CIVIL SOCIETY

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 477.

Civil society has been defined in a variety of ways. Originally it meant a ‘political community', a society governed by law, under the authority of a *state. More commonly, civil society is distinguished from the state, and is used to describe a realm of autonomous groups and associations, such as businesses, *pressure groups, clubs, families and so on. It thus consists of what Edmund Burke (1729–97) called the ‘little platoons'. In this sense the division between civil society and the state reflects a ‘private/public' divide; civil society encompasses institutions that are ‘private' in that they are independent from government and organised by individuals in pursuit of their own ends. G. W. F. Hegel (1770–1831), on the other hand, distinguished civil society not only from the state but also from the family. He viewed civil society as a sphere of ‘universal egoism' in which individuals place their own interests before those of others, whereas the state and the family are characterised by ‘universal altruism' and ‘particular altruism' respectively.

Significance

Civil society is widely used as a descriptive concept to assess the balance between state authority and private bodies and associations. For instance, *totalitarianism is defined by the abolition of civil society, and the growth of private associations and clubs, lobby groups and independent trade unions in post-communist societies is described as the re-emergence of civil society. In most cases, however, civil society is invested with normative and ideological significance. In the conventional, liberal view, civil society is identified as a realm of choice, personal *freedom and individual responsibility. Whereas the state operates through compulsory and coercive authority, civil society allows individuals to shape their own destinies. This explains why a vigorous and healthy civil society is usually regarded as an essential feature of *liberal democracy, and why classical liberals in particular have a moral preference for civil society over the state, reflected in a desire to minimise the scope of public authority and maximise the private sphere. In contrast, the Hegelian use of the term is negative in that it counterposes the egoism of civil society with the altruism that is fostered by the family

-17-

and within the state. Marxists and socialists generally have viewed civil society unfavourably, associating it in particular with unequal class power and social injustice. Such views would justify either the overthrow of civil society as presently structured, or the contraction of civil society through the expansion of state control and regulation.

CONSENSUS

A consensus is an agreement, but it is an agreement of a particular kind. Consensus implies, first, a broad agreement, the terms of which are accepted by a wide range of individuals or groups. Second, it implies an agreement about fundamental or underlying principles, as opposed to a precise or exact agreement. In other words, a consensus permits disagreement on matters of emphasis or detail. The term ‘consensus politics' may be used in two ways. A procedural consensus is a willingness to make decisions through consultation and bargaining, either between *political parties or between *government and major interests. A substantive consensus is an overlap in the ideological positions of two or more political parties, reflected in agreement about fundamental policy goals (as in the UK's post-1945 social-democratic consensus, and Germany's social-market consensus).

Significance

Consensus is often portrayed as the very stuff of *politics. This is because politics, in one sense at least, is a specifically non-violent means of resolving conflict. Given that the differing interests of individuals and groups are a permanent feature of human life, peaceful co-existence can be achieved only through a process of negotiation, conciliation and compromise; in short, through consensus-building. Procedural consensuses therefore reflect the recognition that the alternative to bargaining and compromise is open conflict and possibly violence. Consensus politics is likely to be a feature of mature pluralist democracies, substantive consensuses often occurring in political systems in which electoral alliances and *coalitions are commonplace. Consensus politics can nevertheless be criticised on the grounds that it fosters unprincipled compromise; that it discourages consideration of bold but controversial policy initiatives; and that it tends to entrench centrist ideological priorities.