There is no such thing as Global Civil Society

“There is no such thing as Global Civil Society”. Discuss. 

Introduction. 

The term “global civil society” is now widely discussed and contested among scholars and theoretics. Despite the fact there is no single unity or agreement whether or not Global Civil society actually exists, this term is broadly used among public and politicians (Keane 2003). 

Some scholars believe that there is no such thing as Global civil society yet ( Tarrow 1998), but we moving towards that direction (Stiglitz 2002). I support the opinion that Global Civil Society as such does not yet exist. However, for the purpose of this paper I do not want to challenge the assumptions that Global Civil Society may exists in nearest future. 

Therefore, the thesis of this paper is to discuss, evaluate and contest different opinions and arguments on the term “Global Civil Society”. I will try to show why I am feeling so skeptical about existence of Global Civil Society in contemporary world and will support my answer with relevant quotations and evidences. 

Historic background.  

“Global Civil society” became a widely used and discussed term in last ten years, however in the past theoretics like Immanuel Kant already referred to the possibility of a universal civil society (Kaldor 2003: 583).   

As it is self-evident, term consist from two meaningful sub terms “global” and “civil society”. Therefore it is worth briefly discuss, historical development of the civil society concept.

“Civil Society” 

Civil society theory emerged in the ancient Greece and may be traced back to Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle as Plato’s disciple in his work "Politics" and "Ethics", along with the consideration of government institutions is drawn to the analysis of the earlier non-State actors in society: family, economic co-operation between citizens, spiritual and cultural organizations and others. In this regard, still remain relevant description of Aristotle's Civil Society and the conditions for its functioning: a certain type of personality of the citizen, the individual right to private property, individual family, self-organization of citizens to defend their own interests. 

Kaldor (2003:584) notes that for other early theoretics “there was no distinction betweeen civil society and the sate, Civil society was a type of state characterized by a social contract”. People where governed by law and had to obey it. Since than has not much changed, people still are “subject to the contract “, laws are still in place and everybody have to obey it. However there occurred conceptual changes, when Hegel defined Civil Society as something distinct from the state. Hegel defined civil society as “the intermideiate realm between the family and the state, where the individual becomes a public person and, through membership in various institutions, is able to reconcile the particular and the universal”. (Kaldor 2003: 584). Hegel’s definition and idea were followed by Karl Marx, Freidrich Engels and Antonio Gramsci. The latest in his works where concerned with the question about commmunist revolution in Russia, where the answer to his questions where hidden in the simple civil society fact-a proper relation between the sate and society. 

Also Kaldor in her article (2003:585) stating that different definitions given by theoretics at different time periods anyway have a common core meaning and civil society were linked up with the territorial state. She sees civil society  as society “based on a social contract among individuals” or as a “process through which individuals negotiate, argue, struggle against or agree with each other and with the centers of political and economic authority, through voluntary associations, movements, parties, unions, the individual is able to act publicly”. This definition is broadand covers nearly every active citizen which forms part of civil society.  

It is obvious that the concept Civil Society is the main term and the prefix Global shows the geographical or universal stretch of this phenomenon. If previously scholars only examined and discussed Civil Society as phenomenon within particular state’s boundaries, nowadays due to extreme technological, intellectual, institutional progress it is spread across the globe and should be discussed as “Global” or as some scholars say transnational or international Civil Society. 

“Global+civil society” 

The term global civil society only became a fashionable and more appropriate only in the last decade. Most academics are of the opinion that prerequisites for this “discovery and popularity” were technological breakthrough, increasing number of non-governmental organizations¹ and social movements and overall interconnectedness over people.  

Anheier (et al., 2001, p.21) defines global civil society as “the sphere of ideas, values, institutions, organizations, networks, and individuals located between the family, the state, and the market and operating beyond the confines of national societies, polities, and economies.” (Cited in Taylor 2002:341) 

John Keane (2003:23) says that term Global Civil Society were born “at the confluence of three overlapping streams of concern among publicly minded intellectuals at the end of the 1980’s”, with one main-collapse of Soviet Union and subsequent feeling of new global order. Keane thinks that the term is neither self-evident nor unprejudiced, as it may include really broad, thick and stretched networks, people, institutions etc. He writes (Keane 2003:23-24):

“global civil society is a vast, interconnected, and multi-layered social space that comprises many hundreds of thousands of self-directing or non-governmental institutions and ways of life…they deliberately organize themselves and conduct their cross-border social activities, business and politics outside the boundaries of governmental structures”. 

It is truth and I support authors that important elements of global civil society are non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs).  

NGO & INGO 

In the most general sense, the NGO is a group of people who share common interests, ideology, and cultural interests. When the term NGO is used in international relations, it usually means the group, formed on a voluntary basis to address specific international problems. However, areas of global governance do not work through unilateral state action, and intergovernmental consultation and coordination. A significant part of international cooperation is part of the activities of intergovernmental or international organizations in the field of economy, environment, and legal policy. Salamon and Anheier (1997) define these International Nongovernmental Organizations (INGO)² as an “autonomous organizations that are non-governmental, that, they are not instrumentalities of government; and non-profit, that is not distributing revenue as income to owners; and formal legal entities.” (Cited in Anheier, Helmut, Glasius and Kaldor 2001:4)  

Nowadays we observe that regulation of global relations institutionalized in supranational EU institutions, the IMF, NATO, UN, WTO, etc. These institutions have autonomy from national governments. States, especially large ones, continue to exert considerable influence in regional and international governance issues. But supranational organizations have opportunities to avoid strict control of national governments.

