On state and civil society

The notion of civil society has a long history. Its roots can be traced to Aristotle’s writings. Jean Cohen and Andrew Arato argue that “political community”, as was used by Aristotle, refers to what we call civil society today. Other terms like “social capital” and “mass society” have been used by modern writers on democracy like Habermas. Hegel’s description of civil society is what attracts me — “Sphere of civil society is the territory of mediation… where there is free play for every idiosyncrasy … and where waves of every passion gush forth, regulated only by reason.” However, in considering the various definitions, it appears that civil society refers to institutions, organisations and platforms that aren’t part of the state, but are independent with an aim to facilitate society’s advancement.

When there is involvement of different institutions, organisations and platforms, a high possibility of differences in approaches of these civil society entities also exists. Pamela Paxton rightly points out that civil society’s role has been appraised by different scholars in different contexts — Habermas would support it as a positive force that ensures liberty and individual freedom; but in Antonio Gramsci’s context, civil society is a positive force as in the case of trade unions led by bourgeoise which helped elites sustain their political hegemony.

The difference is possibly due to different political theoretical standpoints. While Habermas appreciates civil society for allowing Öffentlichkeit culture to flourish, which is characterised by dialogue between state and society; for Gramsci, civil society is not good as it helped progressives win in the East. Reflecting on the relationship between civil society and state and the outcomes of the relationship, Gramsci in his Prison Notebooks says that the winning of progressives in the East was because “in Russia the State was everything; civil society was primordial and gelatinous. In the West, there was a proper relation between the State and civil society and when the State trembled a sturdy structure of civil society was at once revealed.”

This explanation is actually a critique on civil society from a communist point of view, but is also significant in understanding the important role of civil society. In times when the state trembles a robust civil society can be helpful in sustaining it and can help the state win the situation.

Pakistan’s situation is not very encouraging due to its weak economy and ensuing poverty. A robust and vibrant civil society is what can help Pakistan sustain itself as a strong country. But unfortunately, the relationship between the state and civil society in Pakistan is marred by strong conflicts between civil society and government possibly because of the sea gap between the two. It seems the government doesn’t take civil society seriously as there is not sufficient room for it to flourish. Meanwhile, civil society continues struggling against the force exerted by the government. In such a case, civil society efforts would be arbitrary, and the result would be a sporadic brawl with harmful outcomes. Some examples being violent conflicts between lawyer groups and government forces.

A properly defined and harmonious relationship between the state and civil society seems a necessity now. The responsibility lies on the government’s shoulders to allow civil society to grow and open the space for mediation for rational dialogue, the result of which can hopefully re-direct the course of the country into being a welfare state and help democracy take root. Otherwise in the absence of a properly defined relationship, the rift between civil society and the state would add to the problems rather than contributing positively towards national prosperity.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 20^th, 2020.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.