Defining Civil Society

The concept of civil society is complex partly because different writers emphasized different dimensions of it. In classical political thought and in theories based on natural law, civil society was indistinguishable from the state. Both concepts referred to a type of political association that governed social conflict through the imposition of rules to restrain citizens from harming one another. From Aristotle’s polis to Rousseau’s état, the state expressed the “civil” form of society, born when men install a superstructure of political authority as a means of obtaining the security and protection of all. (Bratton 1996: 53)

Liberal philosophers in the late eighteenth century began to distinguish a discrete form of civil society with a quite different rationale. Far from defining the nature of the state, civil society was seen as a means to limit the unprecedented concentration of power at the apex of the modern polity and defence against potential abuse of the society by the political leaders. (Keane1988:53) Keane extracts this emerging distinction between state and civil society through influential political texts written between 1750 and 1850, a period of intense democratic ferment in Europe and the New World. Adam Ferguson’s “Essay on the History of Civil Society” (1767) recognized that the solidarity of society was undermined not only by commerce and manufacturing but also by the emergence of a centralized constitutional state.

Therefore, according to Ferguson, one must guard against authoritarianism by developing independent “societies”. (Keane1988:43) To avoid authoritarianism, Ferguson emphasizes the creation and strengthening of citizen associations. (Ibid:

44, Rooy1998:8) Thomas Paine’s radical polemic on the “Rights of Man” (1792) went a step further asserting the sovereignty of the individual and considered government as a “national association” of citizens. Government had the duty to serve citizens in the “common interest” and individuals had political rights, including the right to withdraw consent from the social contract. For Paine, common interest based on natural human proclivity for social reciprocity was a far more effective means of consolidating collective power than a system of positive laws enacted and administered from above. (Bratton 1996: 53) Hegel asserted the countervailing ideas that a civil society that was too free might be producing

conflicts that need state control. Hegel, and later Marx, too has a tendency to equate civil society with bourgeois society. (Keane1988:604) De Tocqueville states that if independent citizen association are not able to maintain sufficient vigilance, even a democratically elected government would suffocate. All of the above make a clear distinction between the state and civil society that had not existed before. According to Rooy, “they are the anchors of today’s thinking of civil society”. (Rooy1998:8)

Perhaps the most articulate exponent of civil society in this era was Alexis De Tocqueville. He was concerned not only with the potential tyranny of the majority but also with the inherent contradictions among democratic principles of freedom and equality. To him, the state should be overseen and supervised by the

“independent eye of society”, a plurality of interacting, self-organized and constantly vigilant civil associations whose functions were to nurture basic rights, to advocate popular claims, and to educate citizens in the democratic arts of tolerance and accommodation. (Keane1988:61) In his book “Democracy in America”, De Tocqueville emphasized the importance of the role played by voluntary associations in the United States’ democracy. He wrote:

“Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fêtes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools.”(de Tocqueville 2000:211).

For de Tocqueville, civil associations contribute to the success of political systems.

Robert Putnam, according to whom democratic government is strengthened when it faces a vigorous civil society and building social capital is the key to making democracy work, supports de Tocqueville’s argument. (Putnam1993:184-185) For the liberals, civil society is the purest form of ordering social, economic, and political life. On the other hand, for the Marxists civil society is the arena of economic relations that determines the political order represented in the state (Rojas 1999:87). For Marx, civil society is the ensemble of relations embedded in the market; the agency that defines its character is the bourgeoisie. (Mamdani 1996:15)

The leading twentieth-century theorist of civil society, Antonio Gramsci, used Marxist categories but arrived at quite original conclusions. Civil society is the key concept and string point of his “Prison Notebook” (1929-1937). Gramsci makes a distinction between “political society”, which is the arena of political institutions

and legal constitutional control, and “civil society”, which is commonly seen as the

“private” or “non-state” sphere. According to Gramsci, the former is ruled directly through coercive and juristic instruments of domination and the latter promotes ethical values among the populace through the exercise of what is termed spiritual and ideological leadership. (Salamini 1981:137-147 cited in Bratton 1996:54)

According to neo-Tocquevilleans, civil associations are the major sources of social capital and their main benefit includes their capacity to foster norms of reciprocity, citizenship, social trust and provision of networks of social relations that can be mobilized to pursue shared goals for the common good. For neo-Tocquevilleans, civil society is a key variable for explaining the success of the democratic government, and a strong democratic state depends upon a strong civil society (Edwards et al. 2001:18, Whittington 2001:21). The representative or contestatory approach of civil society sees civil society "as a protection from undemocratic and unjust regimes" (Smith 2001:194). In this respect, Naidoo argues that authoritarian regimes look at civil society with suspicion for it is a political concept and is concerned with exercising power to advance and defend interests of citizens.

(Naidoo 2000: 4) In the space where people, the state, and the market interplay, civil society represents the interest of the people against the state and the market. Thus, the current understanding of civil society is largely Gramscian (Edwards et al.

2001).

Though civil society is an old idea, in the past two decades it has undergone massive global revival. (Lewis 2002:572) In these respect scholars, multilateral bodies and UN agencies like the World Bank and UNDP as well as various organizations, northern NGOs have defined civil society.

