.1.2 Relationship between Civil Society and Democracy and Development Policies (Tanjil Ahmed) Putnam (1993) and Diamond (1989, 1992) are considered as the proponents of the mainstream Neo-Toquevillean school who argue that social capital and organized citizenry are the keys to make democracy work. Trust, cooperation, generalized reciprocity and networks generated through civic engagement and association are the core ingredients to economic and institutional success. These traits define civic community. Societies rich with such traits have shown affluences and democracy, while other societies that lack such attributes but marked by vertical networks, patron-client relation, force, kinship, patronage etc. have shown lower performance in development and good governance (Putnam, 1993). Diamond (1989) believed that developing countries require autonomous, local based citizenry for the development and maintenance of secure democracy. Harbeson (1994:1), another proponent of civil society in developing countries, went to the extent of identifying civil society as the missing key to political reform, legitimacy and governance in those political systems. These ideas have provided the theoretical basis to the development paradigm called good governance agenda where it is suggested that a virtuous circle could be built with the state, economy, and civil society which will balance growth, equity and stability (Lewis 2004,303). Since the 1990s International Development Organizations (IDO) have taken big projects to foster development through civil society initiatives in the South. Researches show donor initiative to support civil society has lead to grass-roots development, social mobilization, and empowerment (World Bank reports, Fisher: 1998; Stiles: 2002, IOB: 1998, Amin: 1997, Tasnim: 2005, Dowla and Barua: 2006). But donor projects have hardly succeeded in pushing forward the issues like participation, democracy, and good governance through civil society effectively. The very idea of the Neo-Tocquevillean school as well as policy arguments of the donor agencies have been criticized and pointed out to be weak and expedient. Putnam’s idea to bring about macro-political outcome (democracy) through microsocial effect (civic engagement) (Foley and Edwards, 1996: 6) has been criticized mainly from three aspects— its simplicity, overlooking the political gap between civil society and democracy and ignoring the other forces simultaneously active in the political system that influence both civil society and democracy. Levi (1996:51) directly term Putnam’s image of community generating social capital as romanticism. Historically it has been proved that close network blocks, innovations reinforce traditionalism and create distrust about those outside the social network. Another weak point of Putnum’s theory is down playing the political associations and movements (Foley and Edward 1996). Development practitioners have also been found to be ignoring the political institutions like political parties as well as the traditional CSOs and concentrating only in forming and supporting new social organization like development NGOs. Moreover, case studies have shown that often, political institutionalization turns out to be more important for democracy than civic engagement and political penetration may cause opposite effect through civic engagement (Berman, 1997). Arnomy (2004:3), based on his empirical and historical observation, argues that, socio historical context influences the nature, dispositions, orientations, and impact of civic 44 engagements. Institutional and societal conditions establish the cost threshold and enabling conditions that determine the democratic potential of associations and movements. More the less, to avoid social cleavages, Putnam’s ‘civic associations’ do not advance a cause, and rather pursues policy changes (Foley and Edward, 1996) that are more like choral clubs, bird watching groups, soccer clubs. Democratic roles that citizens are able to play from such non-political and often closed membership are under question. According to Max Weber, the quantitative spread of associational life does not always go hand in hand with it qualitative significance (Berman, 1997:407). Tarrow (1996:396) is concerned with Putnam’s work as it goes beyond Italy and advices the policy makers the Tocquevillean idea as a prescription to build social network and arrange cooperatives in the Third World states. Tarrow (1996:396) also warns that such top down policy of encouraging associations for social capital would be attacking symptoms but not the causes of problem. In fact, this is what has actually happened. Since 1990s, civil society organizations began to be highlighted both as service providers and in their role in promoting good governance and democratization (Davis and McGregor, 2000:53). Such interest of the international development agencies in social capital, civil society and participation may be interpreted as another way of building on the micro social foundation of market solutions (Angeles, 2004:187). With the end of the cold war, it had become necessary for the Western donors to democratize the South as soon as possible to make away for the new thrust of trade liberalization. They believed that a democratic and accountable state could foster economic growth and development and allow the market to operate freely. To make a way for accelerated entry of goods and services, financial services, protectionist or authoritarian regimes had to be removed or forced to democratize. For the same cause they have attempted 45 to strengthen weak governments in the South emphasizing the policies for transparency, and decentralization but against corruptions. Often they have equated democracy with capitalism (Rocamora, 2004:199). Donors began with the assumption that civil society was an important check on the government; so civil society assistance could encourage external pressure on the states for reform. With the falling budget for development this strategy had also been considered the best way to achieve large-scale effect through low-cost projects. It is the Neo-Toquevillean scholars who provided the necessary theory to such strategy plan of the western donors particularly the USAID and World Bank in 1990s (Howell and Pearce, 2001:43). The influence of such civil society theory and democratic assumption was pervasive upon the development practitioners. However, questions arise about the applicability of such theories developed from the experiences of the Western societies, in very different socio-political and economic setting of the developing countries. Researchers agree that associational revolution in developing countries is significantly influenced by external factors including donor enthusiasm for NGOs as agents of economic and political change. Nevertheless, criticisms to introduce such Western notion of civil society in non-western settings have gained considerable attention in recent scholarly writings due to the ramifications observed in different countries. This may be discussed from two overlapping viewpoints, that is, imposition of a new idea in a very different social historical setting and from the consideration of immature institutional development or lack of necessary conditions for proper functioning of civil society. Without careful and sensitive prior analysis of needs in the social and political contexts, donor intervention in local civil societies can end up distorting and weakening the 46 local processes of association and problem solution (Howell and Pearce 2001, 121). Such projects based on preconceived notions of civil society and neglecting indigenous settings, local circumstances, and histories, provoke controversy. There is no guarantee that the liberal democratic model of civil society will necessarily bring positive outcomes across nations, cultures, history and political system. This may be considered as a similar endeavor of exporting modernization theory from the developed North to the developing South. Sardamove (2005, 391-394) is of the opinion that failed efforts of social modernization for decades, attempts to create Western-style nation-states, and inter-communal conflicts have paradoxically produced; in his words, a partial ‘retraditionalization’ of social life in the developing world. In these societies, most individuals have remained embedded within face-to-face and quasi-kinship networks and have tended to pursue social goals through informal associations based on personal or factional loyalty. As a result, beneath the successive social and political changes, societies have remained dominated by tightly-knit ‘mafias’ pursuing narrow agenda. Strong influences of such trends have caused clientelistic and parasitic characteristics among the modern NGOs. Civil society organizations have brought tangible benefits like social welfare, empowerment, education etc. but they have been generally unable to exercise the multiplying effects often expected of them like pluralism and democracy. The necessary institutional development and environment for a civil society to move for pluralism and democracy is in most cases absent in those societies. Often, high rate of violence, marketization of rule of law, privatization of law enforcement, and the wide gap between the poor and the privileged (Oxhorn: 2003), concentration of political power in the highest political office constrain civil society’s democratic potential in Third World countries. 47 These have caused periodic setbacks to the democratic development in countries like Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia that do have vibrant civil societies (Alagappa, 2004:493). These constraints to the performance of civil society and ultimately democracy, remind the strong presence and influence of indigenous vertical social forces such as clientelism, patronage, nepotism, corruption, and violence all working within political system as well as low level of political institutionalization. The challenge for development practitioners is to understand the meaning and role of civil society in specific cultural and political contexts.
Posted on: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 05:24:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015