Global Civil Society - Essay Example

Who or what are the main actors in global civil society Critically assess their roles Introduction The sudden collapse of the Cold War represented more than just the peaceful conclusion of a nearly five decade long conflict between the United States and Soviet Union. Scholars and policy makers alike were not only left to explain the rapid events of 1989/90, but they also, in many ways, looked into an unknowing future. New actors and relationships were introduced; older actors and relationships were redefined. U.S. President George H. W. Bush (1991) spoke of a 'new world order'. The United Nations (UN, 1994) introduced the concept of Human Security. At the centre of this evolving debate was an examination of the interaction between the state and non-state actors in the international arena. Through much of the Cold War, realism (a later neorealism) dominated the international relations literature. This particular focus placed an almost exclusive emphasis on the state. However, with the introduction of concepts like interdependence theory in the 1970s by scholar like Keohane and Nye (1977), alternative positions started to emerge. These alternative - neoliberalism in particular - approaches argued that economics and scare resources forced states to interact with each other in increasingly frequency and in doing so states ceded sovereignty to international institutions. While neorealism remained dominant even after the Cold War, these alternatives raised important questions not only about state sovereignty, but also about the existence of international actors and their relationship with the state and between each other. One particular approach that gained momentum after the Cold War was the concept of Global Civil Society (GCS). GCS examines non-state actors such as Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), non-state organisations and social movements as a whole. Many of these concepts, though, are not new to the post-Cold War era. Rather, within the past two decades, GCS has come to refer to a specific set of actors whose interactions influence the globalised world and particularly challenge the state as an alternative form of governance; with these non-state actors playing an increasingly important role in international affairs. Accordingly, this paper seeks to identify the main actors in GCS and critically assess their roles. First, this essay will define GCS as to generally outline the concept. Section two will introduce the main actors and their roles. Finally, the conclusion will offer suggestions on the future of GCS; which will depend in large part on how current actors perceive and cooperate with each other. Define Global Civil Society While the concept of GCS was greatly developed after the Cold War, its origins can be traced back much earlier and include the idea of civil society. Heywood (2002, p.8) notes that "civil society consists of what Edmund Burke called 'little platoons', institutions such as the family and kinship groups, private business, trade unions, clubs, community groups." Civil society was separate from the mechanisms of the state and, to varying degrees, influenced domestic state behaviour. And as the state interacted with other states with increasing frequency through the 18th century, so too did non-state actors. Through the mid-20th century, Lawson (2003, p. 50) notes that NGOs and international organizations started to significantly increase their interaction with states and this constituted the emergence of 'international civil society'. While states still dominated, these non-state actors exerted more influence on the fabric of international relations. Yet, the framework and the interaction of these non-state actors were such that it was not long before the 'international' transitioned into the 'global'. Like many concepts in international relations, GCS does not have a universally agreed definition. Axford (2002, p. 558) states "the existence of global civil society - a zone of transnational association and deliberation under the control on neither states nor markets - is hotly debated." While the concept is debated - contested - a range of international non-state, non-market actors are generally considered core constituents of GCS. Scholte (2001, p. 27) argues that "the expansion of global civil society has helped to make popular participation in world politics far more direct and extensive than in Westphalian days, when citizen involvement tended to mean no more than a vote in national elections to determine which political party would conduct the state's foreign policy." Individuals and other actors not have alternative methods to engage global political issues with Schipper (2005, p. 352) noting that GCS represents "the political practices deployed by these groups, such as loosely co-ordinated activities." GCS, as argued by its proponents, is the third leg of the global political environment. While GCS has gained acceptance in the nearly two decades since the collapse of the Cold War, some sceptics are not convinced of the validity of the concept. Andersen and Reiff (2004) note that "the global civil society