To what extent does the concept of civil society help in the explanation or justification of the process of democratization?

Résumé du document

Renewed interest in civil society emerged in the late 1980s; it coincided with the resurgence of political democracy throughout the world. Indeed, it has been increased with the growing tendency towards democratization in Eastern Europe, and several Latin American countries, where authoritarian regimes collapsed after – what was considered as- a “revolution from below” and “being hollowed out by resistance movements of ordinary citizens in voluntary associations who withdrew their tacit support”. That is why most researchers generally agree that a ‘civil society' is linked to the processes of democratization. But let's consider a definition of civil society: “It is that network of free associations where private individuals come together outside the intimate sphere of the family, but in a form of social life not controlled by the state; as a participant in the group, each person is acting as a private individual, not fulfilling an obligatory role; the common purpose of the group ought to be of broadly political significance”.

Extraits

[...] Indeed the presence of civil society per se cannot explain and justify the processes of democratisation. As I have tried to show, if it is not accompanied by certain elements, civil society can easily fail to lead a state to democratisation, in other words, the explanatory ability of civil society to justify processes of democratisation is limited. Moreover, one should not forget that processes of democratisation do not stop when the authoritarian regime collapses. After the emerging democratic phase where civil society supplies a stable basis of liberal and consensual politics; it still has crucial a role to play in the stabilization of a democratic system; so civil society should not disappear- as it is sometimes the case. [...]

[...] Indeed, when a regime runs into difficulties, the presence of civil society represents a real threat to the regime -when it suffers setbacks- as it implies the possibility of popular mobilization and the consequent unseating of the regime. It may believe that liberalization is the only way the regime can escape from its difficulties, such as Gorbachev in the USSR. Thus cooperation and compromise with civil society is perceived as the option with the best prospects of ensuring their longer- term survival- particularly if civil society is strong, with well- developed organizational structures, and identifiable mass base, as “their capacity to influence the course of developments within the regime will be heightened”. [...]

[...] In other terms and to sum up, civil society is helpful to explain the processes of democratisation as it is the place where one learns the skills and habits of civility and good citizenship. Civil society can also explain and justify the continuing building of a democracy. Indeed Civil society also constitutes the basis upon which any stable democratic regime which originates from a process of transition must rest. In this sense civil society provides the basic social and political infrastructure which is necessary to back an emergent democratic system. [...]

[...] In other terms, civil society is considered as a way to help to re-democratization. We can take the example of the “European Union political regime” in which the resorting of civil society was perceived as a progress of democracy, and the only way to bring democracy inside the European Union, and used as a strategy by the European Commission to reconcile the citizens with EU politics. According to that first part, the presence of a civil society would be essential in the explanation and justification in the processes of democratization. [...]

[...] The reason for that is that a civil society whose essence was radical opposition to an authoritarian state has lost his raison d'être during the process of democratisation. Moreover, such as in the Polish case, the accession of most prominent Solidarity members to positions of political power has confused allegiances and blurred the distinction between civil society and state, to the extent that, people have refrained from participating in civil society in the belief that the new governments are acting in their name and interests. [...]