| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Can We Have a ‘Global Civil Society’? |
05 |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
The (in)dependence of Civil Society
The criticism of the cosmopolitan project does not end there however. Above and beyond the discussion of 'ugly citizens' is the lack of independence of civil society actors. The lack of NGO innocence is already an open secret; what is being referred to is simply the willingness of nation-states to turn matters to their advantage in their continuing inter-state rivalries and also the willingness of civil society actors to compromise their principles when the rewards are high enough (cf. Cook, 2005). International relations authority Fred Halliday is emphatic in his assessment of civil society as a tool in western foreign policy.
"…states have come to influence or even control NGO's. Many of the supposedly 'independent' bodies that attend international conferences on particular issues are what are termed as GONGOs - government-controlled NGOs, sponsored, more or less overtly, by states. They use the appearance of independence to promote the goals of their state" (Halliday, 2003, p.496).
Gone are the days when global civil society actors could be confined to Esperanto enthusiasts and missionaries. The stakes are higher than ever as civil society promises to provide a solution for American ambitions to democratise the Middle East (cf. Nye, 2003). The explicit attempts by nation-states, purportedly ravaged by the processes of globalisation, to co-opt civil society to achieve foreign policy aims should concern those who advocate a global civil society and Halliday's analysis of the cosmopolitan project is glacially cold:
"…it is often an illusion to see NGO's as an alternative to, or substitute for, states. What NGO's seek to do is, in many cases, to influence states, to get them to keep their promises or conform to a greater degree to international norms. NGO's are, moreover, often working not to fill a role but to get the state to do so" (2003, p.496).
Conclusion
The processes of globalisation are here to stay but harnessing them is the real test and it is extremely improbable that a global civil society could effectively do so in the near future if at all. The cosmopolitan project depends on analogies that we have demonstrated to be iniquitous and imbalanced as there is a definitely a marked contrast between both the domestic/transnational spheres as well as between civil societies/a global civil society. Cosmopolitans will also have to make tough decisions about whether they are content with efforts by strong states to manipulate and co-opt their mission.
Until these concerns are addressed the notion of a global civil society able to transcend nationality, truly harness the forces of globalisation and rescue cosmopolitan citizens from what they term a 'democratic deficit' will remain unrealised. Moreover the nation-state can no longer do so either or be viewed as the suitable primary actor due to the processes of globalisation. The trenchant critique of the nation-state in the era of globalisation by cosmopolitans and others (cf. Khan, 2004) makes it abundantly clear that the world requires political governance that cuts across borders not being bound within the narrow self-interests of supposedly inviolable nation-states.
If the cosmopolitans are correct in asserting the nation-state cannot adapt to the global age and realists are correct in asserting that unaccountable 'social movement missionaries' are no replacement then from where to begin our quest for an alternative political model in the global age? The current debate leaves us bereft of alternatives.
Even when David Rieff macerated the idea behind a civil society in a now infamous article on civil society in 1999 the lack of alternatives from within the realist/cosmopolitan paradigm was implicitly acknowledged:
"The suggestion that civil society can cope where nations have failed is, in fact, a counsel of despair in such instances. Without a treasury, a legislature or an army at its disposal, civil society is less equipped to confront the challenges of globalization than nations are, and more likely to be wracked by divisions based on region and the self-interest of the single-issue groups that form the nucleus of the civil society movement… And yet as things stand, it is this unaccountable, undemocratic congeries of single-interest groups that is being proposed as the only viable alternative to the nation-state. It seems to me that were they to achieve the kind of prominence and centrality that is being predicted for them, we would all be far worse off than we are today. And things are gloomy enough already. The premise on which the advocates of civil society have been operating is simply wrong. The nation-state has been weakened, but it is not a spent force" (Rieff, 1999).
The 'governance gap' requires resolution and the solution required is transparently a political model or method of governance that provides transparent, accountable authority while transcending the divisiveness of nationalism and nation-state borders in order to cope with the globalisation imperative.
Today, it can be said we have exhausted the current debate for future building blocks for governance and political action in the global age. New solutions beyond the nation-state and the cosmopolitan global civil society are therefore needed.
| |
| |
| |
| |
« First < 3 4 5 6 >
Page 5 of 6 pages
| |
|
|
