Civil Society in Nepal: The Concept

-Dev Raj Dahal, T.U, Nepal

When Cicero deliberated upon civilas societas before 400 BC, he was evidently referring to civil equal participants but had unequal abilities. This excluded the slaves and outsiders. For the Greeks, the civil society embodied in the polis emerged as autonomous units between the family and the state. It was formed by faith and concerned with preserving a space beyond the bounds of state laws. Shared values, interests, practice and commitments to collective actions tied these intermediary units. They acted through the citizens' collective will and confirmed to the essence of human freedom. The world of civil society was the world of freedom, predetermined neither by custom nor state laws. Emmanuel Kant formulated the concept of civic union or civil society and separated its domain into private and public, that is, the domain of virtue and the domain of right (Rundell, 1987:21). G.W.F.Hegel furnished a state-centric view of the civil society under-scoring the extension and entrenchment of state power and the realization of an imminent historical ideal (Levis, 1992:35).

Rundell says, " humaneness, for Hegel, is irreductible tied to society's progressive rational domination of nature and the rational articulation of political life through the development of statehood (Rundell 1987:45). He made functional separation of society into two different spheres: " civil society as the systematic domain of homo-economicus, and the state as the systematic domain as the homo-politicus" (Rundell 1987:87)". The modern version of civil society adds into it a third domain homo-cogitans, home of knowledge or the cognitive orientation of human beings into the democratization of debate and the rationalization of the sovereignty of people. Each sphere comprises a multiplicity of autonomous institutions and associations.

Karl Marx viewed civil society as a "bourgeoisie space constitution itself against the state" in which the activities of State Officials could be criticized through open arguments and debate. Antonio Gramsci called it the "hegemony of a class claming to represent the nation". " The idea of hegemony, " writes Ramond, is "especially important in societies in which electoral politics and public opinion are significant factors and in which social practice is seen to depend on consent to certain dominant ideas which in fact express the needs of a dominant class" (Swift 1999:50). The modern version of civil society constitute an "intermediary public sphere between the state and the market" where the ideals of democracy and the human rights are realized. Contractual and utilitarian theorists like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, J.J. Rousseau, and J.S.Mill attempted to entrench individual liberty, social contract and property rights in the state of nature. Liberalism attempted to limit the powers of the state and delimit a private sphere independent of state actions. Later democratic theorists have stressed unsocialized networks of reciprocal relations and constitutionalization of societies. These different conceptions of civil society have naturally engendered rival accounts of their origin.

After the loss of its traditional meaning, civil society has been seen to correspond to the Habermasian notion to "rationalization of life-world" through the power of people to imagine, reflect, organize, communicate and act voluntarily for public interests argues Hbermas, " a robust civil society can develop only in the context of a liberal political culture and corresponding patterns of socialization, and on the basis of an integral private sphere; it can blossom only in an already rationalized life-world" (Hambermas 1997:371). A critical discourse free from state-sanctioned politics is central to the shaping of a new social ordering, public service and self-governance of society. In a democracy, political power is a representative of broad majorities. Today a small number of elite exercise in ordinate power with low representatives, capture the state, tend to set regulatory conditions on the majority and yet work to grant them reasonable public services.

Modern society has three basic components "capital, state and then people with all their associations and organizations, constituting civil society" (Galtung 1996:152). Civil society is a multitude of autonomous human associations, identities, networks of movements forged for the sake of protecting themselves the arbitrary and the unjust decisions of the holders of power and wealth and promoting their rational self-interest. The art of association is the core feature of civic spirit. Political and economic societies are the dominant parts of human lives, yet both contain a common utilitarian propensity: the political society seeks to maximize power while the economic society seeks to maximize wealth. Both leave off those territories, which do not produce profits. In such a situation, who takes care of non-profit sectors? The obvious answer is civil society. Civil society's identification with the non-profit sectors situates it along side the spirit of the human beings and establishes that political and economic systems ought to be secondary to voluntary human relations. Besides this , the civil society brings democratic dialogue to the public and explains what democracy and development in different cultural and civilization milieus and how they are realized at personal and public levels. There are a number of reasons that establishes the relevance of civil society in the contemporary world:

