studies, summa cum laudae, from Austin College, Texas and an Associate's Degree in Political Science and Social Sciences, highest honours, from College of Alameda, California. Worked as a journalist for prestigious newspapers and magazines in Romania, United States, United Kingdom, and the Republic of Moldova. He worked in the Middle East for UNHCR and non-governmental organisations such as African Hope, in the United States for the Centre for the Survivors of Torture as well as in Central America for El Salvador’s Siglo XXIII. He was awarded the Rotary Ambassadorial Scholarship, First Phi Theta Kappa All-California Academic Team, Presbyterian Church USA Samuel Roberson award, and distinctions from California governor Gray Davis, assembly member Ms. Wilma Chan, and senator Don Perata. Mr. Stoenescu currently works as an operations assistant and researcher for the International Organization for Migration in Cairo, Egypt.

 sus