Naidoo summarized the concept of civil society as follows:

“Civil society’s principal role is in contributing to the creation of a healthy public life as one of several spheres of legitimate societal action. In its simplest conception, civil society is the network of autonomous associations that rights-bearing and responsibility- laden citizens voluntarily created to address common problems, advance shared interests, and promote collective aspirations. As a legitimate public actor, civil society participates alongside state and market institutions not replacing them in making and implementing public policies designed to resolve collective problems and advance the public good.” (2000:4).

According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), “civil society is a third sector existing alongside and interacting with the state and private industry”. (UNDP 2005:1) The World Bank uses the term “civil society” to refer to the wide array of non-governmental and not-for-profit organizations that are present in public life, expressing the interests and values of their members or others, based on ethical, cultural, political, scientific, religious or philanthropic considerations.

According to the World Bank, CSOs include community groups, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), labor unions, indigenous groups, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, and foundations. (World Bank 2006) Most of the northern NGOs use the term “civil society” to refer to the set of institutions, organizations and behavior situated between the state, the business world, and the family.

Regarding the components of society that constitute civil society, literature indicates that there is a general agreement about the inclusion of NGOs, professional, business, and trade associations, religious and cultural associations and those that advocate or represent the interests of specific groups, for example, women, young people or those with disabilities. (UNAIDS 2006:202, M’boge et al.

2004:5)

Despite this fact, there is an argument in the discourse that civil society is only a phenomenon of modern capitalist societies, and that the notion of civil society is associated with the development of modem capitalism and the dissolution of traditional values and it is less relevant to non-Western societies. (Helland 2004:15) According to some scholars, the nature of civil society in Africa is different or barely exists at all since capitalism has not fully developed in Africa and because African associational life depends on accretive rather than voluntary groupings.

Azarya questions whether many African voluntary associations based on ethnic identity or place of origin should be included as a part of civil society. He substantiates his proposal to their exclusion with the argument that kinship and primordial ties should be kept out of the civil space. He further argues, however, that there is transcendence to a larger collectively that in most cases goes beyond the family (Azarya 1994:94).

Not all organizations that keep their autonomy from the state and the market, and are formed voluntarily to promote the interests of members, however, qualify to be

part of civil society. According to Naidoo, “civil society is often not very civil”. In this respect, Naidoo argues that the Ku Klux Klan, the Mafia or a wide range of terrorist organizations fail to meet the normative criteria of civil society because

“they do not demonstrate civic values and democratic practices that include tolerance, inclusion, non-violence, commitment to promoting the public good.”

Rather, civil society should only encompass associational life that demonstrates civic values (Naidoo 2000:8).

The objectives of the associations should be rather limited and specific, but they should not be too parochial and inward-oriented. According to Azarya, they should be located at a “center of society”, endowed with developed participatory structures and some autonomous resources. (Azarya 1996: 95) This is indeed not easy for African voluntary associations to fulfil and it helps little in clarifying the ambiguity surrounding inclusion in civil society.

Chazan excludes “parochial” associations, the local, informal, traditional, indigenous community based associations, on the grounds that their agenda does not go beyond the immediate concerns and day-to-day problems of their localized members and they do not “address the state”. “Populist” organizations such as religious, ethnic and regionally based associations that promote “sectarian” interests are not to be part of civil society because they do not have a concept of the state independent of their own aims; they fragment the public sphere and may attempt to capture the state. Religious fundamentalist movements are also to be excluded from civil society. The argument in this case is that they are holistic associations that see themselves as total alternatives to the state and want to capture the state and institute themselves in its place. Civil society, by contrast, does not want to take over the state. It recognises the state’s existence, wants to be in contact with it, and tries to restrain its power and influence its policies. (Chazan 1992:23 cited in Azarya 1996:95)

These views highlight the contradictions and the uncertainty involved in the application of the concept of “civil society” in the African context. The inclusion of every association and organisation that lies between the family and the state may stretch the scope of the concept too much and cause ambiguities, while the exclusion of the “populist” and “parochial” associations will narrow the scope but exclude the most prevalent forms of associational life. It may rather be argued, following the

World Bank’s view expressed earlier, that civil society needs to be regarded within the social and political context of the country concerned. (World Bank 2006) In this respect, Lewis (2002) examined the usefulness of the concept of civil society in African contexts, and rejected the argument that the concept would be less applicable outside its Western origins. He concluded that the concept of civil society can potentially be “useful to think with” and it may be “useful to act with” (Lewis 2002:582).

The following definition derived from the synthesis of the previous work done on civil society will be the one used in this work.

An intermediate realm situated between state and household, populated by organised groups or associations which are separate from the state, enjoy some autonomy in relation with the state, and are formed voluntarily by members of society to protect or extend their interests, values and identities (IDS 1998:7).

Though this definition of civil society appears simple and straightforward it contains serious problems. Most of the existing “intermediate” organizations in Africa do not feature the characteristics one would wish to associate with truly civic organizations, such as full autonomy and voluntary participation or do so only partially because they are to some extent dependent on the state or external agencies. Many African social groups are informal and there is the question of state or party related organisations, which legally and ideologically claim to be members of civil society.

This is an obvious issue in the Ethiopian context.