Civil Society and Its Impact

Introduction
I attended a small seminar held by a grass root organization called One Voice a few days ago. This organization is funded by several Californian Jews, aiming at building the Israelis’ and Palestinians’ capacity. This organization held several peaceful manifestations to urge the Palestinians to vote. The long term goal is to provide the public a better understanding about the other side and induce the peace resolution of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is merely one of countless examples which show us how the NGOs permeate our daily life and forge our agenda. In the 1990s, the terms of “third sector” and “civil society” are gaining the worldwide focus. Many people think the civil society is an elixir to every problem that the nation states cannot manage. However, the importance of the civil society is still debatable. To what exactly do we refer when using this term “civil society”? Do we overestimate its magnitude? Does this force undermine the exercise of sovereignty?
To answer these questions, I will seek to define civil society first with a theoretical perspective and an insider’s viewpoint. I agree with all the definitions provided by the book, Civil Society . However, I do prefer to use the term to define a non-political and non-capitalism sector. Second, I will argue that civil society does not replace the states in the strict sense although it’s doubtless overwhelming. NGOs and other non-state actors can achieve many tasks that normal sovereign cannot do today. In this way, I agree that the civil society is complementary to the first and second sectors, but they cannot replace the nation states because they are not created to govern the people.

What is civil society?
While reading Civil Society, it’s striking to me when the author, Michael Edwards, mentions that the term of civil society is regarded to be indistinguishable in ancient times: both refer to a type of political association governing social conflict through the imposition of rules that prevent citizens from hurting one another. I have always thought the civil society is a recent phenomenon, which has only been in existence for two or three decade. Thus, I think it’s essential to understand what civil society we are talking about.
There are many definition and viewpoints regarding this term. According to Michael Edwards, there are mainly three kinds of definition to understand civil society: we can regard civil society as associational life, as the good society or as the public sphere. The first definition comes from Alexis de Tocqueville. This “neo-Tocqueville view” also corresponds to how most people view civil society. Civil society is a part of society distinct form states and markets. It is shaped for the objectives of advancing common interests and facilitating collective action, containing all associations and networks between the family and the state, exclusive of firms. I prefer to use civil society as associational life and as Third Sector because there are some unique features that non-profit organizations (NPO) have and that states and private sectors don’t have.
However, I also believe that NGOs have a more important goal other than providing the community link and services. They are forging public opinions and empowering the people. The existence of civil society allows the society to have different voices and helps to build the channel through which the minority can be heard. As Michael Edwards put it, “civil society is people power writ large.”

The shift of power?
Does the emergence of civil society undermine the nation-states’ effectiveness of control? Do we exaggerate the significance of civil society?
The acceptance of human rights and minority rights, the increasing role of international financial institutions (World Bank and IMF), and globalization have led many people to question the capability of the sovereign state. According to Jessica T. Mathews’ article Power Shift in Foreign Affairs, the absolutes of the Westphalian system are all dissolving. The economic activities and the threats are no longer bounded by the boundaries; the resources and the crimes are right now transnational. The diseases such as SARS and Bird Flu are not stopped by the borders. Although the task of providing security still falls upon the shoulders of the nation states, political entities are sharing powers, inclusive of political, social and even security roles, with corporations, international organizations such as UN and NATO and a lot of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) . Because of the Internet and the lowering telecommunication costs, the world is experiencing dramatic changes and NGOs reach an unprecedented level of influence. Jessica Mathews indicates, “Today NGOs deliver more official development assistance than the entire system.” NGOs such as Oxfam, Greenpeace, Care, WWF and Amnesty International have a bigger annual budget than some agencies of UN system.
I have worked in a research platform, Centre for the Third Sector in National Chengchi University (Taiwan), as a volunteer. While I worked there, I observed many instances which NGOs lobby in the congress and then manage to push forward some changes in the political or legal environment. Working for the NGOs or others voluntary service groups at least for a period of three months becomes a popular choice for young people. In my opinion, another reason why the civil society is so full of vitality is that civil society makes up the disappointment that people face in the political reality. Some people think that civil society does provide services in many areas that the conventional sovereignties cannot supply anymore. In this kind of situation, civil society does fulfill the vacuum where sovereign states don’t enjoy their influence. For example, Oxfam worked with ENDA Tiers Monde, a Senegal-based NGO , to provide legal advice and substantial assistance to seven African countries in negotiating new terms and having more legal standings in Cancun 2003. Why can these countries not underpin their argument on their own? Because the states are not capable of achieving this goal and because there were not enough financial resources or legal experts to solve the case on their own, it’s then the time for NGOs to come in. In this sense, the emergence of civil society is truly eroding the sovereignty.
Nonetheless, Stephen D. Krasner contends that states have never enjoyed as much sovereignty as some have supposed. I also think that civil society is not damaging the states to exert their power and control their people because the civil society is not the formal entities which can conduct international treaties and wars despite its vigor. States are still the only entities which can declare wars, establish formal diplomatic relations and use the force. Heller and Sofaer in Problematic Sovereignty assert that the voluntary actions of limiting states’ power or conceding the power to international organizations are actually not a surrender of the sovereignty but an embodiment of sovereign power.
Michael Edwards mentions that states allow the civil society to develop and moreover states induce the civil society to take a bigger voice because it’s considered to be one important indicator in good governance nowadays. For example, China right now cultivates and subsidizes many NGOs and these kinds of associations have an independent appearance but as a matter of fact they are state-sponsored. I do agree with what Jessica said about China’s oppression of the development of civil society as NGOs are somehow a means for China to defer the criticism. The latest issue of The Economist conducted a survey on philanthropy . More and more millionaires are getting into the business of giving but they use the whole new concept to decide who to be given money. The new donors are becoming much more businesslike about the way their money is used. Although the aurthor of the survey, Matthew Bishop, argues that the new trend might encourage civil society and make a better world to come, I am still suspicious of the idea “social entrepreneurship” promoted by civil society itself. Are NGOs unconsciously becoming the tools of corporations and states? Everyone participates in civil society not only because it’s good for humankind but also because the amplification of civil society is good for his own reputation. Civil society is a phenomenon because people want it to be.

Conclusion
Civil society itself is a debatable term. The neo-Tocquevillian view of civil society is the most popular one, but I also think that civil society is capable of empowering the public and allows the society to be more diverse. Some scholars think that civil society is weakening the basis of “states as single actors” system. It’s true that civil society is emerging and the NGOs can play important roles in international events. However, at the same time, other scholars claim that the sovereignty is not harmed by the dynamism of civil society. People overestimate the significance of civil society and it would perhaps fall into the hands of political and business manipulations.