Module 11: Global Civil Society

As we have seen in previous modules, the world is shrinking. We have the capacity to observe world events unfolding in almost real time: from crimes against humanity being committed in Syria or Myanmar to world events like the Olympics. We have the capacity to be anywhere in the world within hours, to work, travel, and live anywhere. Our economies are increasingly interconnected. The stock market never really closes, it just chases the clock around the world. The food we buy, the clothes we wear, and the cars we drive are increasingly the product of globalized production and multinational corporations. Our governments are increasingly aware of the actions of other states and global institutions. Politics itself has increasingly been globalized. States and the intergovernmental institutions they have created are increasingly responsible for drafting the norms, regimes, and laws that frame the modern world. But in all of this, where is democracy? Where is the voice of the people? A globalized world is by its nature multilevel. It is no longer a dyadic relationship between a state and its citizens, struggling for a balance between achieving rights/freedoms and security/order. In a globalized world, politics is operating at multiple levels; within states, between states, and at the global level; between people, states, institutions, and corporations; between ‘have’ and ‘have not’ actors. While the interests and influence of states and corporations are better understood, the role of representing the people has fallen to an under-defined concept of ‘global civil society’. For some, global civil society has filled a political role, advocating on behalf of individuals with both states and corporations. For others, global civil society is a force of resistance, fighting hegemonic actors and even ideas. And still others see global civil society as agents of these same hegemonic actors. As we will see, there is evidence to support all three assertions. In this module, we start by tracing the concept of global civil society from its domestic analog and then look at how it is understood. We will then look at how the processes of globalization have created both a need for global civil society and in turn influenced the shape it has taken. Finally, we will close with an analysis of the concept and practice of contemporary global civil society

Before we can dig into the concept of ‘global civil society’, we need to understand how it is rooted in the discourse on ‘civil society’. The discourse on civil society has a much longer lineage in the study of politics. Aristotle mentions it in his work Politics when he refers to the shared community norms of the ‘city-state’. Socrates spoke of the importance of seeking civility in the polis. The Roman politician Cicero spoke of societas civilis, arguing that peace and order were based on the idea of a ‘good society’.

However, these understandings of civil society differ significantly from its contemporary usage as there was little if any distinction made between the state and society. During the Scottish Enlightenment, led by thinkers like Adam Smith, civil society was linked to the role of a commercial society or the market. It was argued that commerce was a means to curb political ambition and enhance civility. Jean-Jacques Rousseau linked civil society to the institution of private property. Hegel identified the market and public law as the pillars of civil society and that such a civil society was the ethical foundation of the state.

However, this understanding of civil society also differs significantly from its contemporary usage as there was little if any distinction made between the market and society. In its contemporary usage, civil society is posited to reside somewhere between the state and the market. It is a social space where the capacity to form a collective voice resides. This literature came into prominence in the post-1989 discussions on democratic transitions of the former Soviet states. It was used to describe those resources mobilized to offer alternatives to a state-controlled society. Nowadays, civil society is often used interchangeably with non-governmental organization, non-profit organization, or community organization. These are autonomous actors constituted largely by volunteers who seek to advance particular interests, values, or identities. They operate in the public sphere on issues such as environmental protection, women’s rights, or reducing inequality. They seek to raise awareness in the general public, apply pressure on stakeholders, and ultimately influence formal governmental policy.

Global civil society holds many of the same traits as their domestic counterparts. These actors reside in the space between governments, commercial actors, and multinational corporations. They are often seeking to influence governments, MNCs, and institutions to address global issues they believe to be important. However, there are also significant differences between the two as well. Civil society groups operate in a bounded social space constituted by itself, the government, and commercial actors. They have a shared history, norms, values, and identities. While they may disagree on policy or goals, they share a common frame to debate them and they operate within a fixed legal framework. Global civil society groups often lack these common frames and operate in an anarchical framework constituted by multiple groups, on multiple levels, with divergent interests. Some global civil society groups are based in developed states, many acting in support of contemporary processes of globalization even if trying to mitigate some of the excess globalization produces. Others are based in developing states and often seek to challenge that status quo. Both groups are interacting with states and MNCs of various capabilities, identities, and interests. The scope of what counts as global civil society and the lack of structural constraints has led to variance in how the concept is understood.