First, the trinity of freedom, social justice and solidarity forms the core values of civil society. These values represent the three generations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights-civil and political rights (first generation), social, economic and cultural rights (second generation) and the rights to development, self-determination and international cooperation (third generation). These rights purport to set a condition for human beings to lead secure and creative lives reasonably mediated by human consciousness, reason and free will of citizens. The power of civil society springs not from the intimate sphere, such as family and relational network, but from secondary associations and public communication. Its associational autonomy and its potential to protect the rights of the public make the state susceptible to democratic governance and responsive to citizens' needs and aspirations. The sovereign ground of rights is the basis upon which human beings struggle for freedom-for liberation, entitlements and social opportunities. A number of development agencies have considered civil society central to their work in governance. Because, the term "civil order is used to mean that people are civil to one another (that they do not demonize their opponents, are willing to compromise, conduct reasoned rather than impassioned discussions) and/or that a society should maintain a fabric of mediating institutions to protect individuals from the government" (Etzioni 1996:14). As people with different cultures meet, they develop trust and cooperative relationship to sustain and promote their shared interests, values and solidarity.

Second, a civil society comprises small bottom-up associations, which are accessible to citizen's participation thus making it attractive for more and more citizens to public life. The idea of participation is extremely important for the liberation of people from docility, oppressive silence and domestication. It also stimulates them to talk , argue and take part in areas of their concern. The stronger the civil society, the more repressive it makes the state and the market to popular needs and aspirations. This is why democratic states are deeply rooted in the associational life of its citizens. This, accordingly, results in the decentralization and democratization of the state and corporate power while freeing the civil society from the hegemony of both. According to Ernest Gellner, " civil society is that set of diverse non-governmental institutions, which is strong enough to counterbalance the state, and, whilst not preventing the state from fulfilling its role of keeper of the peace and arbitrator between major interests, can nevertheless prevent the state from dominating and atomizing the rest of society" (Gellner 1995:32). Sustained engagement of citizens in the institutions of governance through a vibrant civil society helps transcend the monopoly of economic and political power by certain class or caste of society and enforce the accountability of leaders to the grassroots units of self-governance.

Third, civil society tries to mediate between the general and particular interests, between the political and economic societies for the welfare of the majority of citizens who are poor, powerless, and deprived and alienated from the mainstream democratic and development processes. It tries to protect them from the risks brought about by the society's growing dualism, facilitates collective action and underscores governance reform for a well justified allocation of public resources. Because, the class, caste and gender discriminations, shrouded by the basic realities of power and wealth asymmetries in society, continue to cause social exclusion, poverty and inequality and produce intractable contradictions in human life. Civil society, thus, invents a language to communicate the problems people face and outlines a number of overlapping programs for the people to socialize, mobilize, build coalitions and exert pressure on the government and corporate sectors to make steady advances in the right direction.

Fourth, the civil society captures a vision of conscious opposition to authoritarianism, domination and exploitation of citizens and provides an opportunity to mobilize "counter-knowledge" and draw on "the pertinent forms of expertise to make its own translations" (Haberma, 1997:372). The struggle of the civil society, however, cuts across gender, class, regional, ideological and professional lines and, therefore, bears the social integration and communication potential. Does civil society muster a kind of consensus for evacuating the irrational orthodoxy of "isms" and ideologies that prevent rational communication? Perhaps yes, because it establishes the autonomy of human beings from all forms of utopia and despotism. It, therefore, deals with the problems associated with the growth of social capital. In this sense, civil society is more value based than other units of human life for it captures the imagination of ordinary citizens, their daily concerns and necessities and circulates those elements in policy articulation

Fifth, a civil society seeks to influence state policymaking, helps in shaping public opinion and collective will formation. There are essential elements for the moderation of public policies as well as to trigger the dialectics of social transformation. Consolidation of the civil society is the key to creating independent civic community, healthy polity and inclusive development, thereby constraining the government's exercise of discretionary authority-especially its potential abuse of power in national decision-making while increasing the power of the society. Thus, it strengthens the social foundations of democracy and human rights.

Sixth, civil society builds a commitment to protection of the social sphere and public good by removing plenty of constraints from the realization of constitutional rights, economic and political entitlements and opportunities for civic empowerment. Isolation, suppression, denial, exclusion and deprivation of people from civic freedoms are the very anti-thesis civil societies purport to adjourn. "The public sphere is not convinced simply as the back room of the parliamentary complex, but as the impulse-generation periphery that surrounds the political center: in cultivating normative reasons, it affects all parts of the political system without intending to conquer it" (Habermas 1997:442). To that end, it envisions a non-conformist political culture in which a plurality of interests is adjusted to societal structures in an immutable process of self-production. It thus links ethics to politics and underpins policy coherence by contributing to reverse the unjust economic and social structures that are responsible for institutionalizing powerlessness, poverty, inequality and dehumanized life. Decay of public life is a threat to democracy.

