The Attributes and Dimensions of Civil Society

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.

constitutionally guaranteed and enforced, and public life should allow for a free space that permits voluntarily formed associations the right to act independently from the state and the market. (Naidoo 2000:5)

Civil Society is shaped by the behaviour of the state, too. (Smith 2001:19) Civil society exists, even if in defensive or underground form under all types of political regimes. Under authoritarian rule, for example, civil society organizations will either be eliminated or be absorbed by the state; civic associations engaged in the promotion of sensitive issues such as human rights, and the rule of law in developing countries may get into acrimonious and antagonistic relations with the state (Bratton 1989:429).

Civil society’s central function is the establishment of bridges between society and government and the harmonization of the respective purposes. Civil society organizations act as brokers between government and society, as symbol of actual political norm-setters, agents of change and regulators of the process of participation in societal norm-setting. They integrate groups by articulating political interests into a viable process, they represent particular interests and are the midwives of regime change. These avenues of function are not ends in themselves; they are rather a means to achieving norm formation, which is a fundamental purpose of civil society.

However, the norms which civil society defines may reciprocally influence the avenues chosen (Harbeson 1996: 22-23).

An obvious precondition is that civil society should not be formed or controlled by the state; otherwise they would simply be agents of state hegemony and would undermine civil society rather than strengthen it and the expression of civic interest does not extend to efforts to gain and exercise control over state power. Although there is no disagreement on the necessity of autonomy from the state, in practice it is more difficult to determine the degree of state control over associations. (Bratton 1996: 75, Mamdani 1996). Bratton argues that instead of pre-judging the nature of the relationships between the state and civil society we should adopt a more flexible analytical framework of “disengagement versus engagement” (1989: 428).

Civil society institutions vary from small membership organizations, mainly engaged in self-help activities, to large and medium scale organisations engaged in all sorts of service, development and advocacy activities. Accordingly, they differ in

their style of organisation, internal democracy and level of membership participation. However, voluntary membership and participation are the important characteristics and principles of civic organisations. (British Council 2004:22) Institutional pluralism enables citizens to assemble voluntarily outside the state and market to pursue collective or public purposes. The notion of plurality indicates not only the presence of large numbers and types of associations and organisations occupying the public sphere but also a diversity of interests, objectives, organisational forms and capacities. (Harbeson 1996:23) Density and diversity of associational life is the principal sign of institutional pluralism. The greater the density and diversity of associational life the more channels citizens have to express their interests in public life. Institutional pluralism provides an opportunity for citizens to enjoy overlapping memberships based on their varied interests, which cuts across a range of societal cleavages like race, class, ethnicity, region that tend to divide rather than unite people. (Naidoo 2000:6) This intrinsic diversity in origin and ideas is one of civil society’s main contributions to democratic governance.

(Welch et al.: 88)

Despite the fact that civil society promotes the health of political and economic life it should be emphasized that it does not form a homogenous group. The interests and motivations of civil society organizations vary extremely, and change depending on the nature and deportment of the government of the day. (Harbeson 1996:23) This is why the contributions of civil societies vary from one country to another as they depend on the stage of development of the civil society organizations, individual countries’ needs, and the degree of openness towards their involvement. (Welch et al.: 89) The way civil society is institutionalized will vary and change over time in response to the circumstances. It is important to recognize that civil society processes may be strong or weak, inchoate or clearly articulated.

Events in contemporary Somalia, for instance, signify that civil society is, for various reasons, on the verge of extinction (Harbeson 1996:23). It is difficult to build civil society under anarchy and violent conditions of a failed state. Under such circumstances, trust and norms of reciprocity are extremely low or even absent. The collapsed state is not in the position of enforcing social cooperation (Posner 2004:

246).

In regard with the structural, functional dimensions, specialization and differentiation of civil society is concerned at a certain point emerging civil societies will reach a critical mass of associational density and diversity. At this level, the structure of civil society begins to differentiate and CSOs begin to develop specialized functions (Naidoo 2000:6). According to Naidoo, a vigorous civil society is generally shaped like a pyramid, whose base is a vast array of primary-level organizations channeling citizen voices outward and upward through dialogue with public decision makers. A smaller set of intermediary associations provides support to primary-level organizations, but they also channel citizen voices further upward. The higher level hosts networks that echo the voices of these lower-stratum CSOs in national arenas. There will be also specialized organizations that support civil society as a whole, providing policy analysis, training, sectoral and other services that help to magnify the voice of civil society as a partner in governance (2000:6).

Distinct from the state and market, civil society, has a “values domain”, with a set of civic norms and democratic practices that distinguish it from other realms of human interaction. This domain derives from the normative dimension of social capital and a set of values of corresponding behaviors, such as trust, reciprocity, solidarity, tolerance, and inclusion. It fosters the individual’s confidence to enter into relationships of mutual benefit and collective action. (Naidoo 2000:6)

Trust and solidarity refer to the mutuality and confidence individual members place on the reliability of the behaviour and actions of fellow members. For example, in informal community-based organisations, mutual dependence is the binding factor rather than published rules and regulations. Trust and solidarity, however, do not necessarily imply the absence of competition and conflict in associational life. As civic associations grow in size and complexity, trust and solidarity become diluted and assume more abstract and remote characteristics. (British Council 2004:22)

According to Naidoo, association enables individuals to test their ability to work together without fear of sanction and they promise a reward for their efforts as they are based on horizontal relationships among equals. This is a socially acquired trait and associations are the principal generators of social capital. Social capital can be considered as a bridge between individuals and groups; and even from civil society to the state and market. These fundamental social values which are based on

individual motivation and the ability to associate together in common cause will provide civic glue that binds the social fabric into a cohesive whole. Besides, it reinforces healthy public life because it makes civic values including voluntarism, philanthropy, and public-spiritedness grow and develop. Civic norms and the institutional networks enable individuals and even groups to transcend their personal narrow interests and to conceive of a public good to which they can contribute and benefit. In this respect, social capital not only promotes healthy transactions but lets political and economic life flourish (2000:6-7).