|
Counter-evolution
By Rajni Kothari
In
this article, I intend to deal with a set of issues thrown up,
paradoxically, as a result of the new thinking that had emerged following
the growing discontent with the existing state of affairs, in particular the
prevailing set of institutions, national, local and global. For a long time,
the study of international relations, as well as political science, was
dominated by the role of the State in respect of the creation of a
democratic, secular and egalitarian social order.
The
discontent that arose was a result of the operation of the State and its
agencies, particularly following the growing repression let loose by the
institutions of the modern State.
This
led to two consequences: a) an increasing interest among the citizens for
engaging in a politics of protest and affirmation by the mass of the people,
and b) an intellectual search for creating a truly alternative model of the
political process. Simultaneously, there arose during the same period a
search for creating a ‘world order’ based on rethinking the whole
structure of the State arising from grassroots politics and moving up
therefrom. The two together were perceived as part of creating a more humane
polity, both nationally and globally.
The
idea of ‘civil society’ arose somewhat later, but the beginnings can be
traced to this period after World War II when, while the main focus of
attention was on the creation of new States and polities, there was also a
carryover of the concern with citizen-based, ‘constructive
work’-oriented activist politics. This aimed at creating another set of
institutions and thinking that were self-generating and auto-nomous of the
State-centred framework of the polity.
It
was the domination of western style thinking and the growing preoccupation
of the new regimes with Fabian style thinking that came in the way of
citizens of the world, facing a new historical reality, together realising a
better world. Which was unfortunate, as it was a reality that had thrown up
new possibilities in the organisation of human affairs. This did not happen
largely because of the growth of ‘neo-colonial’ thinking and models of
social engineering through ideas like ‘development’.
In
many ways, the beginnings of new enlightened thinking can already be seen in
the immediate post-war context. As has happened in many other arenas
(economic, social, cultural etc.), this paradox between a continuing mindset
and the search for new ways of facing reality needs to be taken into
account. For this became possible only by facing the diverse
challenges and paradoxes that emerged along the way.
Today,
as we face new challenges, we find ourselves in a period of rapid
changes all of which we are yet to take full cognisance of. To me they
appear to be in respect of the role of the State on the one hand and the
emergence of ‘civil society’ on the other, both within the context of
the Nation-State. Alongside this, another major development has to do with
the whole thinking on ‘world order’.
However,
it is precisely in these two respects — the idea of civil society and the
perspective on world order — that we face at once conservative and co-optative
response, producing in their wake the notion of globalisation. With the
result that the very idea of civil society is rendered ambiguous, moving
away from civil society at local and decentralised levels, and leading to
the whole idea of global civil society. And, similarly, thinking on world
order, originally meant to create a framework ranging from local and
decentralised levels to federal and still higher levels, seems to be
hijacked in the framework of the basic thrust towards globalisation.
Focusing
on civil society, we may begin by emphasising three points. First, ‘civil
society’ has emerged as a process of moving away from domination by the
State and its institutions. Second, civil society is a concept used to
highlight the role of associational life (social movements, grassroots
organisations, interests groups and so on) which is beyond the full control
of the State apparatus. Third, therefore, civil society emphasises
‘self-organising’ and ‘autonomous’ quality of life, providing a
ground for opposition to the State (domination by the State) or operating
from sites other than the institutions of the State, and enhancing a basis
for mobilising plural agencies and alternative sites within the framework of
the democratic society.
Where
these qualities are absent, democratic politics itself suffers and, in a
way, once again paves the way for domination by either the State or some
other authoritarian framework. The difficulty with the notion of civil
society that is emerging of late is that because it is something to be
realised as part of the growth of a democratic polity and even more of
democratic activism around the world, it is in danger of becoming hijacked
by the forces of liberalisation and globalisation. Moving away from civil
society as principally related to the growth and preservation of a vision of
‘good life’ in diverse arenas — ranging from the local and moving all
the way up — it tends to be made a project of transcending local and
regional levels and making it part of some kind of a ‘cultural
marketplace’ for fulfilling identities and associations for creating not
just ‘civil society’, but a ‘global civil society’.
In
this way of looking at things, it is a global civil society that is proposed
to counter the authoritarian impulse of the modern State, it being presumed
that the basic task before democrats is to create a framework (both
political and cultural) through which the impulses of the State are sought
to be countered in a truly democratic and ‘civil’ mode and style of
modern politics. The real task and challenge before the proponents of civil
society, it is proposed, lies in containing the excesses of the State and,
at the same time, to underscore the democratic impulse and potentialities of
a truly civil and civilised society. It is for this reason that the need is
felt to transcend the individual location of civil society and to counter
the dangers inherent in the functioning of the State by operating from a
global, in place of a local or national, arena.
That
at any rate seems to be the rationale for conceiving civil society from a
transnational or global arena. It is in many ways the same logic as found in
the argument for ‘world order’, conceived for overcoming the limitations
and dangers of the individual State. Three main points are involved all of
which I had developed in my essay on globalisation published in Alternatives
in 1997.
First,
as the proponents of global governance following their despair with the
State have ignored the larger de-politicisation of social life and the
concentration of power that the emerging order entailed, it has led to what
I had called then the ‘redefinition of world citizenship, leaving out much
of humanity’. Second, alongside such a redefinition of citizenship, there
took place the growth of neo-liberalism as the ideological anchor of
societies, especially in the Third World.
And
third, the neo-liberal dogma by itself gave a back seat to the State and
associated institutions like the bureaucracy. This resulted in movements of
dissent limiting themselves to the functioning of the institutions of the
State and its agencies. These were, therefore, unable to address themselves
to the larger permeation of the capitalist framework of governance in which
the NGOs themselves are viewed as mainly part of the private sector and,
increasingly, as instruments for restraining the role of the State and for
eroding its legitimacy.
The
overall result of all these perceptions has been to downgrade not only the
role of the State, but with it also of civil society as it functions at
national and local levels, together reinforcing the tendency towards
globalisation, including globalisation of civil society. As a result, what
began as an instrument of democratic governance at local and national levels
is ending up becoming an integral part of the globalising thrust of both the
polity and civil society.
Hence
the greatest paradox of all: the very critique of the modern State has
produced modes of thinking that has undermined the more decentralised and
more humane ways of organising civic life. Instead, it has produced quite
another ideological thrust that has led to the globalisation of civil
society itself.
Courtesy http://www.hindustantimes.com
| 
