Different Views
Different Views
Organizations
Different views on civil society (Liberal vs. Critical)
NGOs and ‘civil society’
• During the last two decades, the concept of ‘civil society’ has
been revivedfrom its eighteenth-century roots in the work of
political scientists and philosophers searching for an
understanding of what happens in the organized ‘associational
realm’ which lies between the family and the state.
• This revival of the idea of civil society has taken place not only
within the development industry: but is now increasingly
invoked as part of wider debates about politics and
democratization, public participation and welfare service
delivery, as well as in connection with campaigning and
advocacy at the international level.
NGOs and ‘civil society’
• “a sphere of social interaction between the household and the state which
is manifest in norms of community co-operation (trust, tolerance,
inclusion, joining), structures of voluntary association (citizens coming
together into voluntary associations both local/national, formal/informal)
and networks of public communication (pluralist media, personal access
to communication technology etc.)”
• This view sees civil society as a source of civic responsibility and public
virtue, and as a place where organized citizens – including NGOs – can
make a contribution to the public good. The liberal tradition emphasizes
the socializing effects of association, which helps to build ‘better citizens’.
The concept of civil society to which development agencies have been
drawn is based upon the idea of an interdependent organic relationship
between market economy, state and civil society.
Liberal view on Civil Society
• There are two key ways to understand civil society. The first
perspective derives from Alexis de Tocqueville’s (1805-
1859) sanguine assessment of civil society in the United
States during the 19th century. According to followers of de
Tocqueville, civil society is an ‘autonomous area of liberty
incorporating an organizational culture that builds both
political and economic democracy’.
• A range of non-voting factors that Tocqueville examines, the
most influential has been his emphasis on associations.
Debates about associations were already central to
ideological and constitutional conflicts inside democratic
America by the time Tocqueville wrote.
• In this perspective, civil society is considered a
counterweight to, and essentially separated from, state
power and market forces.
NGOs and ‘civil society’
• In the liberal view, which is the one which has been most
popular with governments and donors, civil society is seen
as an arena of organized citizens which acts as a balance
on state and market, as a place where civic democratic
values can be upheld, and in a normative sense civil
society is considered on the whole in this view to be a
‘good thing’.
• Much of the writing on NGOs has been influential is shaped
by the liberal view.
Civil society and Democracy
Civil society and Democracy
• Civil society organisations can be co-opted by the state, such as those coined Government
Organised NGOs (GONGOs), which are dependent on government funds. The private sector
can also significantly shape civil society organisations, reflected in the categorisation of
Business Organised NGOs (BONGOs) and Business Interested NGOs (BINGOs).
• One of the criticisms which has been made of this approach is that it is often deployed in a
rather ‘apolitical’ sense. The critical view of civil society recognizes that the conflicts over
power and politics which take place in civil society may be important for formal political
processes and cannot easily be separated from them.
• The capacity of NGOs to play a civil society role is contingent on the specific character and
power of the state, and for developing countries in particular on the international political
environment.
• In many countries, individuals may move between NGOs, the government and opposition
political parties as the vehicles for political change. After the change of government in the
Philippines in 1986 which ended the authoritarian Marcos regime, there were many activists
from the NGO sector who accepted jobs in the new administration because they saw
government as a potentially more effective base for putting ideas into action.
Criticism
• Donor support to civil society strengthening has often been through the funding of
NGOs, though this has led in practice to support for service delivery NGOs rather than
for more militant advocacy NGOs which might challenge the policies of the government
and the donors keen to maintain the ‘new policy agenda’.
• At the same time, when NGOs have become involved in political movements they have
been criticized.
• For example, the participation of NGOs and other civil society actors in recent political
struggles in Bangladesh during the 1990s led to criticisms that NGOs were getting ‘too
involved’ in politics, but their supporters have argued that such involvements are not
only legitimate, but form an essential part of NGOs’ development role.
• When some of the main NGOs joined the opposition political party and other groups to
demand that a caretaker government be installed to preside over national elections in
1996, NGO leaders defended their actions by arguing that civil society organizations
could not avoid involvement in vital political actions which had major implications for all
citizens, and particularly the poor
Criticism
• Another set of critical criticisms of the liberal view of civil society is its
normative character, which assumes that civil society is a ‘good
thing’.
• Much has been made of the fact that civil society can include organized
groups of many kinds and may include religious fundamentalists and
political bigots as well as developmental or progressive organizations.
Najam points out that the racist Ku Klux Klan organization in the United
States is an organization of civil society, while Putzel has argued in a
similar vein about the ‘dark side of social capital’. It is difficult therefore
to conceptualize civil society as being always positive. (Example: Former
Yugoslavia.)
Criticism
• Both liberal and critical conceptions of civil society provide different perspectives on the
roles of NGOs in political processes
• In the Philippines, the liberal or de Tocquevillian view shows the ways in which NGOs have
moved into territories previously occupied by political parties which found it difficult to adapt
to the changing realities of human rights, environment, minorities and gender interests.
• But in the critical or Gramscian perspective it is also possible in the Philippines to use civil
society theory to understand how NGOs have ultimately helped to institutionalize contested
political interests.
• critical militant social movements which developed under the Marcos dictatorship have
become diffused in the post-Marcos era, and NGOs have contributed to the reduction of this
anti-state pressure by absorbing activists into more legitimate ‘development’ and human
rights concerns, and by strengthening the state.
• But the contradictions in the liberal view of seeking to strengthen NGOs as a proxy for
strengthening civil society, and the dangers of taking an apolitical view, point to the need for
NGOs and donors to pay more attention to critical ideas about civil society in seeking to
explain and inform development action.
Internal democracy in NGOs
• The debates about NGO roles in ‘strengthening’ civil society are only one
aspect of the ways in which the concepts of NGO and civil society have
become intertwined.
• An important issue for NGO management is the extent to which NGOs as
organizations display characteristics of civil society within their structures
and processes. In other words, the very existence of NGOs with
internal democratic processes is sometimes taken to be an
indicator of civil society, since the values of participation, cooperation,
trust and internal democracy may help to foster wider political processes
by example.
• Leaders within third sector organizations are not only ‘guardians’ of civil
society with civic responsibilities outside their organizations, but are also
‘responsible for expressions of civil society within their organizations’.