The
link between Civil Society and the State, and the resultant interactions in
evolving the foreign policy are all increasingly recognized in modern times.
The world now acknowledges the relevance of civil societies / non-governmental
organizations in the making unmaking of foreign policies of governments.
The term ‘Civil Society’ is traced to the
period of Enlightenment in the 18th century. But, it has much older history in
ancient political thought of the classical period. This concept was used as a
synonym to good society and the state. Socrates admonished that public argument
through ‘dialectic’ was imperative to ensure ‘Civility’ in the ‘polis’ and
‘good life’ of the people, for Plato,
the ideal state was a just society in which people dedicate themselves to the
common good, practice Civic virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation and justice,
and perform the occupational role to which they were best suited. It was the
duty of the ‘Philosopher King” to look after people in civility. Aristotle
mandated: ‘Polis’ was an ‘association of associations’ that enabled citizens to
share in the virtuous task of ruling and being ruled. These philosophers made
no distinction between state and society. Rather they held that state
represented the civil form of society and ‘civility’ represented the requirement
of good citizenship. They held that human beings are inherently rational so
that they can collectively shape the nature of society they belong to. And the
people have the capacity to voluntarily gather for the common cause and
maintain peace in society. Holding the above views, we can assume that the classical
political thinkers had endorsed the genesis of civil society in its original
sense.
However,
the medieval period had shadowed the concept of the rationality of human
beings. Renaissance stimulated the growth of ‘humanism’. Humanists believed in
the dignity and potential of human being. The concern for social values,
individualism and intellectual freedom had regained momentum. Humanists of the
like Francesco Petravch, Leonardo Bruni and Leon Battista Alberti were the
champions of this movement. Many of them were supporters of Republican ideology
that held human beings can independently shape their political environment.Thus,
the focus was shifted from theology to human autonomy. The city of man and his
happiness became more important than everything else. By then, the expansion of
trade, growth of prosperity, luxury and widening social contacts generated
interest in worldly pleasures. The humanists questioned all forms of absolutism
and were in favour of individual freedom. Later, it induced the germination of
ideas such as individual rights, human security, socialism and democracy.
The
“Scientific Revolution” in the 16th Century which created a new and orderly
version of the world has replaced faith by “positivism” and feudalism by
Capitalism. The political philosophers of the time, having triggered by the
scientific rigour, held that social relations also could be ordered like that
of the natural philosophy. These attempts led to the ‘Social Contract’ theory
which explains ‘state-society’ relations vis-a-vis human nature.
They
held that the nature of human beings determined the contours of state-society
relations. Thomas Hobbes (with his experience of the English civil war)
underlined the need for a powerful state to maintain civility in society.
Hobbes’ view that human beings are motivated by self-interests and these are
often contradictory in nature led to a condition of “all against all”. Hobbes
proclaimed: rationality and self-interests persuaded human beings to continue
in agreement, to surrender sovereignty to a common power which is Leviathan.
There were two types of relationships. One was ‘vertical’ between Leviathan and
the people; and the other ‘horizontal’ relationship among the people under the
surveillance of Leviathan. Hobbes’ account of the ‘State of Nature’ and the
‘sovereignty of the state’ induced the germination of ‘Realism’ in later
periods that defined the nature and relationship between the state and civil
society.
John
Locke, during the period of Glorious Revolution that marked the struggle
between the divine right of the Crown and the political right of Parliament,
forged a social contract theory of a limited state and a powerful society. Having
held that the consolidation of political power can be turned into autocracy,
Locke set forth two treaties on Government with reciprocal obligations. In the
first, people submit themselves to the common public authority which enacts and
maintain laws and the later which limits the public authority from threatening
the basic rights of the human beings, which include the preservation of life,
liberty and property. He also held that the state must operate within the
bounds of civil and natural laws. Locke, ultimately, contributed to the liberal
tradition which has a distinct notion about State- Civil society relations.
The
‘Thirty Years War’ and the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 gave birth to a modern
state system which endorsed the state as the territory based political units
having Sovereignty. The Enlightenment thinkers believed in the inherent goodness
of the human mind. They vehemently opposed the alliance between State and the
Church. Jean Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant argued that people are peace
lovers and the wars are the creation of absolute rulers. Alexis de Tocqueville
argued for the system which was effective to guard against the domination of a
single interest and check the tyranny. With his inherent opposition to
mercantilism, Adam Smith argued that wealthy state might become despotic, that
would lead to wars and territorial conquests. Therefore he advocated the
separation of economy from the state. Many thinkers held that mercantilism
augmented the power of the despotic state and it did no aim at the welfare of
the people. The leading thinkers of the Enlightenment period considered civil
society as a separate realm that stood for the protection of individual rights
and private property. Conceiving this idea, Hegel held that civil society had
emerged at the particular epoch of capitalism, therefore it serves its
interests: individual rights and private property. This theme was taken further
by Karl Marx who held that civil society was the “base” where productive forces
and social relations were taken place. He considered the state and the civil
society as the executive arms of the ‘bourgeoisie’; therefore both should be
withered away. This negative impression about Civil Society was rectified by Antonio
Gramsci that led to the revival of the term in contemporary times. Apart from
Marx, Gramsci did not consider civil society as coterminous with the
socio-economic base of the state. He located civil society in the political
superstructure. He underlined the crucial role of civil society as the
contributor of the cultural and ideological capital for the survival of the
hegemony of capitalism.
Analysing
the realities in the capitalist West and the Russian Revolution, Gramsci
endorsed the importance of shaping the cultural and ideological contours of
civil society. Gramsci’s conception of civil society includes all social
institutions that are non-production related, non-governmental and non-familial
that ranges from recreational groups to trade unions and political parties.
With the emergence of New Social Movements (NSMs), civil society became a key
terrain of strategic action to construct “an alternative social and world
order”. Gramsci viewed civil society as the site for problem solving. Agreeing
with this view, the ‘New Left’ assigns Civil Society a key role in defending
people against the state and market and in formulating democratic will to
influence the state.
Comments
Post a Comment