Let's get civil society straight: Ngos and political theory

Abstract

The term 'civil society' has been an issue of debate since it gained currency in the last century. Discussion has usually focused on the perceptions of civil society expressed by de Tocqueville and Hegel, a dichotomy that offers the choice of a largely positive view of the concept and a largely negative view. More recently (and usually unwittingly) nongovernment organisations (NGOs) have become drawn into a theoretical divide between those who hold a classically de Tocquevillian view and those taking a more inclusive position similar to the African-based thinking of Jean-Francois Bayart. Does it really matter that NGOs are slipping into a theoretical difference over the meaning of civil society? Given the importance that donors and NGOs attach to the concept, it matters a great deal, particularly where societies are heterogeneous and divided. The ways in which development NGOs perceive civil society, and consequently plan projects to facilitate and enhance the work of civil associations, can have a significant long-term effect on the evolution (or lack of it) of civil society in the countries in which they work. At a recent conference,' discussion of the role of extemal forces in nurturing associations that strengthen civil society was notable for the lack of one vital question: what kind of civil association strengthens civil society? This strikes at the core of the de TocquevillianBayarian split. Do all civil associations act as building blocks, or only those with specific, identifiable characteristics? It is a question easily overlooked by NGOs eager to embrace the perceived benefits of the revived interest in civil society. NGOs and the grab for civil societ