The concept of civil society is defined in different ways to
account for the democratization in the west and assess the
democratization process in the nonwestern context. Although the term
is defined along a wide spectrum, the idea that civil society is an
important component of democracy is held constant. Civil society is
argued to be an important prerequisite of democracy for all societies.
The application of the concept of civil society to Islamic
countries has been a problematic one for various reasons. The term
itself is a controversial one, but applying the term to the Islamic
countries increases its ambiguity. Can we generalize the concept to
the Middle Eastern countries. Can we talk about the existence of civil
society in these countries? How can we successfully delineate it?
Can we include Islamic organizations into civil society?
The concept of civil society emerged to describe the individualšs
relationship to the state. In The Philosophy of Law, Hegel used the
term to show how individualšs interests are undermined by collective
interests in a dialectical form. He discerned that there is a
dialectical mediation between the primary social forms (the family)
and the highest one (the state) Civil society as a realm between
family and state indicated that people experienced connection to a
larger unit through this sphere. Civil society mediated between
individualšs interest and collective interest. Hegel not only provided a
picture of the atomistic individualism but also showed how a
reconciliation is possible. Furthermore, he asserts that civil society
is an ethical entity, given that corporations provide the members in a
with some ethical predisposition.
For simplicity we can argue that the Hegelian notion of civil
society led to two different usages of the term. Some views focus on
the dichotomy between state and society and perceive civil society as
a mediating realm with secondary organizations. Others emphasized
the morality of collectivity, and tried to answer how it should
function. These views can be referred to as institutional and
normative definitions of civil society.
The institutional definitions of civil society, basically, state
that civil society is sphere of autonomous institutions, protected by
rule of law within which individuals and communities possessing
divergent values and beliefs may coexist. Scholars adopting this view
applied the term to the Middle Eastern context and usually concluded
that the societies are characterized by weak civil society.
The orientalist and neo-orientalist approaches argued for this
result through two different depictions of state society relations. The
orientalist approach claimed that secondary or intermediary
organization between state and society were absent. They referred to
the Eastern despotism vis a vis Western Liberalism. On the other hand,
the Neo-orientalist view argued that state could not establish itself
with the extant strong societies. The resulting instability undermined
civil society and democracy in the region.
However, defining civil society in institutional terms has some
shortcomings. Although institutional aspects are necessary for the
existence of a civil society, they are not sufficient. In other words,
civil society merely in the forms of intermediary, voluntary, and
autonomous organizations is not a insufficient foundation for a civil
society.
Therefore, we need to disentangle the definition of civil society
from its institutional bias in order to apply it to different social
contexts. Using this linen of argument some definitions of civil
society focus on intangible, normative aspect of the concept. These
approaches see civil society as a realm of free interaction to define a
common good. For example, Cohen and Arato define civil society as
spheres of public freedom within which opposing discourses, and
agents can collectively debate issues of common concern. These
definitions emphasize diversity, civility, tolerance, and a discursive
compromise within a realm of communicative interaction. Civility is
the conduct of the members of any given society towards each other.
It requires the readiness to moderate particular individual or
parochial interest while giving precedence to the common good. An
agreement on the common good can be achieved through tolerance of
diversity. Without civility in the public sphere the contending views
clash denying to accept disparate views.
In Islamic Liberalism, Leonard Binder, borrowing from
Habermas' conceptualization, discusses liberalism and civil society in
the Middle East as a sphere of free communicative interaction. In
Habermasian civil society opposing viewpoints can clash and
engender a rationalized, civilized discourse about common good.
Habermas states that the rules of noncoercive, open-ended
communication provide implicit ethical norms for the conducts in the
public sphere. Public sphere, in a civil society, includes noncoercive
intersubjectivity, mutual understanding and reciprocal recognition.
These norms includes equality of participants and mutual tolerance.
The studies of moral aspect of civil society pose questions regarding
nature of interaction in the civil society. Binderšs study Islamic
Liberalism, discusses how emergence of rational discourse is a basic
requirement for the civil society in the Middle Eastern countries.
Binder traces the emergence of rational dialogue in the area as a sign
of emerging liberal democracy. Binder, like Hegel, sees reason as only
device to provide a common ground for competing views to
communicate. These arguments try to see if Islam can engagae in
rational discourse or not. On the other hand, Habermas writes that
common good should be based on the intersubjectivity of mutual
understanding. Habermas asserts that noncoercive, open ended
communication secure a common good. Communications do not
necessarily need to be a rational one.
This conceptualization of civil society underlines few
significant questions that we should answer for the discussion of
civil society in the Middle Eastern countries: Is there any sphere of
free communicative interaction in the Middle Eastern countries? Does
public sphere include all different views? Can agents collectively
debate issues of common concern? Does mutual recognition and
understanding exist? Is it possible to have a common good based on
intersubjectivity? Does Islamic discourse lend itself for a rational
agreements with competing discourses?
As argued by Hassan Salamee in Democracy without Democrats,
the Middle Eastern countries went through an economic and political
liberalization period which led to the emergence of numerous
autonomous and semi autonomous organizations. The consolidation of
parliamentary and procedural democracy, and multiparty system,
privatization of state enterprises, increasing integration into the
world economy broadened the associational network in the Middle
Eastern countries. A strong middle class, and expanding education also %
-----------
Remote host: bur-mac3.la.utexas.edu