On civil society

The idea of civil society has made a dramatic return in recent decades. Not only the concept of civil society occupies a significant space in theoretical discussions regarding governance, participation in decision making processes and negotiating with the state in favor of the public, but also civil society organizations in various forms as agents and actors of civil society became an integral part of social and political discourse. Analysts, statesmen, politicians and intellectuals speak about civil society and civil society organizations in diverse settings and address questions such as the nature and meaning of civil society, conditions of its possibility and existence, its relations to civil society organizations, whether it is a type of social structure, mode of social behavior or a political ideal.
The idea of civil society seems to have three identifiable connotations or meanings in contemporary discussions. In the post-communist societies, civil society refers to the organization of the society and its relation to the state. It is believed that during the communist era, the state has overextended the legal jurisdiction and effective control of state institutions, occupying almost all spheres of social life. Following the fall of communism it was argued that there was a need for encouraging the rise of institutions of “civil society” as agents/actors of socio-political change outside the state organization. The second identifiable meaning of the concept of civil society is derived from the idea that the welfare state is in retreat. It is argued in this context that a revival of the associative initiatives of non-state organizations in civil society is required to prevent capitalist atomization. The third meaning on civil society in current debates refers to social movements which are different than classical working class movements.
There is no doubt that the idea of civil society has not singular connotations as we have just mentioned. Forms and functions of civil society organizations which contribute to the strengthening of civil society, democratization and good governance also do not have monolithic characteristics. History, culture and political experience as well as deeply rooted habits and belief systems constitute a vast array of context for the emergence and shaping of civil society and its vital institutions. The rise of nation states after the disintegration of empires as powerful agents of control and entry of European colonialism in non-western world have made the state an undeniable and unavoidable part of the social and political life. Introduction of the modern state disrupted the traditional form of social power arrangements, brining a new discourse in terms of state versus civil society distinction.
It is argued that if the state is regarded as too powerful, invasive and its control is too restrictive; people must search for domain which might define all spheres that are ought to be left out of the state control. Although the concepts of civil society and civil society organizations are relatively new and gathered more prominence with the rise of strong nation states, their practice, forms, habitus and functions have deeper historical origins both in and outside the western world where these concepts are believed to be originated and institutionalized. When the existence of different forms of political organizations, social power and worlds are taken into consideration along with the fact that many non-western societies have intellectual cultures of great antiquity and sophistication, it can be argued that different languages, symbols, discourses and institutional forms have been produced over decades. However, the dominant theoretical approach to civil society and emergence of civil society organizations still carry the imprint of western vernacular to express novel aspects civil society and its institutional manifestations. This makes the study of non-western experience in relation to the development of civil society and civil society institutions more valuable