movement might better be understood as imagining itself as the bearer of universal values, both operating in the teeth of globalisation and yet simultaneously using globalisation as its vehicle for disseminating universal values." Others question the influence of GCS. Drezner (2007, p. 177) notes in respect to Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and patented antiretroviral drugs, the "data suggest that global civil society did have some casual effect on great power foreign policies and the changes to the TRIPS regime with regard to public health." Drezner, though, continues by stating that the influence of GCS is overstated and the "key to the U.S. policy shift was less the GCS campaign than the viewing of HIV/AIDS though a national security lens." These authors do not dismiss GCS; rather, argue its limited nature and capacity to influence other actors, particularly states, and the global dialogue. However, the very inclusion of GCS in respect to globalisation and security discussions, for example, suggest that the concept does have a place in the larger global debates. As Scholte (2006, p. 26) notes "citizens have mobilized in voluntary associations to shape policies and the deeper structures of social relations that those policies reflect." GCS adds a critical social element to the previously material-based construction of international relations and politics. Yet, as Lawson (2003, p. 50) argues, not all elements of GCS "have admirable, let alone legitimate, purposes." From terrorism to the mafia, GCS includes a variety of actors that do not share a similar conception of politics; in some cases, actors may actively work against each other. The inclusion of these elements, though, allows for a more complete conception of global affairs. The main actors will be discussed in the following section. Who are the main actors and critical evaluate Turner (1998, p. 25) notes that "the proliferation of national and international non-governmental organizations has extended the range of citizen action beyond the institutional parameters of the sovereign state." In short, NGOs are at the heart of GCS. Further, the importance of these actors has become increasingly apparent over the past several decades. Schrum (2000, p. 96)argues that NGOs "are not new on the international scene, but their impact as recipients and channels of development aid, as well as their involvement in research activities, can no longer be ignored." Because of increased concern about traditional political systems as argued by Shin (2003, p. 699), "the favorable environments for the activities of NGOs, and the availability of experienced civic organizational leadership provided ideal conditions for the participation of civic organizations in political processes." This is not to suggest a universal construction of NGOs. Grugel (2000, p. 87) argues that "most European NGOs are smaller than those in the United States . Many therefore lack the self-confidence that may characterize prominent U.S. NGOs." These differences define the uneven nature of GCS. However, on the whole, NGOs are not only significant actors in global political issues, but they are increasingly influencing critical policy issues. The participation in particular policy issues demonstrated the diverse nature of NGOs. Global climate change and environmental policy is one issue in which NGOs play a significant role with Nelson (1997, p. 469) arguing that "NGO activism on the environment now complemented by active, well-linked networks on social and economic policy issues." Migration, health, and development, among others, are specific issues tackled by NGOs. However, while some of the problems tackled by NGOs, such as migration, are in specific geographic areas Battistella (1993, p. 200) believes that, "organizing at the national and international level is necessary if protection of migrants is to be assured." This particularly speaks toward the 'global' aspect of GCS. NGOs and social movements, though, are not limited to problems of the developing world as Linders' (2004) notes in her article on abortion in Sweden and the United States. Further, and as noted previously, NGOs are not universal and perceptions of and between NGOs as well as social movements directly influence how policies are tackled (Passy and Giugni, 2001). While NGOs are separate from states, many issues draw these two actors together to cooperate. Freidman et al. (2001, p. 32) argue that a more active engagement in respect to issues of development by "Latin American governments and NGOs can make common cause at he global level." The Church as well as other religious institutions continue to play a central role in GCS. American Evangelical Christian groups, for example, have not only played a key role in highlighting and solving problems in developing countries, "(a)s NGOs they have become valuable partners in implementing US objectives in Kenya." Yet, the close relationship between the state and NGOs is not without critics; particularly as Fisher (1997, p. 443) notes how the increased responsibility and actively with states "is not without risk to the autonomy and existence of NGOs." There is