Civil Society and Pro-Democracy Social Movements: Troubled Relations Within Authoritarian Regimes?

Murad Nasibov

doi:10.3389/fpos.2021.708872

Abstract

This article tries to conceptually lay down the troubled relations between civil society and social movements within authoritarian regimes. This is done by, first, bringing clarity to the conceptual relationship between civil society and social movement and, then, applying it to the authoritarian context, still theoretically. Following the “hints” of the Eastern European intellectuals of the late 1970s and the 1980s and building on the appropriation of Durkheim’s differentiation between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity, the article distinguishes two types of solidarity: associative solidarity and action and collective solidarity and action. Civil society is proposed to emerge onassociativesolidarities (and their actions), while social movements build on collective solidarities (and their actions). Furthermore, associative and collective actions are identified to be progressive and transgressive, respectively.Consequently, the proposed theoretical account is applied theoretically to the authoritarian context and several hypotheses are proposed on the relationship between civil society and pro-democracy movement within authoritarian regimes.

Highlights

The dominant narrative of civil society that emerged since the revival of the concept of the civil society reflects the particular experience of Eastern Europe in the 1980s
The emphasis on self-restraint, as already said above, suggested that the solidarity sought in civil society needs no masses, which is typically required when confronting the authoritarian regime as a movement, while society-focused evolutionism emphasized working with and on society, which demands mechanisms different from when the focus is on the state and the goal is changing the political regime and installing formal democratic institutions
This paper attempted first to differentiate civil society and social movements based on the sociology of solidarity and action and, demonstrated how troubled relations can there exist between civil society and pro-democracy movement within the authoritarian context

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The dominant narrative of civil society that emerged since the revival of the concept of the civil society reflects the particular experience of Eastern Europe in the 1980s. It is argued that the reason for the confusion about the relationship between these two concepts lies in their two core attributes: voluntary coming together for a common purpose and the locus of it being beyond the state, market, and family This seemingly overlap is here referred to as the moment of confusion. The proposed account follows “hints” received from the radical democratic view of Eastern European intellectuals in the late 1970s and 1980s, as discussed in the literature review section, and builds on the appropriation of Durkheim’s differentiation between mechanical societies and organic societies. It borrows some complementary insights from the organization theory. Efforts are put to define them as neither “too thick” nor too “thin” to be useful for abstract thinking and applicable in empirical studies

LITERATURE REVIEW

CONCLUDING REMARKS

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT