In the traditional pluralist definition of civil society discussions on the concept often have normative elements, leading to an assumption that civil society and its sub-set, NGOs, are somewhat ―a force for good‖ (cf. Mercer, 2002). Hadenius and Uggla (1996 in Gwarinda et al., 2015) identify the two main roles of civil society that can be used to analyse NGO activities: education and encouraging pluralism. Firstly, in its educational function, civil society is regarded as responsible for increasing a culture of accountability of the state and citizen participation in public affairs (Gwarinda et al., 2015). Secondly, in terms of pluralism, civil society is considered to foster political participation by influencing the public policy process through advocacy, lobbying and mobilisation, as well as facilitating structured policy dialogue and consultation with state structures (Hadenius and Uggla, 1996 in Gwarinda et al., 2015). In the literature on civil society NGOs are viewed as a force for democracy, both through increasing participation, but especially in terms of challenging the state and being a voice for citizens on issues relating to their interests.
NGOs are also viewed as ―schools for participation‖ through getting citizens involved in social and political processes. In international development discourses NGOs were key elements in embodying concepts such as ―civil society‖, ―democracy‖, ―good governance‖
and ―social capital‖ (Tvedt, 1998 in Mercer, 2002). The analysis of civil society by Putnam (1993, 1995) as being ―the sum of voluntary organisations‖ was most influential in the late 20th century in understanding civil society (in Mueller-Hirth, 2009: 424). In this interpretation liberal democracy‘s strength and stability depended on ―associational participation‖ to ensure the protection of the individual (Howell and Pearce, 2001 in Mueller-Hirth, 2009: 424).
NGOs, it was argued, were significant bolsterers of civil society, mainly because of their democratic and participatory approach (Bratton, 1989 in Mercer, 2002).
This pervasive acceptance of NGOs as ―democratic actors‖ owes more to ideology than to the widespread debates on the development of politics, according to Mercer (2002). The
41
relationship between civil society, democratisation and NGOs assumes that, through their activities, NGOs as part of civil society support democratic processes (Mercer, 2002).
Additionally, Diamond (1997) states that ―a strong and plural civil society‖ is needed not only to watch over the government, but also for the purpose of legitimating the authority of the state.
Civil society is thought to play a major role in democratic transitions (Mercer, 2002). Civil society contributes to the development and consolidation of democracy by working towards restraining the power of the state, according to Diamond (1997). After the democratic
transition of a state, this function involves ―checking, monitoring, and restraining the exercise of power‖ and holding state actors accountable to the law (Diamond, 1997: 36). For example, the Evilio Javier Foundation in the Philippines monitored the government by its performance and even assessed individual ministers and representatives (Diamond, 1997). NGOs
strengthen civil society and democratic development through challenging state autonomy at both national and local levels by ―pressing for change and developing an alternative set of perspectives and policies‖, says Mercer (2002: 9). In this regard, Brazilian NGOs are noteworthy; for instance, Garrison notes that ―before, during and after‖ the period of transition NGOs made key contributions to social welfare and towards public policy by acting as ―watchdog‖ over the state and initiating national civic campaigns (in Mercer, 2002).
The idea that civil society can be a challenger of government and act as the voice of public protest could be viewed as a major threat to those in power and potentially dangerous especially for authoritarian governments that seek to control society.
The media as part of civil society also play a vital role in holding governments accountable (Diamond, 1997). Exposure may not guarantee disgrace of those in power, or deterrence, but it can facilitate the process of holding governments accountable (Diamond, 1997). For example, the emergence of an increasingly independent press helped civil society groups put pressure on Mexico‘s political institutions to reform (Diamond, 1997). Also, civil society serves democracy by articulating, aggregating, and representing interests beyond the political party (Diamond, 1997).
A second function of civil society in democratisation is to increase citizens‘ skills and political efficiency, as well as to promote an appreciation of democratic rights (Diamond, 1997: 41). Voluntary associations were considered large free schools, where the general theory of association could be learned by all the members of the community (Diamond,
42
1997). By pluralising, there are more opportunities for a diverse group of interest groups to have a ―voice‖, and more opportunities to create ―alliances of civic actors to place pressure on the state‖ (Mercer, 2002: 8). Clarke (1998) has argued that the rapid growth of NGOs and their political roles has led to an ―associational revolution‖, for example, in Southeast Asian countries such as Cambodia, Indonesia and the Philippines. In Indonesia and Vietnam NGOs have multiplied in response to the hegemony of the state ―rather than the weakness of formal institutions‖ (Clarke, 1998: 41).
NGOs also work with grassroots organisations that are often comprised of poor and
marginalised groups. In doing this, NGOs widen and deepen opportunities for participation by the public – both in terms of geographic reach and organisational capacity (Mercer, 2002).
