"Civil Society" - The New Leftist Buzzword

[August1991]

I was listening to a news report from Copenhagen and in an interview, an activist kept referring to "civil society". What?

I then read this in a blog about a potential draft agreement:

However, on the issue of long-term financing, civil society has been calling for annualized funding to developing nations of US $195 billion globally by 2020.

Some Blog

So who is this "civil society"? Here's the wikipedia definition:

Civil society is composed of the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations and institutions that form the basis of a functioning society as opposed to the force-backed structures of a state (regardless of that state's political system) and commercial institutions of the market.

Wikipedia

I have the distinct impression that "civil society" is the new fancy word for NGO (non-governmental organization).

The UN has even had a Panel study on Civil Society:

In his report to the 57th General Assembly [A/57/387 - PDF, 175K], the Secretary-General highlighted the engagement of civil society as an aspect of the UN Reform process and announced that he would "assemble a group of eminent persons representing a variety of perspectives and experiences to review past and current practices and recommend improvements for the future in order to make the interaction between civil society and the United Nations more meaningful."

UN

I'm not certain what this means anymore. I have a strong suspicion however that "civil society" includes a mixed bag of activist groups who enjoy either direct State subsidies or indirect tax exemption/charitable status. These groups seek power through extra-democratic means.

[Michael Hardner]

I have the distinct impression that "civil society" is the new fancy word for NGO (non-governmental organization).

That's the #1 myth about Civil Society !

Ten Myths about Civil Society

Myth #1: That civil society is only made up only of NGOs. As a sector, we tend to focus on what is different about us, instead of on our commonalities, he commented, and we tend to use words that obscure some organizations, while shining a light on others. The use of the word "NGO" for example, has its own connotation of development work to facilitate social change, but "NGO" leaves out other valid sources of nonprofit activity, including hospitals, universities, human rights organizations, trade associations, sports clubs, grassroots and other nonprofit groups. There are a number of different models that work, that are also representative of civil society; therefore, it is possible to broaden the term.

These groups seek power through extra-democratic means.

And ?

Power isn't only gained through democratic means, in fact I'd argue that democratic power is subordinate to economic power.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I'm not certain what this means anymore. I have a strong suspicion however that "civil society" includes a mixed bag of activist groups who enjoy either direct State subsidies or indirect tax exemption/charitable status. These groups seek power through extra-democratic means.

With regard to the definition of "civil society", it would be much like Maslow's "hierarchy of needs", wherein the luxury of a civil society depends largely on the lower bases of economic stability, historical conflict resolution (i.e. wars), exploitation, social order, etc., etc.

[August1991]

These groups seek power through extra-democratic means.

The UN has given certain groups standing at the Copenhagen conference. More generally, these groups want to have a place at the table. They are "stakeholders", to use another term.

It is ironic when a group like Greenpeace enjoys tax-free status, breaks the law by climbing public buildings and then calls itself a part of "civil society".

How utterly presumptuous, and false. "Civil society"? Same clowns, different circus.

Edited December 18, 2009 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

The UN has given certain groups standing at the Copenhagen conference. More generally, these groups want to have a place at the table. They are "stakeholders", to use another term.

It is ironic when a group like Greenpeace enjoys tax-free status, breaks the law by climbing public buildings and then calls itself a part of "civil society".

How utterly presumptuous, and false. "Civil society"? Same clowns, different circus.

But corporations that flout laws, deceive and get away the maximum amount of damage possible are entitled to be stakeholders, why ?

Climbing a building is referred to as 'civil disobedience' - breaking laws to effect change and get attentoin.

[August1991]

ut corporations that flout laws, deceive and get away...

Do they?

Fraud artists maybe. But corporate officers lose everything, and go to jail. Fraud artists? Where is Bernie Madoff now?

[August1991]

But corporations that flout laws, deceive and get away the maximum amount of damage possible are entitled to be stakeholders, why ?

Climbing a building is referred to as 'civil disobedience' - breaking laws to effect change and get attentoin.

Do they?

Fraud artists and corporate officers lose everything, and go to jail?

Where is Bernie Madoff now?

Edited April 4, 2010 by August1991

[Bonam]

"Civil Society"

Sounds like the Chinese concept of the "Harmonious Society".

Edited April 4, 2010 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

Do they?

Fraud artists and corporate officers lose everything, and go to jail?

Where is Bernie Madoff now?

If we listen to environmental polluters, we can definitely listen to an eco lobby group that climbed a few buildings.

[eyeball]

Same clowns, different circus.

These groups seek power through extra-democratic means too.

corporate society, corporatism These terms refer to a type of society in which various large-scale corporate organizations with powerful vested interests are involved in the economic, social and political decision-making process.

Source

Same shit, different bucket, a vastly bigger bucket too I bet.

Edited April 4, 2010 by eyeball

[bloodyminded]

These groups seek power through extra-democratic means too.

Source

Same shit, different bucket, a vastly bigger bucket too I bet.

Obviously I agree. But the tendency is to support powerful institutions--as the very fact of their power gives them legitimacy (not objectively, but in the minds of the Defenders of the Faith)--whereas any critics of Power are to be held, evidently, to a far, far higher standard of behaviour.

[nicky10013]

That's the #1 myth about Civil Society !

Ten Myths about Civil Society

These groups seek power through extra-democratic means.

And ?

Power isn't only gained through democratic means, in fact I'd argue that democratic power is subordinate to economic power.