 
Therefore there are perceptions developed that globalization has caused a crisis of democracy (Keane 2003). Regulation of global communications, ecology, markets, finance, organization, production does not meet with public acceptance. In every area of ​​global politics public participation and social responsibility is not manifested and not institutionalized in due measure. Indeed, movement toward new forms of global regulation and control of a growing number of INGO’s and NGO’s is necessary, because their work is characterized by deficit of democracy. Thus, many international organizations are developing their own rules to be followed by the state in order to attract foreign investment and economic growth.  

Is there a Global Civil Society? 

Defined in this way, it seems that Global Civil Society develops new global order and transforming it. However, I think and support other scholars view that those who use this type of definition(above outlined) most often have in mind, "transnational civil society", "international social movement", ie expanding network of organizations working in different countries and run by NGOs (insert author). This transnational network is very broad, but "global citizens" who could make a "global civil society" in the deepest sense of the word does not exist yet. Wittgenstein stated that Global Civil society has “blurred edges” and “it is and ill-fitting term clumsily in search of an intelligent object that is always a subject on the run, striding unevenly in many different directions”. (Cited in Keane 2003: 27)

 
In the principles probably do not have a big difference as we shall call the concept- “global civil society”, “international civil society” or “transnational civil society” (Florini 2000) it still have one core meaning. However Anheier (2001: 16) notes “while ‘global civil society’ may overstate what is really out there, ‘transnational civil society’ understates it”.  

I define this blurred concept and idea: as alliance of civilians stretched across many countries, where members share common interests and goals, and which tries to influence policies, laws, awareness and attitudes without violence. My understanding is not as technical and complicated but it makes clear that I do not believe in Global Civil society as such. There are few reasons:

First of all in order for Global Civil society to exist there must be a global state (Taylor 2002:342).  Taylor states:

“That is, without a global state there is limited resource infrastructure to support global civil society organization, and few openings to build-through face-to-face interaction-the close-knit social networks required for transnational identity formative collective action. In particular, given the state-centric view of politics framing mainstream political sociology, the dictates of nation-state sovereignty-supported by the persistence of national, linguistic, and cultural differences-are seen to trump any form of global power”. 

Secondly, and I think it is obvious that no organization is “truly global, in the sense of involving groups and individuals from every part of the world”. (Florini and Simmons 2000:7, cited in Taylor 2002:343). The reasons are simple, not every country in the world is a true democracy with all its benefits of free speech and other liberties. There are many countries (like Somalia) that are on the verge of extinction and destruction and have little or no communication with other developed world and these countries do form quite significant percentage from world’s population. Therefore it is wrong terminologically to call this concept “Global”. The most powerful NGO’s, INGO’s and other forms of Civil Society usually is more spread across developed democratic countries; however do try quite successfully influence whole world’s population.  

Thirdly, as correctly noted Taylor (2002:345) it has not yet been fully recognized what is distinctive to global civil society. The rise of new and very complex organizations challenges the term. Mary Kaldor (2003:590-591) sees global civil society s a “platforms inhabited by activists”, different NGO’s and groups, where they negotiate and lobby. She argues that “there is not one global civil society but many, affecting a range of issues-human rights, environment and so on…and it is not democratic; there are no processes of election, nor could there be at a global level, since that would require a world state. And such state, even if democratically elected, would be totalitarian.” 

In conclusion. 

As Anheier (2001:11) noted the concept Global Civil Society is both “fuzzy and contested concept”.  As discussed the concept is relatively new and no clear and unilateral definition is yet in place.  The boundaries are blurred and currently concept includes large amount of active citizens into the definition, NGO’s, INGO’s, social movements, unions, associations, and other type of social participation on the national and transnational level.  

It is indisputable that term Global Civil Society may be referred to contemporary faster growing phenomenon of interconnectedness among citizens. Technological advances, internet, chat rooms, environmental and human rights activists, student exchange programs, television  all these inflates the communication between confederate individuals. Anheier (2001: 3) noted that “the concept posits the existence of a social sphere, a global civil society, above and beyond national, regional, or local societies”. However call this concept with a big prefix “Global” Civil Society not yet justified and validated.   

For the true Global Civil Society to exist there must a global state and government that shall support and manage the organizations (Taylor 2002). And even if that world’s government with a world parliament emerged, it would be a utopia and may turn into global totalitarianism. (Anheier 2001: 16)

Also, it is true that the scope and scale of international and supranational institutions and organizations is big and constantly increasing, but to be really global it should cover nearly every country on the globe and participation should be truly global and not just in developed countries. 

Today’s NGO’s, INGO’s and other organizations experiencing massive democratic deficit.  It is even viewed by some scholars that contemporary civil society is seen “as a way of minimizing the role of the state in society, both a mechanism for restraining state power an as substitute for many functions of the state” ( Anheir 2001:11). This practice may be dangerous and could subsequently bring different negative consequences, such as concentration of power in the hands of most powerful and supranational NGO’s and INGO’s, which are elected and managed completely undemocratic way.  I do not claim and do not dispute that activities of NGO’s are not beneficial for society. An army of NGO’s performs positive activities in different spheres such as human rights, ecology etc.  

Evidences show that organizations are effective and productive to pursue their aims and mission for overall benefit.  Although this may be challenged, but not for the purpose of this paper. As international history and experience shows, a concentration of power in the hands of one powerful group and demolition of state’s power and confidence may lead to crisis and wars. 

Finally to make conclusive point, the concept global civil society is very hard to define and measure. The world is so culturally, nationally, physically and geographically diverse, so it is difficult to think about the world with blurred edges.  The technological progress is constantly in progress, increasing number of NGO’s and other organizations all these inflates globalization. And therefore it is too early to say where it may pour into.  However nowadays, there is no such a thing as Global Civil Society as such.  Now we can observe version similar to: international alliances of civilians stretched across many countries, where members share common interests and goals, and which tries to influence policies, laws, awareness and attitudes without violence.