Simultaneously, the interests of marginalised groups are represented by NGOs who also campaign on their behalf and seek to influence public policy (Mercer, 2002). As an example, through roles such as watchdogs and voluntary organisations, NGOs in South Korea became important in ―pursuing further participative democracy‖ for the country (Kim and Moon, 2003). At first the roles of NGOs were limited to organising protests against the authoritarian regime and providing social services, but they eventually moved into policy areas as they became more institutionalised (Kim and Moon, 2003). NGOs have gradually become a means to organise and ―convey the public‘s voice to the state‖ (Kim and Moon, 2003).
This section has highlighted the many functions/roles of civil society (and its subset, NGOs) in the pluralist tradition. In this traditional definition of civil society and what it represents, most authors have claimed that civil society is a force for good, especially in its contribution to developing and consolidating countries transitioning towards democracy. Moreover, civil society in this tradition is viewed as fulfilling important roles as schools for democracy, encouraging citizen participation, as well as challenging and monitoring the state and holding it accountable. Again, these traditional ideas of civil society can be viewed as a threat to authoritarian countries, especially because it encourages challenging and monitoring the state, providing a voice for public protest, therefore, making it a potentially sensitive issue for governments in authoritarian political systems. Consequently, in the last few decades there has been an increasingly critical literature on civil society and the functions it
serves/provides.
43
2.3.2 Civil society in authoritarian/non-pluralist societies: force for democracy or preserving the status quo?
Most […] contemporary authoritarian states permit the existence of formally
autonomous organisations engaging in activities beyond the direct control of the state […]. They are able to coexist with a wide range of non-governmental associations, raising important questions about the nature of modern authoritarianism and the status of these civic groups (Lewis, 2013: 325).
The last few decades have seen an increase in scholarship criticising the traditional literature on civil society which views civil society as a force for good, especially in its contribution to developing and consolidating democracy (Encarnacion, 2006). Authors have increasingly written about the concept of civil society and its function in authoritarian settings (Berman, 2003; Giersdorf and Croissant, 2011; Cavatorta, 2012, among others). Civil society in militarised regimes such as Fiji and Burma have been examined by McCarthy (2015). Here, civil society organisations provided public services such as aid during times of crisis. In Burma ―the state‘s neglect of social welfare services […] created a space for local civil society organisations to operate‖ (McCarthy, 2015: 715). In the 1990s, a period when NGOs blossomed, civil society organisations provided humanitarian relief, small infrastructure projects, schools and teachers for communities in government-controlled areas, and help with funerals at the local or village level (McCarthy, 2015).
For the most part, this scholarship has concentrated on countries in Latin America, the Middle East as well as parts of Asia. A body of literature has developed on the state and civil society in transition and the role of NGOs in democratisation in Asia, and in South Korea in particular (Kim, 2000; Kim and Moon, 2003) as well as in Taiwan (Fan, 2000, 2004).
Increasingly, however, scholars are focusing on the role of civil society in maintaining the status quo, that is maintaining authoritarian institutions where they have been established and operate. Civil society organisations, including NGOs, adapt to their situation and use the political system and institutional settings in order to achieve their goals (Spires, 2011). Spires illustrates this with the example of grassroots organisations in China, which are either
unregistered or registered as private companies, and who often get on with their operations by having informal relations with local government officials (Spires, 2011). While the situation
44
might differ at the central level of government, at the local level officials have the power to make decisions and hence grassroots NGOs tend to form relationships with them in order to operate. In this way, the authoritarian political and institutional settings may actually benefit grassroots NGOs in some ways.
Civil society in the pluralist tradition ―allegedly teaches citizens to be engaged and broad-minded‖; similarly they train activists required by a democracy (Diamond, 1994; Edwards et al., 2001 in Berman, 2003: 259). Many scholars, according to Berman, have viewed the expansion of civil society in many parts of the Middle East as the chance ―for political liberalisation and even democratisation‖ to take place in the region (Berman, 2003: 259), as well as be a ―powerful antidote to radical Islam in the Middle East‖, for instance
(Encarnacion, 2006: 362). This is similar to the function of civil society in the fight against the communist regimes in East and Central Europe and authoritarianism in Latin America (Encarnacion, 2006). In Central and Eastern Europe civil society is said to have waged
―heroic struggles against Communism‖ (Encarnacion, 2006: 360). Still, in many countries in both regions civil society has weakened rather than expanded during the development of democracy (Encarnacion, 2006).
In China the major growth of civil society, specifically environmental NGOs, is often viewed as a move towards democratic ideals or democratisation in the country. Chinese civic
environmental NGOs signify a ―viable form for cultivating civic engagement‖ notes Tang and Zhan (2008: 426). Nevertheless, the relationship between the environmental NGO sector and the government continue to be uncertain. On the one hand, the government is generally interested in the help of environmental NGOs to assist with the implementation of projects and therefore, tolerates the sector, especially those that are believed to be non-oppositional.
On the other hand, the same authorities may be concerned with efforts by NGOs to act as
―agency watchdogs‖ (Tang and Zhan, 2008: 427). Thus, with NGOs inability to oppose the Chinese government and with the increasingly strict control over the civil society sector in law, democratisation does not seem possible in the near future.