And finally, a civil society gives impetus to a community building project within and across the national borders to both universalize individual and national life and motivates the citizens, governments and the states towards regional and international cooperation. Yet, an agonizing question comes to the fore: how can identity politics of the state, the core of national sovereignty, be maintained in the civil society's drive to universalize social, cultural and political life? The answer is, according to Michael Walzer, "demonstrating nationalism," democratizing the political and economic decision-making and humanizing the agencies of governance.

Political community fructifies on civic virtues and its sphere is defined by freedom. The fulfillment of the economic necessities of citizens is the responsibility of democratic governance. So the structure of governance matters. Neither can absolute individual autonomy in politics support democracy nor does the valorization of market provide a sense of solidarity among citizens for self-direction. Walzer, in fact, says that "a large number of citizens drop out of the market economy". Can civil society thwart this drop out? Perhaps yes, but only if the quality of democratic political culture provides psychological and material energy to vibrant civil institutions and makes them capable of delivering public goods and services to the needy. The game of market competition requires clear rules, norms, and procedures as well as impartial arbiters but also skills, training and preparation of people to meet future challenges. While civility makes democracy possible, the continuous engagement of citizens in civil society associations makes both market dropout and "posturing nationalist" sentiments downright impossible.

One school of though eloquently advocates the need for state intervention for the strengthening of civil society and direct engagement of citizens in economic activities. The other, however, slightly differs from this notion and asserts that civil society de-linked from the market economy becomes a "critical theory" and only evokes a kind of utopia. Civil society does not necessarily stand opposite to either the market or the state rather, in many cases, it has served as a sphere of social interaction comprising all associations and publics, institutionalized by laws, especially citizenship rights that stabilize social integration comprising all associations and publics, institutionalized by laws, especially citizenship rights that stabilize social integration. This seems to be an inversion of Gramscian echoes that see civil society as an independent social order operating without legal and political coercion of the state. According to the viewpoint, through the institutions of civil society, the ruling class manufactures consent and exercises cultural hegemony over the general society by claiming to represent the nation.

Civil society's fundamental political concern is the creation of good governance –political self-governance, economic self-direction and social inclusion-which is also capable of resolving the disparities between the rich and the poor, the make and the female and organizations and aspirations. This resolution is essential to stave off the eternal contradiction of human life according to which the whole engulfs the parts in its scheme. Sustained education of citizens to meet the goals of human rights and democracy in the future and the maximization of citizen's participation in community make decision-making transparent. The experience of domestic political scene of many developing countries shows that it is the civil society that has opened the possibility for reform-oriented politics.

Communitarian thinkers like Amity Etzioni, Robert Bellah, Werner Peters etc strongly parade the importance of civil society in a democracy. At a time when civic virtue is at a loss because power elite and opinion leaders enjoy too many rights and too few social responsibilities, any broadened concept that includes the remaining millions of voiceless people demands an acceptance of democracy as the only principle of political organization. In that sense, democracy becomes a universal paradigm. A good society can hardly be conceived of when the system defends only rights-based groups and dismisses human rights and common social concerns as irrelevant thereby allowing the market to systematically damage the human connections of nation-states, such as individuals, families, neighborhoods, schools, voluntary associations and public places. A new way of looking at the role of the state to stabilize community is therefore, essential. The community is otherwise exposed to the full force of market materialism. There will be much harm if economic rationality alone dominates all other spheres of social activity, evaluation and judgment. Because rationality does not transcend history and social context. Certainly not.

The growing rationalization of the economic sub-system and the primacy given to it in spite of its potential to dominate all other spheres have led to a kind of context-free individualism thereby producing unwarranted attrition in the life-world. A good society cannot be built outside a modern state that provides space for civil liberties, political organizations and constitutional existence. Those outside it can only face autarky, tribalism, ethnic and religious wars or homogenization. Therefore, deep reflection is needed to deal with the invisible hand, reform industrial policy, redefine the role of state, create viable institutions of social security, campaign for a high level of compulsory public education and to execute modernity and social justice. Evidently, the relationship between the state and the market seems dialectical. In this dialectical process, the majority of the poor are eagerly looking for an orientation in a difficult process of transformation.

