The origin of the modern state has left many scholars intellectually engaged. Sociologists, psychologists, political scientists, jurists, anthropologists, and philosophers have variously grappled with the issue of the origin of the state. Thomas Hobbes is one of the great thinkers who has contributed to the discussion on the origin of the state. Thomas Hobbes is of the view that naturally, that is, man in the state of nature, is a-social, atavistically thinking about himself alone. Because of this atomistic and solitary disposition of man in the state of nature, the society was accentuated by an unprecedented degree of rancor, acrimony and obfuscation. Given this picture of man and the pre-civil-society depicted by Hobbes, one would feel that justifying the emergence of the civil society would become difficult. This paper examines how Hobbes migrated man from the state of nature to the civil society in spite of the gory picture of him he had painted. Thomas Hobbes' theory of the origin of the state is categorized in the class of the social contract theories.
Civil society is frequently singled out as one of the most important factors in the democratization process, but existing research is often imprecise with regard to civil society's relation to democratic development. This study analyzes how, and under what circumstances, civil society can contribute to democratic development in newly established democracies. A conceptual framework is outlined that draws attention to civil society's multiple democracy–building functions and how they are constrained by the political context, the impact of development assistance and the degree of democracy within civil society. The empirical focus here is on a newly established democracy – Honduras – a country that initiated a transition to democracy in 1980. The present study shows how civil society organizations initially played a relatively limited role in the regime-controlled transition, but eventually reacted against the worsening human rights situation. In the post-transition period, civil society has emerged as an important agenda setter that has drawn attention to democratic deficits, as an educator for civic education of the mass public as well as the political elite, as a source of new political alternatives that has managed to bridge the gap between political society and civil society, and finally, as a counterpart of the government, particularly in development-related areas. Whereas civil society's function during the transition is best described as a countervailing power that can, if it is democratic in its orientations, promulgate a democratic orientation of reforms, the functions in the post-transition period are best conceptualized as a complex mix of state-supporting and countervailing powers. The study concludes that the political context is crucial for our understanding of civil society's democracy-building potential. Through different mechanisms, the Honduran state has managed to control civil society organizations, something that has a negative impact on civil society's countervailing power, and this tendency has been visible during authoritarian rule as well as after the transition to democratic rule. Thus, examining the historical state-society relations can improve our understanding of civil society and its democracy-building potential. The attempts to control or co-opt civil society can be reinforced by the donor community's efforts to strengthen civil society. Democracy-promoting strategies can, consequently, result in an undermined countervailing power of civil society.
"This book challenges the dominant anti-trade and anti-globalization stands taken by many civil society organizations, such as NGOs, trade unions and women's organizations. The authors, however, argue that instead of free trade, international trade rules need to be tailored to the stage of development of an economy." "Greater openness to trade can bring benefits of new livelihoods for women and men, new technologies and methods of production. But there is also the certainty that some livelihoods will become uncompetitive. In such cases, public policy should be re-directed away from propping up non-competitive livelihoods towards productivity - enhancing investments that can improve competitiveness. Subsidies should be directed to promote change, rather than freeze livelihoods." "Instead of lamenting the fact that trade unions, women's organizations and other organizations of small producers can no longer be effective within national boundaries, the book argues that it has become necessary for civil society organizations to see themselves as, and make themselves, global. In order to improve labour (and environmental) standards, global action is a necessary concomitant to national action. In conclusion, there is a proposed agenda for civil society to strengthen global countervailing power to capital."--Jacket.
The fact that civil society groups play important roles in post-conflict peacebuilding has entered the mainstream of international conflict resolution dogma. Rarely do local civil society groups get a seat at the negotiation table for peace accords. Although the exclusion of civil society from peace negotiations may streamline the process, the absence of civil society voices and interests at the negotiating table can negatively impact the sustainability of a peace agreement during peacebuilding. Surveying a wide variety of different peace processes, a strong correlation was found between active civil society participation in peace negotiations and the durability of peace during the peacebuilding phase. Cases in which civil society groups actively engaged in peace negotiations seemed to enjoy more sustained peace in the peacebuilding phase. This holds true also for cases in which civil society groups did not have a direct seat at the table, but did exercise significant influence with the negotiators because they were democratic actors. War resumed in many cases not characterized by direct or indirect civil society involvement in the peace negotiations. No claim of causality is made; the sustainability of peace surely rests on causes as complex and dynamic as the initiation of war does. However, these findings do call attention to the need for further research to understand the special impact that civil society inclusion at the peace table may have. Adapted from the source document.
This article is an ethnography portraying the processual and performative dimensions of the 2009 state assembly election in Andhra Pradesh. It shows how upper castes have persisted in power in a multicaste and increasingly democratic society through the distribution of welfare and patronage benefits to more marginalized segments of society. Conceptually, it argues for the importance of "political society" over "civil society," when examining state-society relations in neoliberal, democratic India.
We theorize that three distinct structures of democratic constraint explain why more democratic dyads do not engage in military conflict with each other. We build on earlier theories that focused on electoral and horizontal accountability. We add a new dimension—the social accountability provided by an active civil society. Using several new measures from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) data set, we stringently test these explanations. We find social accountability to be the strongest and most consistent predictor of nonbelligerence in dyads, that horizontal accountability is still important, but that the independent role of electoral accountability has been somewhat overstated. However, we do find that social and electoral accountability work strongly together, to make for an even greater effect. The finding is robust to a range of specifications and in the face of controls for contending theories that challenge the democratic peace (e.g., the capitalist and territorial peace theories).
Examines whether nonprofit/nongovernmental organizations (NPOs/NGOs) as a manifestation of civil society provide an effective channel for democratic voices. Issues related to globalization are laid out, & the utility of civil society to confront the negative effects of globalization is considered. Six organizational questions are then posed & discussed: (1) Is the development agenda donor-driven rather than representative of grassroots concerns? (2) Does the concentration of resources on a few major NGOs limit broad-based participation by NGOs with less financial capability? (3) Is excessive bureaucratization undermining the democratic integrity of civil society organizations? (4) Has fund-raising supplanted the NGO mission thanks to market competition? (5) Are NGOs at risk of co-optation? (6) To what extent is civil society supportive of democratic principles? Strategies that NGOs might consider to retain their autonomy & better act as channels for democracy are suggested. 5 Tables. J. Zendejas
