Promoting Democracy. Manal A. Jamal
Читать онлайн книгу.
3, because of the noninclusivity of the political settlement in the Palestinian territories, Fatah, the leadership party of the PA, has repeatedly postponed elections.
In noninclusive contexts, opposition groups and individuals will either not have access to these institutions (in this case, national legislative bodies or municipalities) or will remain a step removed from them compared to included groups. Western donors are less likely to fund programs and projects that will require cooperation or interaction with these institutions if “unfavored” groups may become represented in them, or the donors will simply avoid them altogether. Under these circumstances, CSOs are more constrained by the institutional setting since they are limited in terms of both their access to the state and their ability to make demands on it. Given the noninclusivity of these institutions and the lack of Western donor programs to encourage citizen participation between civil society and state institutions, what I refer to as “disarticulated spaces” pervade. In these spaces, institutions that should provide connecting channels between civil society and the state are lacking or discriminate against certain groups by not allowing them the same access.
Conversely, in politically inclusive contexts, if all major political groups are involved, ruling groups are more likely to design and endorse more inclusive political institutionalization at both levels. More representative national and local government bodies will also provide civil society with more institutional openings. Moreover, Western donor-promoted civil society development will not necessarily play a discriminating role favoring certain groups over others, and will likely promote programs that encourage more regular citizen engagement with the state, leading to more “articulated spaces,” and hence to a more effective civil society.
In the post–Cold War era of liberal market-democracy consensus, the interests of key Western state-sponsored donors and dominant political groups often align to exclude certain political groups; this has had important implications for civil society and democratic development. In transition contexts, Western donors pay significant attention to civil society’s promise to promote and entrench political settlements and promote what I refer to as a “post–Cold War liberal order.” This political-economic order is committed to market-democracy and the advancement of civil and political rights, with lesser regard for economic rights and economic well-being. It is also more Western and liberal in its social orientation.54 Given the priorities of Western geostrategic interests in the immediate post–Cold War period, these dynamics were most pronounced in the Middle East. It is important, however, not to reduce this state of affairs to the incompatibility between the West and Islam; rather, Western state-sponsored donors have worked to exclude parties that do not support Western-endorsed status quos. Hence, those excluded often not only oppose dominant political settlements but also are not well positioned to promote a “post–Cold War liberal order.” This category includes Islamists, as well as leftists who refuse to embrace this status quo. What is remarkable about this state of play is that the West and many dominant political groups embrace the notion of democratic governance that is based on exclusion.
Civil Society
Before proceeding, it is important to clarify what exactly is meant by civil society and how it relates to this study.55 Scholars generally agree that civil society is “a sphere of activity in which private citizens first constitute a public.”56 It speaks to the conditions of citizenship in a given polity, including both the virtues and dispositions of individual citizens.57 Of specific concern to this study, however, are those organizations and social collectivities that facilitate political participation and influence and make demands on the state.58 Civil society facilitates political participation by aggregating and representing citizen interests, countering state power, and furthering the struggle for citizenship rights. This study does not subscribe to the notion that all NGOs are part of civil society.59 Rather, NGOs that seek to influence state policy or demand greater inclusion in national political structures are CSOs. Local NGOs that are part of civil society should be able to organize various constituencies, drawing on their needs and demands, and not simply implement the agendas of foreign donors or external actors. Civil society can contribute to the delivery of humanitarian relief, support the reintegration of former combatants, facilitate refugee return, improve the performance of political and economic institutions, and cultivate greater trust between different parties through civic engagement.60 However, unless a service-provider NGO is simultaneously concerned with influencing and shaping broader political processes, including state policies, it should not be considered part of civil society. Social movements are involved in conflictual relations with clear opponents, are linked by dense networks, and have a collective identity, but they are not necessarily facilitating political participation and making demands on the state.
For civil society to accomplish these tasks, certain characteristics and contextual factors must obtain.61 A more dense and plural civil society that is inclusive of broad social sectors will better contribute to the development of democracy; in such contexts, citizens from all walks of life, not only the elite or certain political groups, are afforded greater opportunities to participate in civic life.
Horizontal versus Vertical Networks
CSOs should also be rooted in society and be able to forge horizontal linkages with other CSOs and with grassroots constituencies.62 Horizontal linkages are necessary for the strengthening of civil society and the longer term prospects for democratic development, because, as Robert Putnam explained, “a vertical network, no matter how dense and no matter how important to its participants, cannot sustain social trust and co-operation.”63 Furthermore, vertical networks are not likely to generate citizen participation or engagement because they reinforce existing hierarchy and polarization and decrease the likelihood of cooperation.64 A cross-cutting, horizontally organized civil society will incorporate grassroots constituencies beyond simply providing services to them. More effective incorporation will contribute to the better organization of interests and, in turn, to the growth of cooperative networks.
Access to Resources and Networks
Access to resources and networks is also critical, because, although a level of trust is necessary for citizens to engage in political participation, a conception of social capital that solely focuses on trust provides little insight into the “actual mechanisms by which social relations facilitate or block individual and collective access to resources.”65 Social capital (conceived as both the social trust and “norms of reciprocity” that facilitate cooperation, as well as access to resources and networks that facilitate civic engagement) will strengthen civil society.66
Political Institutionalization
Lastly, the extent of political institutionalization in a society, specifically at the national and local government levels, will also impact the performance of civil society.67 These institutions provide the connecting channels between civil society and the state. Well-developed institutions of local government in particular will provide more political openings for local participation and thus facilitate the emergence of an effective civil society.68 In contexts in which these political institutions are weak or absent, the performance of civil society will suffer.
The Imprecise Demarcation between Civil Society and Political Society
Although the autonomy of civil society is an important criterion, the relationship between civil society and political society69 is not necessarily one of separation. A closer observation indicates that much of civil society during transitions—democratic transitions or conflict-to-peace transitions more generally—is often borne out of political society. According to most accepted Western liberal understandings, political society and civil society are two demarcated political realms, and political society represents those forces that seek to capture state power. However, one can more accurately describe the interactions between these two realms as forever shifting sites of contest, as individuals move from one site to another. Moreover, a less autonomous society that has greater capacity to reach broader constituencies is far more promising than a more autonomous civil society that is limited in its societal reach. An appreciation of this actual relationship puts into perspective how autonomous civil society actually is or can be.
The Study and Methodology
The book casts a broad lens on the question of why democracy promotion efforts