From the literature on global civil society, three traditions or narratives have been identified. The first is the liberal tradition of global civil society, rooted in liberal democratic theory. Global civil society from this perspective seeks to foster western political norms. These norms include a representative and responsible government, an independent judiciary, a respect for human rights, and an open, unbiased media. They often use terms like ‘democratic accountability’, ‘good governance’, or ‘rule of law’. It is argued that the strength of civic institutions and the quality of political society are fundamental to creating and maintaining stable states. From this perspective, it is posited that global civil society acts as a counterpoint to both corrupt or weak government and rapacious multinational corporations. Moreover, as states become more democratic, they join the liberal zone of peace which is also known as ‘democratic peace theory’: that democratic states do not go to war with other democratic states. Thus, global civil society is not only contributing to stable and just states but they are contributing to a more peaceful international system.

A good example of a global civil society organization in this tradition is Freedom House. According to its website, it “is an independent watchdog organization dedicated to the expansion of freedom and democracy around the world.” It one of the oldest such organizations, founded in 1941. It produces three reports, ‘Freedom of the Press’, ‘Freedom of the Net’, and most importantly, ‘Freedom in the World’. This last report, ‘Freedom in the World’, is an annual survey which ranks states as ‘free’, ‘partly free’, or ‘not free’ based on a score which combines assessment of political rights and civil liberties. The NGO also participates actively in advocacy initiatives to promote democracy around the world. There are criticisms of Freedom house, particularly for their connections to the US and most notably the State Department. It has been accused by the Cuban, Iranian, Sudanese, and Uzbek governments as acting as a cover for US interests.

The second tradition comes from a sociological perspective of global civil society. In this narrative, global civil society is seen as a source of popular resistance to both authoritarian states and to class-based institutions and actors, including multinational corporations. As such, there is some overlap with the liberal tradition. Both see global civil society as standing between states and corporations. However, the liberal tradition seeks to reinforce the global hegemonic order based on the principles of liberal democratic norms. The sociological tradition seeks to challenge the hegemonic order, both politically and perhaps more importantly economically. It seeks to challenge political and economic structures which reinforce and thus perpetuate inequity and inequality; for example, the overwhelming influence of American and European states in the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) through representation and weighted voting. Or the ability of large MNCs to overwhelm the regulatory and legislative capacity of smaller states.

In this way, the sociological position incorporates more radical ideologies and is deeply motivated to seek changes in both domestic and international structures. An example of this counter-hegemonic advocacy can be seen in the World Social Forum (WSF) whose tagline is “another world is possible’.

The WSF met for the first time in 2001 and organized in opposition to the World Economic Forum (WEF).

The WEF is a meeting of the world’s most powerful people, economically, politically, and culturally. Its mandate, according to its website, is to “engage the foremost political, business and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.” It is by definition an actor seeking to reinforce the hegemonic economic and political norms of the contemporary world. The WSF argues the WEF is a leader of the neoliberal order we discussed in module 3. It seeks to organize advocacy groups, NGOs, and social movements who oppose this neoliberal order. It consciously seeks to build networks between these groups to foster solidarity amongst them and enable coordination of global campaigns. It is by definition counter hegemonic. Critics of the WSF point to its decentralized structure which many argue limit its effectiveness and the overwhelming representation of middle/upper class white members from the Global North compared to voices emanating from the Global South.

The third tradition argues global civil society is an intrinsic part of the processes of globalization. This narrative took on increased saliency in the 1980s and 1990s in response to the rise of neoliberalism. As we discussed in the module on economic globalization, the orthodoxy of neoliberalism put pressure on states to deregulate, privatize, and adhere to market discipline both by cutting expenditures and opening their domestic markets to international competition. States in the Global South were coerced into adopting these policies through the Structural Adjustment Policies of the IFIs.

