Will the real civil society please stand up?

In this OneWorld guest editorial, Michael Edwards, Ford Foundation programme director and author of the new book "Civil Society", writes on why asking the right questions about the concept 'civil society' can help us achieve poverty reduction and 'deep' democracy.

"It is impossible to have a conversation about politics these days without someone mentioning the magic words “civil society”. You might think that people are clear what they mean when they use this term and why it is so important.

Unfortunately, clarity and rigor are conspicuous by their absence in the civil society debate. The lack of precision threatens to submerge this concept completely under a rising tide of criticism and confusion.

Is civil society a part of society like the NGO sector? A type of society like liberal democracy? An arena for public debate? Or a mixture of all three?

Is it an alternative to the market or the secret ingredient - like trust - that makes markets work? Is it a bulwark against the abuse of state authority or dependent on government for its very existence? A guarantee of pluralism or a cover for special interest politics?

Does civil society belong only in the West? Or can anyone have one? Are families in or out? And what about the business sector? Can civil societies be built through foreign aid and intervention – in Iraq, for example? Or is this just another Western fantasy?"

According to Edwards, the primary issue with the term 'civil society' is that it is not clearly defined. He argues that there needs to be consensus on one definition of this term or people need to stop using it. "When an idea can mean so many things, it probably means nothing. So the time has come either to be rid of the term completely or, now that it has acquired a life of its own, to at least be clearer with each other about the different interpretations in play."

Edwards has determined that, for the most part, the term 'civil society' is used most often in reference to three different definitions. Originally the term represented a kind of society that was identified with certain ideals. For example, realising an ideal like peaceful coexistence would require action among many different institutions including voluntary associations, families, businesses and governments.

Another interpretation is "civil society as a part of society - the world of voluntary associations - forgetting that there are earlier and later traditions that have just as much to offer."

Most recently, philosophers have developed a new set of theories about civil society known as the 'public sphere' – "the places where citizens argue with each other about the great questions of the day and negotiate a sense of the 'common' or 'public' interest."

In the end, Edwards advocates for the reconstruction of the term "'civil society' using parts of the three definitions above. In doing this, the term 'civil society' would "gain strength both as an idea and as a vehicle for social change when the weaknesses of one set of theories are balanced by the strengths and contributions of the others."

Michael Edwards's book "Civil Society" is published by Polity Press in association with Blackwell in North America. He is Director of the Governance and Civil Society Programme at the Ford Foundation.

Click here to read the full article online.