The motive of democratic policy is to achieve social justice. This means a strategy of exerting social control over the market is essential to increase the efficiency of the economic system and the attainment of social welfare in an era of globalized market competition, economic vision must capture an essence of teamwork, social trust and popular spirit. An efficient high performance of the workplace must embody four crucial elements: sharing of production profits, employment security, a sense of group cohesiveness and guaranteed rights of the voters, workers and consumers. Sensible economists have already begun to admit that competitiveness rests on the entire environment including the role of the state, society and culture. Both the market and the state on their own are not able to increase the productivity that many, who argue for their intervention, advocate. Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis have proved empirically that this is not the case. They in fact emphasize the economic value in 'trust'. The authors have successfully brought a third element in the productivity debate and discounting the notion that either the state or the markets alone can increase productivity. "Both strands of political economy have overlooked the critical role of communities as governance structures" (Bowles and Gintis 1998:9). This means civil societies have to be ready for a new vision to do away with the huge social and economic deficiencies of the present system and put all the checks and balances of democracy in a proper perspective. This also means that economic and technological decisions have to be politicized whereby political intervention creates more room for individual enterprise and bequeaths to the idea of a more effective social justice. A modern state must set individuals in the social context and activate them to productive power without leveling the strongly idealizing role of the civil society to appeal to reason.

A civil society thus articulates the notion of social law which enhances a non-static type of solidarity and economic transactions not wholly determined by market forces but that also take into account the egalitarian aspects of prosperity. Is this a new spell of modernity? Is should be. Many concepts of modernity that laid confidence in universalism, holism, grand theories, reason, scientific knowledge and moral progress in the past have started parting with the original interpretations. For example, many political parties of the world today allow "politics of interests", a dominant form of public life, which has nothing to do with the democratic values the public upheld until recently. The social thought of post-modernist thinking is derived from a critique of hegemonic discourse of modernity and a demand for cultural relativism, diversity and flexibility-whereby multiple political voices and representation make inroads into the center of power. Will the concept of civil society be able to cope with the emerging challenges brought about by the internationalization of economics and politics, ethno-nationalism, immigration, minority conflicts and reactive re-tribalization? It certainly cannot evoke a uniform response. The political consciousness of civil society to transcend the bounds of citizenship, nationalism and national identity is paving the way for the emergence of post-national society.

Regional cooperation, many think, will serve as an insurance policy against the uncertainties of the future caused by social, economic and technological internationalization. But, the Southeast Asian crisis of the late 1990s expunged the utopian possibilities of the primacy of economics in social and political life and indicated that without embedding democracy in the economic structures, progress remains spurious. This shows that regionalism does not necessarily solve every social problem. In fact, it would result in social chaos, if pursued recklessly as the Asian crisis did. Still, that has not stopped regional cooperation from advancing. After the growth of regionalism in south Asia "many of the appurtenances of nationhood associated with the right to work , to trade, to seek capital and human development, will increasingly come to be accessed within a regional context defined by seamless borders"(Sobhan, 1997:32). In many African countries, "the opportunities for the formation of civil society" (Lewis 1992:32). They are handling difficult situations with the construction of national culture, state authority, national identity, social cohesion and the promotion of peace, human rights, democracy and market economy. A number of Latin American countries are reeling under the burden of democratic construction of the state and the market. Their focus is on a strategy to overcome external dependence. They are trying to link democracy to a wider area of social consensus. Western Europe is coping with the challenges of the regional integration process while Eastern Europe of the necessary democratic reforms. Many left parties in those countries are in the process of democratization and struggling to maintain their identity in a world of pluralism.

The vision of Europe offers scope for diversity and opportunity, a confederation rather than a model of hegemonism. Is its shaping their cosmopolitan vision, but without unhinging their bi-national and multi-national existence and even without rending the citizens' social and cultural roots. On the whole, there is a call for a "return" to modern politics, to palpate with the powerlessness of citizens and converse with their aspirations, necessities and cultures. In the process, civil society needs to conform to the essence of post-modernism and respect the cultural relativism and the needs of state power, which are crucially relevant for the empowerment of citizens.

Headline | 5 Question  | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past