Global civil society actors have attempted to fill the void left by the retreat of the state. NGOs have become providers of social services, health care and education. They have become the defenders of the oppressed, advocating on their behalf in domestic courts and to local governments while at the same time appealing to support from international actors. They play the role of witness, to describe to the world the inequity rampant in many corners of the world. For many people, this role and these actions are framed as virtuous. However, the pursuit of such virtuous goals requires funding. States, both in the Global South but more often in the Global North, are a convenient source for such funds as are MNCs. States and MNCs have an interest in fostering such relationships as global civil society actors can provide greater legitimacy to their actions. They improve the brand image of MNCs. They open doors with local communities, allowing access to resources and partners. In some cases, this relationship is explicit, with NGOs being set up directly by a state or MNC. In others, there may be an intention on the part of the NGO to maintain their independence. But despite even the best of such intentions, funders can and do exert influence on recipients. From this perspective, global civil society is facilitating the processes of economic and political globalization.

For example, there has been an interesting investigation into the ability of both domestic and global civil society actors to operate in contemporary Turkey under the increasingly illiberal government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

These are organizations that seek to operate independently of the state. However, in order for to operate in Turkey, they need the permission of the government. Once permission has been given, investments are made by NGOs. If the government does not like the direction of programming, they can rescind their permission and deny them access. These groups are thus slowly co-opted and begin working with the state instead of acting as a watchdog against them. These three perspectives on global civil society have vastly different views on definition and practice. However, before we can critically assess global civil society, we need to turn to its historical development. This is the topic of the next section.

In order to understand the debates that surround contemporary global civil society, it is important to examine how they have come to play such a prominent role in the processes of globalization. Global civil society has had a long history. Prior to the modern age, civil society was constituted by religious orders, merchant guilds, and scientists. Many of these still exist today.

Consider the Sovereign Military Order of Malta which was founded in 1048. It is currently carrying out social care and humanitarian aid in 120 states.

In the 18^th century, many of these groups became more organized and international in form. Some were revolutionary in character, like the Society of the Friends of Truth which acted as a means to connect leading revolutionary scholars across Europe. Others focused on human rights, like the abolitionist movements which sought to ban slavery. Groups advocating for women’s right to vote, like the suffragettes, are other examples. However, probably one of the most famous of these early non-governmental organizations was the Red Cross, founded by Henri Dunant in the 1860s after witnessing the atrocities of the Battle Solferino. He saw the wounded soldiers left to die on the battlefield, essentially treated as cannon fodder, and sought to create change.

Other wars generated new actors: Save the Children emerged from the First World War and Oxfam emerged from Second World War. While these organizations and movements were influential, and some continue to be, their numbers and resources were miniscule compared to today. Right now, there are over 20,000 international non-governmental organizations. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has an endowment of 28.8 billion US dollars. BRAC, an international development organization in Bangladesh, has a staff of 120,000.

This quantum growth in the number and size of global civil society actors can largely be traced to the 1980s. As introduced earlier, in the 1980s neoliberal policies were enforced by the IFIs through Structural Adjustment Programs. This led to a retreat of the state from the provision in public services and representation of societal interests. NGOs partially filled the void that this retreat created. They began to fill niches on human rights, the environment, women’s rights, labour, et cetera. Global civil society is thus a product of the processes of globalization and in turn has used these processes to multiply.

The range of groups counted amongst global civil society, while in many ways divergent, all share a similar path of mobilization. First, they act as norm entrepreneurs, presenting the issues they deem important as problems that require urgent attention. The ultimate goal is to undermine current practices, or norms, and replace them with new practices/norms. For example, Henri Dunant conveyed what he witnessed on the battlefield at Solferino. He argued that wounded soldiers needed rights and protection. Dunant’s advocacy ultimately resulted in formation of the International Committee of the Red Cross and establishment of the Geneva Conventions, establishing new norms which inform new practices.

Framing is an important means to accomplish this. An ideational frame acts just a like a picture frame; it sets the context of an issue and draws the audience towards what they want you to believe is important. Think of images of starving polar bears used as a frame to advocate for changes to environmental norms.

Second, these global civil society actors operationalize this knowledge through the frames they have created. They create campaigns to raise public awareness or organize protests; for example, the World Wildlife Federation campaign to combat global warming using the image of a melting polar bear or the campaign to combat deforestation using an image of the forest in the shape of a pair of lungs.

They seek to make their issue, whether it be the environment or human rights, a part of the public discourse on a global scale. They make the issue political, requiring political solutions both domestically and internationally. For example, Amnesty International documents human rights issues in 159 countries and has consultative status at the UN. They specifically raise awareness about political prisoners and conduct letter campaigns to highlight their plight.

Third, global civil society seeks recognition as the legitimate representative of their cause. They want to be seen as the face of the issue. The most effective means to stake a claim of representation is to have a large transnational membership and to control access to influential networks. For example, Greenpeace has approximately 2.8 million members and 26 offices covering 55 states.

Such a member base gives Greenpeace power. They can call upon their base for resources. They can mobilize their base for protests. They can ask their base to contact their elected representatives and apply pressure on governments. This path of mobilization has led to global civil society both greatly expanding and playing an increasingly significant role in globalization.

As we have seen, global civil society has become an increasingly visible and powerful actor in international affairs. We also saw that its role is contested. Some see the role as promoting democracy, others a repository of resistance, and still others as an embedded component of globalization itself. We have also seen global civil society have its own narrative. It frames itself as being constituted by altruistic saviours, dedicating their time and putting their lives on the line to defend human rights and promote democracy. However, there are also two serious critiques of global civil society. First, it is argued that global civil society has a serious democratic deficiency. Second, it is argued that global civil society is simply a band-aid solution that masks its complicity in the project of neoliberal imperialism.

The first critique of global civil society centres on its democratic credentials. As we saw in the previous section, global civil society actors often seek to be the face of particular issues, like Greenpeace does for the environment or Amnesty for political prisoners. We also saw that they seek to build a large membership base and transnational networks. This membership and these networks not only give NGOs influence, but they also enable the claim that they are the voice of the people. Either explicitly or implicitly, they claim to be the democratic solution to the problem of global politics. They claim to represent the Dalit, or ‘untouchables’, in India, the miners or agricultural laborers in Latin America, or political prisoners around the world.

In so doing, global civil society is claiming to be the ‘third sector’, the voice of the people, contending with states and MNCs. But who has given them this right? Have the Dalit consented to representation by global civil society actors? Is there a democratic mechanism to determine which global civil society actor gets to claim such representation? What about the democratic credentials of the NGO organizations themselves? How are decisions made in Greenpeace? Who gets to set the agenda? How are resources deployed? There is no definitive nor effective framework to establish the democratic credentials of global civil society actors. These are deeply problematic questions if global civil society seeks to claim any sort of meaningful representation at the global level.

The second critique of global civil society is that it only offers a band-aid solution to systemic problems. It addresses the worst excesses of the global order but does not fundamentally solve problems of poverty, inequity, democratic representation, and human rights violations.

This may seem to contradict lofty mission statements like Oxfam International who state they seek “To create lasting solutions to poverty, hunger, and social injustice”. While Oxfam has been operating since 1942, I am not certain they have achieved any of these goals.

However, it is possible to understand the lack of systemic change affected by global civil society if we consider them as complicit in supporting the neoliberal processes of economic, political, and cultural globalization. To be clear, it is not argued that these global civil society actors are necessarily corrupt or acting against the interests of those they are trying to help. Quite to the contrary; the good that they do is often recognized. But it is argued that this ‘good’ doesn’t achieve structural change; rather it merely makes the system more palatable by reducing its worst excesses. Many who might radicalize or seek to overturn the status quo are placated by the evidence of ‘progress’. They see groups advocating on their behalf, seeking to redress inequity, and fighting for human rights. Yet at the same time, global elites are amassing record levels of wealth. Take for instance the Oxfam report which argues 8 people have the cumulative wealth of half the world’s population. From this perspective, while NGOs may seek to do good, they embody the norms of the hegemonic elite. They support specific norms that underpin contemporary economic and political structures, such as individual rights, private property, and the efficacy of the market. They support hegemonic cultural norms that give legitimacy to these economic and political structures, norms around democracy and capitalism. Thus, while being a positive force in the world, this narrative of global civil society sees its role as essentially being the good cop to the bad cop role being played by states and MNCs. Together, the good cop/bad cop work to maintain the status quo. Both critiques, that of democratic deficiency and that of being complicit in the neoliberal order, are substantial. They indicate that while global civil society is an increasingly important part of the international order, its intent and impact is less certain.

