Civil society is considered as a community of citizens linked by common interests and collective activity. In a broader spectrum it is seen as the summation of non-governmental institutions and organizations demonstrate and manifest the interests and the will of citizens. Its meaning has undergone significant changes and might vary in different national contexts. In modern political science, civil society is considered to be the intermediary between the state and the private sector. Civil society can be defined as the realm of organized social life that is open, voluntary, bound by a legal order or set of shared rules (Diamond, 1999). In a civil society, individual citizens can act collectively in order to demand their rights from the state or convey their views regarding state affairs to maintain a check of authority of the state and to ensure its accountability. Considering this, the civil society may incorporate a variety of associations concerned with public affairs and matters. They include issue-oriented, civic, educational, and religious interest groups and associations. While some of these are known as NGOs (non-governmental organizations), the others are loosely structured and informal.
Formal equality in any respect is when people under consideration have equal status in that normatively relevant respect. The separation of socio-economic inequalities from formal political equality therefore implies that the civil society is compatible with social differences and divisions.
Civil society and the promotion of democratization are related. Civil society helps build and protect a democratic framework (Blakeley and Bryson, 2002). In some countries, the role of elites is also responsible for the way specific state affairs are d...
... middle of paper ...
...mperative accomplice in the journey for this sort of positive relationship between the fair state and its residents.
Bibliography
Diamond, Larry. Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. JHU Press, 1999.
Blakeley, G. and Bryson, V. (2002). Contemporary political concepts. Pluto.
Mercer, C. (2002). NGOs, civil society and democratization: a critical review of the literature. Progress in development studies, 2(1), pp.5--22.
Booth, J. and Richard, P. (1998). Civil society, political capital, and democratization in Central America. The Journal of Politics, 60(03), pp.780--800.
Ruffin, M. (2002). Book Review: Funding Virtue: Civil Society Aid and Democracy Promotion, Marina Ottaway and Thomas Carothers (eds.), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC, 2000. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 13(1), pp.94--95.
1. Janda, Kenneth. The Challenge of Democracy. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, MA. 1999. (Chapter 3 & 4).
ABSTRACT: Totalitarian political systems in the socialist countries of Eastern Europe destroyed and repressed the civil society that used to exist in them. The authoritarian and totalitarian ethos was formed under a powerful influence of ideologies of the communist parties and politocracy in these countries so that the political ethos of politicians dominated the political ethos of the citizen. The breakdown of the real socialism and its unsuccessful attempts to complete accelerated liberal modernization of these societies caused turbulence of social values in addition to the general moral chaos. The moral crisis has deepened; anomie increased as well as the society’s inclination to commit crime. This makes difficult the creation of the cultural matrix of the civil society and its moral values. The liberation and development of the political ethos of the civil society as an element of the democratic political culture require structural and mental changes in these societies. They imply abandoning the value matrices of the traditional and political societies based upon collectivism, tribalism, authoritarianism, egalitarianism, ethnocentrism, etatisme and mythologization of the past. They require the use of the citizens’ active potential as well as that of their associations, their readiness for political commitment, self-initiative, respect of the general interest and a courageous defense of freedom and social justice.
The center’s perspective on voluntary and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) is mixed. In other words, while AEI considers NGOs forces of change, influencing international and national governments and corporations, the organization’s view concerning their achievements and impact is both positive and negative. On the one hand, it treats NGOs with caution, almost dreading their existence, as indicated by remarks concerning their legitimacy, accountability, and credibility (AEI, 2003). Noting their achievements and contributions to human rights, the environment, and economic and social development, AEI (2003) also points out that “the growing power of supranational organizations and a loose set of rules governing the accreditation of NGOs has meant that an unelected few have access to growing and unregulated power.” Asserting that NGOs coerce leaders into acquiescence through twisting policies and intentions to fit their need, they exercise undue influence over the policy making process (AEI, 2003). In addition, they tend to “create their own rules and regulations and demand that governments and corporations abide by those rules” (AEI, 2003). Likewise, the argumen...
Barry, Brian. "Is Democracy Special?" in Philosophy, Politics, & Society, 5th Series, ed. Peter Laslett & James Fishkin. Hew Haven: Yale University Press, 1979.
..., stability, solutions to the society’s better kind of living. It somewhat bring the society to the doors of the state, while the state serve them with meals and gives the duty to wash their dishes. And it will depend on the kind of society if they will just get another meal before washing the dishes or just ask for more. While, many would argue the lack of support of their government and blame it for all the problems in the society (which is true in most cases or some), it is the partly the society that dictates our steps now, and we are part the society, which made us accountable also. The society and state relationship become more open and interactive, it opens its door from other states for suggestions, supports and relations, but it somewhat also build a gap in the process because of cultural differences, religion, corruption, economic links, human nature, etc.