The assumption that civil society promotes democratic governance came under criticism in the mid-1990s (Ndegwa, 1996; Berman, 1997 in Cavatorta, 2012). The concept of civil society had reached peak levels where it was believed that civil society could lead to the dismantling of corrupt and incompetent governments, deliver social services, advocate for
45
human and civil rights, as well as promote good governance and economic prosperity.
However, the main claim was still that a strong civil society contributed to democratisation.
This was problematic, according to Encarnacion (2006).
Many studies now suggest that a strong civil society is not necessarily democratic, and that the strength of civil society cannot alone guarantee the stability or longevity of democracy. Quite the contrary, under some conditions a strong civil society can debilitate democracy and even cause its collapse (Encarnacion, 2006: 359).
Many forms of authoritarianism are found, and many governments in these systems deal with issues or obstacles differently (Cavatorta, 2012). For example, Burma relies heavily on the repression of the military, which operates ―exclusively in isolation from the population,‖
while hybrid regimes such as Morocco survive by using a range of strategies such as ―co-optation and divide and rule‖ (Cavatorta, 2012: 5). In order for the different authoritarian regimes to deal with the social transformations they face, they use different instruments.
The differences that exits between authoritarian regimes imply that the ‗societies‘
they face are also very different from one another and it becomes therefore impossible to generalise whether civil activism in authoritarian contexts weakens or strengthens the regime, as it might be responsible for the latter in one case and for the former in another (Cavatorta, 2012: 6).
These arguments illustrate that civil society in authoritarian regimes or any other regime may contribute to the strengthening of that regime, an observation explored further in the chapter on China.
What civic organisations are and what role they fulfil in different political systems has been the subject of a longstanding and controversial debate (Wischermann et al., 2016). In their functions as ―amphibian bodies‖ that promote a link between state and society, civil society also serves as a useful tool for authoritarian governments, say Giesdorf and Croissant (2011:
5). Their functions include providing relevant information and acting as a mechanism for feedback for the government, and organising their members as ―vote-banks‖ for the
government, thereby strengthening the autocracy (Giesdorf and Croissant, 2011: 5). In this way, civil society does not act as a school for democracy. There might be very little
46
contribution ―to the evolution of civic norms, beliefs and attitudes‖ (Giesdorf and Croissant, 2011: 5).
Some authors (e.g. Edwards and Foley, 1996; Roth, 2004) warn of the ―dark side‖ of civic organisations, since many of these organisations show features of authoritarianism in their intra-organisational decision-making processes (Wischermann et al., 2016). Both citizens‘
engagement in civil society and their involvement in the political arena is not viewed as a blessing as ―both carry significant risks for democracy‖ (Encarnacion, 2006: 359). Thus, according to the same author, the ―dark side‖ of civil society comes from the same sources underpinning democratic virtues. Citizens can just as easily employ social capital in order to undermine democracy. For example, the social trust that emerges in civil society organisation such as church groups, trade unions and scouts groups can also be found in gangs, militias and terrorist organisations (Encarnacion, 2006).
There are authors who warn that civil society in authoritarian political systems may actually deepen political problems in some regimes rather than move them towards democratisation;
for example, NGOs that are regarded as the ―very embodiment of civil society‖ have been found to foster ―the very ills they are meant to help cure: authoritarianism, corruption, and lack of accountability‖ (Encarnacion, 2006: 357). Examples of this were seen in Egypt, where Islamic civil society organisations served as a base for Islamic fundamentalist movements and to launch a revolutionary challenge to the status quo, according to Berman (2003).
Traditional civil society literature has not sufficiently studied the way that civil society's influence is dependent on its political context (Berman, 2003). As the case of Egypt
illustrates, civil society growth depend on its effects on the wider political environment, not its virtue of being good (Berman, 2003). Where regimes have weak political institutions and are viewed as incompetent, as in Egypt, ―civil society can work to undermine political stability further by alienating citizens from traditional political structures‖, according to Berman (2003: 266). Thus, civil society provides fertile ground for a revolutionary and opposing movement to grow (Berman, 2003).
From these points in the literature it is evident that civil society and NGOs in authoritarian settings fulfil particular roles because of the political system. In these settings it is clear that the political system shapes the roles of NGOs by regulating their operations, enforcing things like registration as well as controlling the ideas and work of civil society and NGOs, not allowing them to challenge the state or spread anti-state ideas. Therefore, in the case of
47
NGOs in authoritarian settings, the roles of NGOs are limited. However, in the environmental sector of other countries NGOs have successfully challenged and held environmental
violators accountable; therefore, in the environmental sector we may see other significant roles fulfilled by NGOs. This study looks at whether or not the roles for NGOs are the same for China‘s environmental NGOs and the conservation policy sector?
2.3.3 Conceptualising NGOs - and the challenge of NGOs in non-democratic countries