Global civil society has become an increasingly important sector in international politics. While this sector may have increased visibility, it is certainly not new. Guilds and religious orders for example, have a long tradition of international activism. However, since the 1980s, the number of global civil society actors and the resources they command has grown exponentially. They have come to be seen by many as the third counterpart to powerful states and MNCs in our globalized world. Academics have examined global civil society’s role in international politics, identifying three discourses. The first discourse sees global civil society as embedded in the liberal project of democracy promotion. It identifies the capacity building role of global civil society, arguing such initiatives empower people to potentially check authoritarian states and powerful MNCs. The second discourse sees global civil society as a repository of resistance. It is a place where counter hegemonic networks can be made and acted upon. These networks seek to question the status quo and to offer alternatives to the contemporary economic, political, and cultural processes of globalization. The third discourse sees global civil society as an integral part of contemporary processes of globalization. While these actors seek to address issues of inequity and human rights, they do so within the international system, often relying on states and MNCs to provide the resources needed to undertake their activities. Global civil society itself embraces a narrative of being constituted by altruistic volunteers who are seeking to make a difference in the world. They seek to make a difference, to operate independently, and to represent the people. However, critics of global civil society highlight two main criticisms. First, they argue, global civil society suffers from a serious democratic deficiency both in terms of representation and internal organization. In terms of representation, these groups may have a large membership but very little input from the people they claim to be acting on behalf of. In terms of internal organization, many global civil society groups have very little input from their membership on what they do and how they do it. Second, it is argued that global civil society may be good at addressing acute need but actually does little to foster systemic change. For some, this is best explained by seeing global civil society as an implicit part of contemporary political, economic, and cultural processes of globalization. These arguments stand as powerful critiques of global civil society. However, it should also be noted that in our increasingly interconnected world, it is crucial to facilitate this third sector of international politics. The ‘people’ need a voice if sustainable solutions to global issues are going to be identified and implemented. The question is whether global civil society in its current form accomplishes this objective.

The three sectors of the international order include states, MNCs, and global civil society. States are the ‘first sector.’ States hold a legal monopoly on the use of violence and they have a legal personality, allowing them to enter into binding international agreements and create international institutions. MNCs are the ‘second sector’. They have become increasingly important actors with resources that rival that of the state. Global civil society is the ‘third sector’. Ideally, it represents the interests and will of the people.

The liberal tradition of global civil society is rooted in liberal democratic theory. It seeks to foster western political norms including representative and responsible government, an independent judiciary, a respect for human rights, and an unbiased media. They often use terms like ‘democratic accountability’, ‘good governance’, or ‘rule of law’. It is argued that the strength of civic institutions and the quality of political society are fundamental to creating and maintaining stable states. From this perspective, it is posited that global civil society acts as a counterpoint to both corrupt or weak government and rapacious multinational corporations.

The sociological perspective of global civil society see it as a source of popular resistance to both authoritarian states and to class-based institutions and actors, including multinational corporations. The sociological tradition seeks to challenge the hegemonic order, both politically and perhaps more importantly economically. It seeks to challenge political and economic structures which reinforce and thus perpetuate inequity and inequality.

Global civil society actors often seek to be the face of particular issues. They also seek to build a large membership base and transnational networks. This membership and these networks not only give NGOs influence, but they also enable the claim that they are the voice of the people. However, there are no procedures to determine who has the right to speak on behalf of whom. At a deeper level, global civil society actors often lack internal democratic processes. A group may have a large membership but there is no requirement they have meaningful input on the decisions and policies of the organization.

It is argued that global civil society advocacy addresses the worst excesses of the global order but does not fundamentally solve problems of poverty, inequity, democratic representation, and human rights violations. It is argued this is because they are complicit in supporting the neoliberal processes of economic, political, and cultural globalization. The good that these organizations achieve doesn’t create structural change; rather it merely makes the system more palatable by reducing its worst excesses. Many who might radicalize or seek to overturn the status quo are placated by the evidence of ‘progress’. They see groups advocating on their behalf, seeking to redress inequity, and fighting for human rights. Yet at the same time, global elites are amassing record levels of wealth.