Creating a Framework for Civil Society in Kyrgyzstan

Abstract

OVER THE PAST DECADE OR SO a vast literature has appeared on the subject of civil society. Though in part inspired by events in Eastern Europe, the discussion has rapidly extended to cover political development in all comers of the globe. Various concerns have agitated the scholarly literature, from extensive debates over what exactly can be contained within an understanding of civil society to analysis of its relationship to processes of political change and democratisation. In definitional discussions the debate has to some extent moved beyond simplistic accounts of a distinctive realm intermediate between state and citizen, and most authors emphasise the interdependence of the three spheres. At the same time some sociologists and anthropologists, as well as political scientists concerned with the developing world, have expressed doubts about narrow, Western-oriented definitions of the concept. In particular they have questioned understandings that demand the presence of a particular type of 'modular' individual or which automatically disqualify more traditional forms of social organisation based upon kinship, ethnicity or religious identities. Whilst recognising that these may often act in uncivil fashion, many authors would argue that such groups play many of the roles usually ascribed to civil society, and offer forms of social contact and solidarity that are essential for societies undergoing rapid transition. Other scholars are more sceptical, pointing to the danger of a conceptual stretching that may render the very idea of civil society meaningless.1 More important for our purpose, however, has been discussion of the relationship between civil society and democracy, with its tendency to blur discussion of the former into that of the latter. Analytically, however, these are separate issues and in traditional societies such as those of Central Asia the development of social organisation is worth analysis in its own right, regardless of its imagined or actual contribution to democratisation. Even when one does pursue the linkage, it is impossible to accept uncritically the assumption that the successful building of democracy requires the pre-existence of a strong civil society, or that successful economic and political reform would always advance furthest 'in those countries where civil society is most robust'.2 Certainly it helps, and an examination of 'classic' transitions such as those in Spain and Poland suggests that this often is so, for in both cases a healthy civil society had developed within an authoritarian political order prior to the process of transition. Yet it might also be the case that in countries with little experience of independent political life, let alone of democracy, the impetus for the emergence of civil society