Development of Civil Society and Democratization in the Middle East

• Author: Sujata Ashwarya Cheema
• Pages: 445-455

Sujata Ashwarya Cheema. Sujata Ashwarya Cheema, Assistant Professor, Ph.D., Centre for West Asian Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi 110025 (e-mail: sacheema.cwas@jmi.ac.in).

Keywords: civi society, democracy, Middle East, islamist associations

Page 445

Introduction

Civil Society is a term used to denote groups and organizations (non-state and non-governmental) that advocate the diverse interests of various sections of society. The existence of a civil society indicates that people are part and parcel of democratic governance, where liberty and the right to associate without fear or pressure, constitute the foundational principles of social order. The individual is the fundamental category of the notion of civil society, as the latter is the product of his free will and action. It is difficult, therefore, to imagine the existence of civil society in an authoritarian political order, where individual liberty is subordinated to the dictates of the regime. Democracy and civil society are linked in a relationship of mutuality. Liberty and democracy fosters the development of civil society and a vibrant civil society by aggregating and articulating the interests of people expands the democratic space. This space constitutes a vital link between individual and the state. It is a conduit through which people communicate their aims and aspirations to the state. The state is then able to carry out informed distribution of values and resources. Civil society, by constantly debating issues in the process of interest articulation, maintains a vigilant eye on the actions of government, thus keeping a check on possible abuses of power.

The London School of Economics Centre for Civil Society defines civil society in the sense that we are familiar with: “Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated. Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power. Civil societies are often populated by organisations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organisations, community groups, women's organisations, faith-based organisations, professional associations, trades unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy group.”¹

The term has acquired common currency in the in the early 1990s as a result of significant events in international politics that set the tone for the coming decades. First, the demise of authoritarian regimes of the Soviet-East European block in the late 1980s and the emergence of societies free to engage in associational activities without the fearing a clamp down gave boost to the notion of civil society. Second, groups representing, advocating, and fulfilling citizens’ interests became significant aspects of political and social life with the shrinking of state in the developing world as a result of the impact of globalization. Third, under the Washington consensus, donor agencies such as the World Bank and IMF channelled loans to debt-riddenPage 446 countries bypassing inefficient and corrupt governments to non-governmental organizations in the name of strengthening people’s participation in the development process. Moreover, withdrawal of people from electoral process in developed countries (evidence in the declining percentage of voter turnout in the US and Europe) and a prevailing sense of apathy among them rendered civil society an attractive notion. It had the potential to reengage people back into the political life by initiating debates on issues of common concern, thus fostering solidarity in the public sphere.²

With the emergence of a plethora of social movements on a global scale in the early 1990s, embodied in ecology movement, gay rights movement and various peace movements, among others, civil society emerged as a key terrain of affirmative action to construct ‘an alternative social and world order.’³ There is an increasing recognition that international organizations and national governments have to recognize the significance of civil society in the life of the citizens. The United Nations set up a high level panel on civil society ‘with a view to identifying new and better ways to interact with non-governmental organizations and other civil society organizations; to identify ways of making it easier for civil society actors from developing countries to participate fully in United Nations activities; and to facilitate, manage and evaluate the relationships of the United Nations with civil society and to learn from experience gained in different parts of the system.’⁴ The Civil Dialogue initiated by the European Commission in the 1990s was a first attempt by the European Union to give the institutions of society and businesses a voice at the policy-making tables.⁵ In the same spirit, a 2004 report of the WTO, advises nation-states on the best way to share sovereignty for mutual benefit and examines the impact of what authors call the ‘global associational revolution’. They consider the rise and influence of civil society to be irreversible and advise the WTO on how best to engage with and negotiate with the non-state actors.⁶ One can stay that civil society is here to stay and although scholars, political activists, and policy makers acclaim the notion, there is also a trend to take a critical look at the concept.

History of the Concept

While philosophers have since the days of the city-state of Greece tried to understand the pressing issues of their time – concerning the nature of the state and society, powers and practices of the state and government; rights and duties of citizen; coexistence of individual and collective good; the expanse and limit of freedom; management of differences of capacity and opinions; and dispensation of justice – employing civil society as a framework to understand these issues emanates from an eminently modern conception of individual, society and state. Civil society is based upon the notion of individual rights and liberty: free individuals associate to regulate their lives in a manner compatible with their self-interest. The concept of civil society can be directly related to the rise of capitalism which has individualism as its foundational principle. It is therefore essentially a modern concept. The Greeks for example would not have appreciated the conceptPage 447 because they had no notion of inalienable individual rights. They did not distinguish between state and society. State was an ethical entity, an end in itself because human beings could attain self-perfection and self-fulfillment only through the state.⁷

The theories of social contract which emerged to justify the emerging bourgeois society considered state to be an artificial creation, a product of a contract among free individuals. The state became necessary because human beings were incapable of living without the existence of a defined political authority. While English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) emphasized the need for an absolute power because this alone could save men from anarchy and chaos, John Locke (1632-1704) supported a limited state. Both held that the essence of human nature can be gainfully understood in conditions of the ‘state of nature’, a logical abstraction from society. Hobbes asserted that human beings are motivated by self-interests. More often than not, the interest of one human being is contradictory with the interest of the other. All human beings are equal (the nature having made them so in the faculties of body and mind), such that, as Hobbes says, no one can claim for himself any benefit to which another may not pretend.⁸ Therefore, the state of nature is a condition of war of all against all. In such as situation life is ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.’⁹ Guided by the instinct of self-preservation, which illuminates their reason, individuals realize the need for a mechanism to protect themselves.

Each individual, thus, agrees to enter into a covenant with another, to give up one’s natural liberty and sovereignty to a common power. Hobbes calls the multitude so united in a common power, state, or Leviathan. Hobbes does not distinguish between the State and society; the contract establishes both. It appears that Hobbes proposes two kinds of relationships: One, between the individuals and the sovereign, in which the former by their own free will, submitted to the latter; and second among the individuals, wherein, under the watchful eyes of the Leviathan, are compelled for reasons of peace and security, to limit their natural rights in a way that would be compatible with the rights of the others. The first arrangement denotes the state and the second represents the civil society. Hobbes’ paradigm shows that the state is imperative for the sustenance of civil society.¹⁰

Another theorist of social contract, John Locke, put forward the concept of a limited state and a limited society. In Locke’s view, individuals are both social and rational and therefore the state of nature is peaceful and orderly. It is governed by the law of nature. In the state of nature individuals possess the right of liberty, health and property. However, it was marked by uncertainties because the laws of nature were understood by the individuals in their own way and was therefore not definite. This threatened natural rights and regression of society into anarchy. It was out of this concern that people enter into a contract and constitute a common public authority. In two treaties of Civil Government, Locke sets forth the...