5 Cooper, F. and R. Packard, (eds). International Development and the Social Science. University of
The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union resulted in major shift in United States foreign policy. For years, the United States supported tyrannical dictators in return for stable anti-communist government receptive to United States interests. The Cold War resulted in a new world order with the United States as the lone global hegemonic power. In Eastern Europe in particular, the end of the Cold War ushered in an era of economic growth and a large increase in the number of liberal democracies. Although the world saw a large increase in liberal democracies, a new regime type referred to as competitive authoritarianism began to emerge. According to Levitsky and Way, “In competitive authoritarian regimes, formal democratic institutions are widely viewed as the principal means of obtaining and exercising political authority. Incumbents violate those rules so often and to such an extent, however, that the regime fails to meet conventional minimum standards for democracy” . In labeling these regimes as authoritarian and not democratic, Levitsky and Way place emphasis on the importance of differentiating these questionable regimes from prototypical democracies. In their definition they argue that all democracies have four inherent traits; “Executives and legislatures are chosen through Elections that are open, free, and fair, virtually all adults possess the right to vote, political rights and civil liberties, including freedom of the press, association, to criticize the government are protected and elected authorities possess real authority to govern, in that they are not subject to the tutelary control of military or clerical leaders” . These, Levitsky and Way argue are fundamental for the prospects of democracy. ...
It is first important to understand the definition and the different theories of democracy, as well as the meaning of pressure groups. According to Barbara Goodwin, there is not just one definition of democracy but several theories about what it really is. One of them states that democracy is 'the supremacy of the people', another one assert that it is “the existence of common good or public interest' while a third one underlines the aspect of 'political equality and equal civil rights for all individuals' (2012, p. 288). Andrew Heywood adds that democracy is the good of the nation, the 'demos' (2007, p. 72). He also defines the notion of the 'liberal democracy' in which state and civil society are separated and of the 'pluralist democracy', based on the multiplicity of political parties and organised pressure groups in order to express the society's interests and promote an active participation in the political life. In opposition there is the 'elitist democracy' in which the po...
Formal equality is known as the formal, legal equality. This is the equality that is seen as one law should be applied to all people, social and personal characteristics are no factor. Formal equality aims to distribute equality fairly and evenly, and aims to treat people the same. Formal equality does not ensure the wellbeing of individuals based on race, ethnicity, sex, age etc. Unfortunately, this side of equality does not recognize diversity and is insufficient for promoting social inclusiveness. Even though it may give the illusion of equality and justice, it is actually creating inequality and is actually ending up discriminating individuals (EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, 2004).
Seligson M. A., 2008, Challenges to Democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean: Evidence from the Americas Barometer 2007-2007, USAID
Some authors and theorists have strived to explain the democratic peace by drawing attention to the role of public opinion. They witness that democratic leaders are beholden to voters, and claim that voters reject war because of its human and financial costs. This altercation, which dates to Immanuel Kant, predicts that democracies will react peacefully in general—avoiding war not only against democracies, but also against autocracies. Hist...
The 'activitist’ was a term revived in Eastern Europe and Latin America, stressing that civil society was a means to depict efforts in generating independent public spaces in circumstance of authoritarian states. Currently, ‘civil society ' symbolises changes introduced between the society and the state which led to setting up self-organised institutions (Michnik, 1985). Developments of formal international instruments and human rights groups in Western countries are examples illustrated the influences of civil society in setting up independent public spaces. The term ‘neo-liberal’ refers to civil society with domain outside the political parties, targeted to reallocate and to democratise the state 's power. These civil societies proceed to generate public place and the atmosphere for individuals to behave and to communicate freely without constraint of state and capitalism. Besides, some scholars like Salamon and Anheier (1996) and Kaldor (2003) used other terms like ‘third sector’ or ‘non-profit sector’ to describe above-mentioned versions of civil society. In other words, these civil societies are organisations assisting both the state and the market, but not to dominate them (Kaldor, 2003). Voluntary associations, non-profit organizations and charitable entities are some examples of civil society rendering social services besides
Civil society is both a way of describing aspects of modern society and an aspiration, an ideal of what a good society should be like. It has recently been revived to emphasize the capacity of societies to organize themselves through the active cooperation of their members. Unfortunately up to today we still don't have a universally recognised definition and the whole concept is still the core of a intense academic debate. That is why it seemed appropriate, for the purpouse of this paper, to analyse the historical evolution of the concept throughout the centuries.
In today’s globalizing but still fragmented and dangerous world, nations more than ever need effective governments to provide security, social cohesion and order, governance, infrastructure and basic services. They need, too, a vigorous private sector to mobilize the productive forces of the market, thereby creating national wealth and a strong national economy linked to international trade and markets. These two alone are not enough, however. Without the balance and political integration provided by the action of a third sector “civil society” too often the outcome is to centralize even more power in an already highly-centralized public sector and to concentrate even more wealth in an elite segment of the private sector. A dynamic civil society is needed to bring much greater political voice, social engagement, and economic participation to grassroots citizens. The three sectors need to work together in cross-sector partnerships to advance social progress and reverse the growing gap b...