Yet, democracy can't exist without a vibrant civil society. Yes civil society includes NGOs like Amnesty International or War Child, but even things as small as bowling leagues. Robert Putnam has a really interesting work on specifically that. Civil Society is space that allows for non-governmental organizations. All types of views can be raised and it engages the citizenry in a wide array of different topics. Book clubs, sports clubs, trade unions and a litany of other different types of groups exist to enhance society. They can't gain power, but as an organization, it can attempt to gain enough support to sway government decisions. Afterall in a democratic country, society is merely a group of organizations that are pushing and pulling governments in an attempt to influence outcomes. Some may be more overtly political than others, but they're legitimate, independent expressions of popular will.

Democracy can't exist without a civil society because there is no outlet for these activities when civil society simply doesn't exist. In authoritarian countries, the only legal outlet which you can organize is through the government, and is therefore controlled by the government.

Example. Russia has no civil society. All independent groups are either marginalized or completely shut down. There was only one independent organization, called memorial, which was an organization with the goal of bringing to light all of stalin's crimes and to educate the Russian people on the extent of the repressions that took place. About 2 years ago now, Russian police stormed their offices and confiscated their computers on the fraudulent charges that they were dealing drugs.

Edited April 9, 2010 by nicky10013

[Pliny]

Book clubs, sports clubs, trade unions and a litany of other different types of groups exist to enhance society. They can't gain power, but as an organization, it can attempt to gain enough support to sway government decisions.

Government decisions for what? Free books for book clubs, or no taxes on books, or burn certain books?

Or for trade unions it is perhaps, the minimum wage, or licensing, or apprenticeships or...

Special interests all....

Not the role of government in my view. Those interests should decide those things among themselves.

Afterall in a democratic country, society is merely a group of organizations that are pushing and pulling governments in an attempt to influence outcomes. Some may be more overtly political than others, but they're legitimate, independent expressions of popular will.

What do you mean, "popular will".. is that the same as the collective will?

Isn't a democratic society based upon individual votes? If society is merely a group of organizations pushing and pulling governments, then it is about "special interests"

Unfortunately, I believe that a federal government has no business providing service or favour to any group over the interests of the nation and should not cater to special interests but concern itself with the entire nation in it's policies.

Legitimate, independent expressions of popular will do not need anything from government.

Democracy can't exist without a civil society because there is no outlet for these activities when civil society simply doesn't exist. In authoritarian countries, the only legal outlet which you can organize is through the government, and is therefore controlled by the government.

Example. Russia has no civil society. All independent groups are either marginalized or completely shut down. There was only one independent organization, called memorial, which was an organization with the goal of bringing to light all of stalin's crimes and to educate the Russian people on the extent of the repressions that took place. About 2 years ago now, Russian police stormed their offices and confiscated their computers on the fraudulent charges that they were dealing drugs.

Obviously, there was a group or "special interest" that didn't like "memorial" and the government shut it down. In Russia, the special interests have become the government.

In Canada, the special interests live off the government.

Or..errr... wait a second! Is it the special interests that control government or government that controls special interests? I suppose it depends if government is some ethereal entity or a collection of special interests or really the voice of the people.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

Government decisions for what? Free books for book clubs, or no taxes on books, or burn certain books?

Or for trade unions it is perhaps, the minimum wage, or licensing, or apprenticeships or...

Special interests all....

Government decisions such as what to do about problems that face all of us. Such problems include: environmental issues, transportation planning, urban planning, economic planning, disadvantaged people falling though the cracks, the social safety net, disadvantaged groups falling through the cracks, education, energy planning.

Like that.

[nicky10013]

Government decisions for what? Free books for book clubs, or no taxes on books, or burn certain books?

Or for trade unions it is perhaps, the minimum wage, or licensing, or apprenticeships or...

Special interests all....

Not the role of government in my view. Those interests should decide those things among themselves.

They can do whatever they please. If a book club wants to rally the government for cheaper paper, they can. If they just want to sit around and talk smack about Stephen Harper or Jean Chretien, they can do that as well. A point you clearly missed is that the organizations have the freedom to organize and if they want to, petition the government. In the end, socially, the structure of democracies is nothing more than that of different organizations interacting with the government. Whether one holds the view that the government is equal, subservient or more powerful than these community groups is up for discussion. Yet, there can be no democracy without this interplay.

What do you mean, "popular will".. is that the same as the collective will?

Isn't a democratic society based upon individual votes? If society is merely a group of organizations pushing and pulling governments, then it is about "special interests"

Unfortunately, I believe that a federal government has no business providing service or favour to any group over the interests of the nation and should not cater to special interests but concern itself with the entire nation in it's policies.

Legitimate, independent expressions of popular will do not need anything from government.

Obviously, there was a group or "special interest" that didn't like "memorial" and the government shut it down. In Russia, the special interests have become the government.

In Canada, the special interests live off the government.

Or..errr... wait a second! Is it the special interests that control government or government that controls special interests? I suppose it depends if government is some ethereal entity or a collection of special interests or really the voice of the people.

Democracy is much more than just elections. It's a plethora of civic and judicial rights combined into a system of representation. One of those rights is the ability for citizens or groups of citizens to appeal to the government that represents them. In the end, if an individual or a group goes before our government and makes an appeal that makes sense, why shouldn't the government adopt it? That's not "special interests" that's democracy in action. "Special Interests" is a term that applies to companies that pay for the privelege of a representative's vote or ear. Though it happens, especially in countries with incredibly weak contribution regulations, just because it does happen is no reason to turn off one of the things that truly makes a democracy a democracy. It seems to me that you're just labelling everything you don't like with the term "special interests" which is neither accurate nor fair.

Also, there are no special interests in Russia, or other authoritarian countries for that matter. The government controls industry, not the other way around. Without truly public and private space in which people can organize, there can be no democracy. End of story.