|
Civil society and transformation
Abstracts (english)
Hans-Loachim
Lauth/Wolfgang Merkel, Civil society and transformation - A Reminder,
FJ NSB 1/97, pp
Drawing
on the civil society debate in the social sciences and on theorizing
on transformations to democracy, Hans-Joachim Lauth and Wolfgang
Merkel present in their theoretical introduction an open and dynamic
concept of civil society. In this view, civil society is seen as the
sphere between the state and the private, while the articulated aims
of the actors that occupy it are always at least in part oriented towards
the res publica. The charateristic constituting principles of
civil society, such as interest pluralism and competition, voluntariness,
and a commitment to nonviolent strategies, bring about that, at least
implicitely, civic action is always oriented towards the democratization
of the commonweal. This basic consensus does not imply that the existing
internal competition among civil society actors disappears. In extreme
situations of political self-defence, such as exist in the endphase
of autoritarian regimes, it does, however, enable them to collective
strategic action. Central to their approach is the functional change
of civil society's organisational forms and the changes in their democratic
potential potential during the liberalisation, democratisation and transformation
phases of young democracies. In the power vacuum that typically emerges
during the liberalisation phase, civil society is revived. The contextual
parameters for civic action then change with the beginning of the democratisation
phase. A comparison of the cases of transformation constituting the
third democratisation wave shows that with the advancement of democratisation
and subsequent consolidation a decline in the level of activity of civil
society can again be detected.
Reinhart
Kößler, Transformation and transition as expression of social conflicts
and processes - A Rejoinder on Lauth/Merkel, FJ NSB 1/97, pp.
In
his comment to Lauth and Merkel, Reinhart Kößler confronts the
proposed concepts with empirical observations drawn from the transformation
processes in Eastern Europe and Southern Africa. Kößler concludes that
Lauth and Merkel's model of civil society is too static and because
of its normative nature (nonviolence, orientation towards democracy)
insufficiently captures the complexity of real-existing civil societies.
According to the author, the three-phase model is too strongly oriented
towards institutions and moreover focusses on political processes to
the neglect of economic and social ones. The concepts therefore offer
a too narrow view on reality that limits their applicability. As the
main "blind spot" in the proposed model, Kößler identifies
the neglect of actors in the grey zone between state and civil society,
the lack of a clear conceptualisation of nonviolence, as well as the
lack of a process orientation, all of which could create the image of
a homogenous civil society, which might leave too little place for conflicts
and processes of social negotiation and exchange.
Siegmar
Schmidt, Civil society in the process of democratisation in South Africa
- black civics and trade unions, FJ NSB 1/97, pp.
Siegmar
Schmidt shows in his analysis of the role of black civic associations
(civics) and trade unions in the South African democratisation process
how both organisation types contributed importantly to undermining the
authoritarian system and advancing political liberalisation. Though
these organisations, and more generally the whole of civil society,
were not the decisive actors in the transformation, their mobilisation
was an important factor in strengthening and legitimising the oppositional
bargaining position in the elite-level negotiations during the liberalisation
and democratisation phases up to the first elections. In the consolidation
phase, however, the grassroots orientation of both actors along with
the veto power exerted by the unions seem to have become problematic
for the functioning of representative democracy. On the other hand,
these actors may play an important role as „watchdogs for democracy",
resisting a potential revival of authoritarian tendencies within the
political system. It is above all in this sense that one should see
the positive contribution of both the civics and the trade unions to
the establishment of a democratic political culture.
Aurel
Croissant/Mareike Helbert/André Madaus, Democratisation of Singapure,
Taiwan and South Corea, FJ NSB 1/97, pp.
Aurel
Croissant, Mareike Helbert and André Madaus
present in their study of Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan the
probably most weakly organised civil societies discussed in this volume.
In none of the three cases can one speak of a solid civil society. As
in Southern Europe we see here that authoritarian power structures and
strategies of rule are of special importance to the development of civil
society. Particularly the example of Singapore makes clear that a clever
mixture of repression, co-optation and "ideological" indoctrination
of society by the authoritarian regime may succeed in blocking the development
of a civil society already in its incipient stage. The case of South
Korea again demonstrates the democratic ambiguity of civil society actors:
while civil society and in particular the student movement were highly
important in promoting democracy during the authoritarian and transition
periods, the sustained reliance of the radical South Korean student
movement on its veto position has brought a "darker side"
of civil society to the fore, which causes substantial problems to the
consolidation of representative democracy.
Stefanie
Reiß/Sabine Stohldreyer, Chile and Mexico: Paths to democracy, FJ NSB
1/97, pp.
In
their contribution on the democratisation processes in Chile and Mexico,
Stefanie Reiß and Sabine Stohldreyert, too, arrive at
the conclusion that the role of civic actors has been particularly important
during the end phase of the autoritarian regime, as well as during the
liberalisation phase. The authors' central thesis is that in both countries
civic actors were decisive in initiating political liberalisation. Although
the two countries have followed different paths to democracy, civil
society has made a positive contribution to transformation in both cases.
In spite of relatively strong structural constraints, this contribution
has been more important in Mexico than in Chile, where traditional political
(party) actors determined the dynamics of the process. The Chilean political
parties were, however, enabled to play this role by their mobilisation
experience within a civil society context. Over the course of the transformation,
the civil society arena was then occupied by different protagonists,
who with the progress of democratisation evolved from pure protest and
opposition movements into co-operative actors with alternative programms.
Volker
Stiehl/Wolfgang Merkel, Civil society and democracy in Portugal and
Spain, FJ NSB 1/97, pp.
In
their comparison of Spain and Portugal, Volker Stiehl and
Wolfgang Merkel emphasize the relation between the course and type
of systemic change, and the structural constraints on civil society's
influence potential. Thus, not least as a result of the largely intact
authoritarian structures, Spanish civil society did not play an active
role, but rather functioned as a passive restriction on the strategic
options of the authoritarian elites. In Portugal, on the contrary, civil
society was more weakly developed, both on the level of collective action
as on that of individual consciousness. The total breakdown of the authoritarian
power structure after the military coup d'etat of April 1974, however,
removed the barriers that had been erected from above to the population's
autonomous organisation and articulation of social and political demands.
However, the Portuguese cases shows, like Eastern Europe fifteen years
later, that with advancing democratisation and consolidation, the mobilisation
capacity and political importance of civil society actors rapidly decline.
|