Search results

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.

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

"International Society" published on by Oxford University Press.

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

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.