Search results

Nearly two decades have passed since the events of the WTO's Seattle Ministerial marked civil society as relevant to global trade politics. Despite this, and as the chapter explains, there remains significant ambiguity as to what is meant by the term 'civil society'. That civil society matters in global trade governance needs to be understood in terms of two inter-related questions: how the WTO Secretariat, and other institutional actors, give recognition to certain groups and individuals; and, why it is that the actors described as 'civil society' seek to contest a governance domain often seemingly closed to their demands.

CIVIL SOCIETY HAS BECOME VERY IMPORTANT--A PREQUISITE FOR DEVELOPING A HEALTHY POLITY AND VIBRANT ECONOMY. THIS ARTICLE CAUTIONS THAT TOO MUCH OF THE WRONG KIND CAN ACTUALLY WEAKEN DEMOCRACY AND PRODUCE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC GRIDLOCK. IT QUESTIONS THE USEFULNESS OF NGOS AND ARGUES THAT CIVIL SOCIETY REALISM SHOULD NOT BE A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS.

Many of the thousands of Russians who protested against the Soviet system in 1990/91 are still around. In 2001, there were an estimated 200,000 nongovernmental organizations. However, like the civil society in general, they are contributing little to consolidate democracy. Questioned here is whether the public even constitutes a civil society, so little do they do to develop democratic institutions. This chapter analyzes the development of both Soviet & post-Soviet society in terms of their demonstration of independence from as opposed to obedience to the state. It is argued that, like political parties, they do not have a cultural precedent for civic action, nor do they have sufficient economic resources, since post-Soviet economic development in Russia has benefited only a few, who have no reason to change the status quo. The history of what might be called Russia's civil society is traced, & possibilities for change are suggested. J. Stanton

This article discusses the experience of civil society and social movements inCentral and Eastern Europe both before and after the events of 1989. It showshow the different paths to the development of "civil society" as an organisingconcept in the pre-1989 period impacted on experiences after that date, and relates this to broader theoretical debates on the concept. In particular, it argues that the movements of "un-civil society" often fulfil a more substantial political role than the NGOs of "civil society", for a range of reasons. Thearticle draws on a series of interviews conducted with "alter-globalisation" activists in the region

Klappentext: Now in its fourth edition, Civil Society has become a major work of reference for those who seek to understand the role of voluntary citizen action in a troubled world. Recent economic and political developments do not bode well for the theory and practice of civil society: communities are increasingly divided; inequality is on the rise; authoritarians and populists have gained a foothold even in advanced democracies; restrictions on freedom of speech and association are increasingly common and recent scandals have even reduced trust in charities. Worryingly, public spheres seem incapable of addressing these concerns. Yet, as Michael Edwards makes clear, ideas about the civil sphere can shed much light on what is happening, why, and how we might respond to polarization, privatization, and authoritarians of various stripes.

Civil society with developed economic, cultural, legal and political relations, independent of the state, but to interact with it, the society of citizens of high social, political, cultural and moral status, creating together with the state of development of legal relations.

Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit der Frage, was eine Civil Society ist. Neben Wirtschaft und Staat wird Gesellschaft als eine dritte Kategorie eingeführt. Civil Society wird dabei als eine pluralistische Gesellschaft gesehen, in der die Autonomie ihrer einzelnen Mitglieder, Gruppen und Gemeinschaften dadurch charakterisiert ist, daß sie Verpflichtungen anerkennt, die von den Individuen und Gruppen gegenüber der Gesellschaft als Ganzem und ihren besonderen zentralen Organen und Gesetzen eingegangen werden. Was dies im einzelnen bedeutet, welche Implikationen die einzelnen Aspekte haben, wird am Beispiel der liberalen Demokratie herausgearbeitet und diskutiert. Die Analyse kommt zu dem Ergebnis, daß es Zivilität als bürgerliche Verhaltensnorm und die bürgerlichen Tugenden nur in einer Civil Society geben kann. Ausgehend von den spezifischen Merkmalen der Civil Society seit dem 19. Jahrhundert wird die Entwicklung der Rolle des Staatsbürgers nachgezeichnet, der ein vollberechtigtes Mitglied der politischen Gesellschaft und für die Gesellschaft als Ganzes mitverantwortlich ist. (ICA)