Suchergebnisse

Civil society groups are among the most important private actors to fill some of the gaps that exist
in Myanmar's education system. As the state-run education system deteriorates, civil society actors
develop alternative approaches to teaching and the provision of basic education materials. As its
subtitle suggests, this article argues that even though the military regime of Myanmar is highly
authoritarian, spaces for civil society actors do exist within two areas of state weakness: firstly,
within various sectors of the weak welfare state; and secondly, within some of the negotiated
spaces of relative ethnic autonomy in ceasefire areas. Against this backdrop, the emergence of
civil-society-based self-help groups in the education sector provides but one specific example of
a larger trend that is taking place in present-day Myanmar: The military regime has started to
tolerate certain civil society activities in areas of tremendous welfare needs that the government
is unable or unwilling to deal with itself.

Civil society and the Internet energize each other in their co-evolutionary development in China. The Internet facilitates civil society activities by offering new possibilities for citizen participation. Civil society facilitates the development of the Internet by providing the necessary social basis—citizens and citizen groups—for communication and interaction. These arguments are illustrated with an analysis of the discourse in Qiangguo Luntan [Strengthening the Nation Forum] and an ethnographic study of Huaxia Zhiqing [Chinese Educated Youth], <www.hxzq.net>.

CIVIL SOCIETY HAS BECOME VERY IMPORTANT--A PREQUISITE FOR DEVELOPING A HEALTHY POLITY AND VIBRANT ECONOMY. THIS ARTICLE CAUTIONS THAT TOO MUCH OF THE WRONG KIND CAN ACTUALLY WEAKEN DEMOCRACY AND PRODUCE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC GRIDLOCK. IT QUESTIONS THE USEFULNESS OF NGOS AND ARGUES THAT CIVIL SOCIETY REALISM SHOULD NOT BE A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS.

Nearly two decades have passed since the events of the WTO's Seattle Ministerial marked civil society as relevant to global trade politics. Despite this, and as the chapter explains, there remains significant ambiguity as to what is meant by the term 'civil society'. That civil society matters in global trade governance needs to be understood in terms of two inter-related questions: how the WTO Secretariat, and other institutional actors, give recognition to certain groups and individuals; and, why it is that the actors described as 'civil society' seek to contest a governance domain often seemingly closed to their demands.

Civil society with developed economic, cultural, legal and political relations, independent of the state, but to interact with it, the society of citizens of high social, political, cultural and moral status, creating together with the state of development of legal relations.

Many of the thousands of Russians who protested against the Soviet system in 1990/91 are still around. In 2001, there were an estimated 200,000 nongovernmental organizations. However, like the civil society in general, they are contributing little to consolidate democracy. Questioned here is whether the public even constitutes a civil society, so little do they do to develop democratic institutions. This chapter analyzes the development of both Soviet & post-Soviet society in terms of their demonstration of independence from as opposed to obedience to the state. It is argued that, like political parties, they do not have a cultural precedent for civic action, nor do they have sufficient economic resources, since post-Soviet economic development in Russia has benefited only a few, who have no reason to change the status quo. The history of what might be called Russia's civil society is traced, & possibilities for change are suggested. J. Stanton

This article discusses the experience of civil society and social movements inCentral and Eastern Europe both before and after the events of 1989. It showshow the different paths to the development of "civil society" as an organisingconcept in the pre-1989 period impacted on experiences after that date, and relates this to broader theoretical debates on the concept. In particular, it argues that the movements of "un-civil society" often fulfil a more substantial political role than the NGOs of "civil society", for a range of reasons. Thearticle draws on a series of interviews conducted with "alter-globalisation" activists in the region

Argues that the degree to which global civil society strengthens "rule by the people" in contemporary politics depends on the ideas about civil society, globality, & democracy that one adopts as well as the contextual circumstances of particular situations. An in-depth look at the concepts of civil society, globality, & democracy suggests that global-scale civil society activities have the capacity to greatly enhance democracy but that potential remains largely unrealized. Citizen ignorance, institutional failings, structural inequalities, & marginalized identities are identified as four problems that have created large gaps of democracy in today's globalized world. It is concluded that global civil society is not necessarily either a democratic or a counter-democratic force in contemporary politics. Rather, the important issue is whether civil society actors deal with the opportunities & obstacles they face in ways that augment democratization. The cultural, economic, political, & social diversity of today's world makes a universally applicable "best practices" unworkable; therefore, "every global civil society initiative must chart its own way to greater democracy.". J. Lindroth

Klappentext: Now in its fourth edition, Civil Society has become a major work of reference for those who seek to understand the role of voluntary citizen action in a troubled world. Recent economic and political developments do not bode well for the theory and practice of civil society: communities are increasingly divided; inequality is on the rise; authoritarians and populists have gained a foothold even in advanced democracies; restrictions on freedom of speech and association are increasingly common and recent scandals have even reduced trust in charities. Worryingly, public spheres seem incapable of addressing these concerns. Yet, as Michael Edwards makes clear, ideas about the civil sphere can shed much light on what is happening, why, and how we might respond to polarization, privatization, and authoritarians of various stripes.