Читать книгу Civil Society and Gender Relations in Authoritarian and Hybrid Regimes - Группа авторов - Страница 6

Qustions of if, how, and to what extent civil society might exist under non-democratic, deficient, or even authoritarian governments has only recently become highly visible on the political science agenda (Teets 2016; Cavatora 2015; Heuerlin 2010; Spires 2011; Pickel 2013; Wischermann 2013). There are many reasons for this. Social, economic, and political developments obviously have a strong impact on the social sciences in general and on political science in particular. The political concept and term “civil society” was rediscovered alongside the awakening of dissident movements, which at the end of the 1970s and early 1980s stood up against the power and inhumane ideology of the so-called socialist governments in the countries behind the Iron Curtain that cut off almost half of Europe from democratic rule (Havel and Keane 1985; Keane 1998). The dissidents in Poland, Hungary, and many other Eastern European countries referred to “civil society” as a democratic and participatory alternative to non-democratic authoritarian rule. Because they did not have freedom of expression nor the possibility to legally stand up against inhumanity and authoritarian one-party governments in Eastern Europe, the term civil society became a synonym for a democratic political program and progressive utopia. As such, the concept was increasingly placed in juxtaposition to the non-democratic and illiberal political reality under socialist rule.

The discussions that took place in oppositional groups in Eastern Europe and in other regions struggling with non-democratic regimes such as Latin America and Southeast Asia strongly influenced debates on the state of the art of democratic rule and governance in the so-called Western Hemisphere. As a consequence, during the 1980s and 1990s deliberation on civil society as a topic of political theory and political philosophy moved into the center of discourses on the deepening and further development of democracy (Cohen and [10] Arato 1997; Taylor 1991). Civil society was used as an approach to respond to the problems of post-modern societies by key scholars arguing in a classical liberal tradition such as Ralf Dahrendorf (1991, 1999); the concept was taken up by Jürgen Habermas, who highlighted the pivotal importance of civil society as a sphere of deliberation and reasoning (Habermas 1992); civil society was also to become a cornerstone of communitarian thinking (Etzioni 1994; Walzer 1992, 2003) as well as of various facets of participatory democracy such as associational democracy (Warren 2001) or strong democracy (Barber 2004).

Although the renaissance of the term and concept of civil society was triggered by real politics in Eastern Europe, and partially in Latin America, civil society as a concept and horizon of ideas has always been closely linked to political philosophy and political theory (Kneer 2000: 235–23; Adloff 2005). Without going into detail, there are numerous interpretations and readings of the meaning of civil society and its features. For the general public and the media, civil society stands for a better life in a fairer, more democratic, and participatory society. As such the term is linked to utopian political and societal ideas. For sure, opposition and critical voices are necessary for any democratic setting in order to keep things moving and to guarantee that critique as an alternative view on the state of affairs is taken seriously. Without a utopia in terms of how government and society are supposed to advance or how the current state of government and governance should be improved, democracy does not work and modern societies reach an impasse. Civil society is also associated with “civicness,” a term used to characterize societies or any human setting that is able to resolve conflicts peacefully through the acceptance of the strength of arguments. Civicness is usually supported and strengthened through the rule of law, a jurisdiction underwriting human and civil rights, and the peaceful resolution of conflict. Finally, scholars have identified the drivers of civil society action in a societal sphere that is populated by social movements, voluntary associations, initiatives, and groups, which is distinguishable from the market, the state, and the family (Kocka 2003). These groups, networks, movements, and veritable organizations constitute the infrastructure or backbone of civil society. As an ensemble, the organizations and groups form an intermediary sphere between the individual person, the society, and the [11] respective government. Again, many features are attributed to this intermediary sphere of societal activity. Organizations might work on behalf of members and/or the general public, they might be engaged in advocacy, or they might be involved in the production of social services for the general public or for specific constituencies.

Since the mid-1970s, a growing number of scholars from various disciplines have started to take a closer look at the organizational infrastructure of civil society. Various labels are used to categorize the organizations, e.g., third sector, nonprofit, nongovernmental, and civil society organizations. Each “label” highlights a different feature. The term “third sector” signals that the respective organization belongs neither completely to the market nor to the state (Zimmer and Priller 2007: 15ff.); “nonprofit” indicates that profit gains are restricted from being distributed to members or owners of those organizations; “nongovernmental” indicates that the organization is engaged in public affairs without being a state or government entity; and a “civil society” organization signals that the respective organization works on behalf of civicness as an enactment and simultaneous underpinning of participatory or strong democracy.

Sometimes, however, terms are only “sound and smoke.” This is particularly the case with the use of civil society in the general public and by the media. Lacking a refined definition, the term civil society has developed into a catchword that is referred to in many settings and circumstances. But, the popularity of the term in the media and general public significantly contrasts with its applicability and usefulness in empirical research. In other words, the very positive and democracy-friendly connotation of the term and concept of civil society might overshadow the very fact that the organizations that are populating the societal sphere characterized as civil society and situated in between the market and the state and serving as an intermediary sphere between the individual citizen and government need not necessarily be either democratic nor working on behalf of the strengthening of democratic government. It might be the case that these organizations are “under the thumb” of an authoritarian government if they are co-opted or live on public subsidies. Or, the organizations might be in accordance with authoritarianism, either in favor of charismatic leadership or in a cultural and normative sense in agreement with the ideology of the respective non-democratic regime.

[12] Finally, many civil society organizations, in particular those that are active in service provision, might be prone not only to tolerate but also to at least indirectly support non-democratic settings. For some of these organizations, serving the community through the provision of, e.g., health care or other welfare-related activities, comes first. However, civil society organizations whose prime objective is the provision of services for the community or specific constituencies are the main arena of civic engagement of women. Indeed, some of these organizations are founded, exclusively staffed, and governed by women. Furthermore, many of these organizations perceive themselves as non-political, as mingling with politics and politicians is sometimes seen as a “dirty business.” Therefore, the organizations and their women leaders tend to abstain from lobbying and advocacy. This is not to say that women’s organizations are generally distancing themselves from politics. The women’s movement and many initiatives and organizations around the world are a testament to the fact that since the nineteenth century women have increasingly taken the opportunity to become active and lobby on behalf of women’s rights and gender justice as important components of a strong democracy. But, the success story of the women’s movement should not distract our attention from the very fact that gender equality has not yet been achieved in any society around the world. Furthermore, it might also be the case that civil society organizations, in particular those with a female labor force and leadership, might not be working on behalf of a further advancement of gender justice and democracy but are, due to numerous reasons, indirectly or directly supporting authoritarianism and non-democratic rule.

With a special eye on women’s organizations and initiatives, this volume aims at investigating the nexus between civil society and democracy in non-democratic settings. By doing this, the chapters follow a research design and specific approach developed by Gabriele Wilde, which serves as the theoretical framework and normative underpinning of the majority of the contributions present in this volume.