an inherent tension between these two actors as both compete to address particular policy problems. NGOs, though, have demonstrated relevance across a range of issues and they will continue to engage the state - as well as globalisation. Proponents of GCS and NGOs are also concerned that from a theoretical perspective, as Wapner (1995, p. 312) notes, that "the meaning of activist groups in a global context is not settled and will remain problematic as long as the strictly societal dimension of their work is left out of the analysis." Accordingly, GCS scholars are still fighting to not only keep NGOs on the theoretical agenda, but also demonstrate the centrality of these actors on the global stage. Conclusion This essay has examined the concept of GCS and its main actor, NGOs. However, Raustiala (1997, p. 737) argues NGOs must be seen in the larger international/global context as "(s)tates, as guarantors of diverse societal interests, remain vitally important." Even as NGOs have emerged to tackled policy problems ignored or not consider by the state, Ewig (1999, p. 99) notes that a "limitation that must be recognized is that NGOs cannot replace the state, particularly in serving the poorest populations." NGOs must continue to work with states, for the foreseeable future, to address policy problems. Further and from a theoretical perspective, Cooley and Ron (2002, p. 36) believe that NGO and GSC "(s)cholars need to rethink their approach to the emerging world of transnational action. To date, most theorists have seen transnational groups as harbingers of a new, liberal, and robust civil society, but this view may be overly optimistic." As noted previously, terrorist organisations, among others, are also part of GCS. It is particularly with the state and traditional notions of organisation, that GCS scholars and proponents must pay special attention. Hammami (2000, p. 27) argues in respect to the emergence of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, "social movements cannot be jump-started but must emerge organically from situated communities and social groups." Thus, GCS is part of a larger global dialogue in which other actors not only engage each other, but also influence each other. To separate GCS from the state or globalisation changes the very nature of NGOs and how they accomplish goals. GCS proponents, as noted by Howes (1997, p. 34), need to demonstrate more flexibility in engaging other actors, particular in a volatile global environment. GCS and NGOs cannot tackle these issues alone. Further, Buzan (2000, p. 2) argues that the state remains the critical organizing principle through which individuals and social units aspire. If NGOs seek to be a co-equal participant, or atleast influence greater authority, in the international arena, they must work along side - not necessarily subservient- the state to solve these policy problems. References Anderson, K., Reiff, D. 2004. Chapter 1 'Global Civil Society': A Sceptical View. [Online]. Available: http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/global/Publications/Yearbooks/2004/Chapter104.pdf [18 April 2008]. Axford, B. 2002. The Process of Globalisation. (In Axford, B. et al. (eds.), Politics: An introduction 2nd edition, London: Routledge, p. 524-562.) Battistella, G. 1993. The Human Rights of Migrant Workers: Agenda for NGOs. International Migration Review, 27(1): 191-201, Spring. Bush, G. H. W. 1990. Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the Persian Gulf Crisis and the Federal Budget Deficit. [Online]. Available: http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.phpid=2217&year=1990&month=9 [19 April 2008]. Buzan, B. 2000. 'Change and Security' reconsidered. (In Croft, S. & Terriff, T. (eds.), Critical Reflections on Security and Change. London: Frank Cass. p. 1-17.) Cooley, A., Ron, J. 2002. The NGO Scramble: Organizational Insecurity and the Political Economy of Transnational Action. International Security, 27(1): 5-39, Summer. Drezner, D. 2007. All Politics is Global: Explaining International Regulatory Regimes. Oxford: Princeton University Press. Ewig, C. 1999. The Strengths and Limits of the NGO Women's Movement Model: Shaping Nicaragua's Democratic Institutions. Latin American Research Review, 34(3): 75-102. Fisher, W. F. 1997. Doing Good The Politics and Antipolitics of NGO Practices. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26: 439-464. Friedman, E. J., Hochstetler, K., Clark, A.M. 2001. Sovereign Limits and Regional Opportunities for Global Civil Society in Latin America. Latin American Research Review, 36(3): 7-35. Grugel, J. 2000. Romancing Civil Society: European NGOs in Latin America. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 42(2): vi-107, Summer. Hammami, R. 2000. Palestinian NGOs Since Oslo: From NGO Politics to Social Movements Middle East Report, 214: 16-19+27+48, Summer. Hearn, J. 2002. The 'Invisible' NGO: US Evangelical Missions in Kenya. Journal of Religion in Africa, 32(1): 32-60, February. Heywood, A. 2002. Politics 2nd Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Howes, M. 1997. NGOs and the Development of Local Institutions: A Ugandan Case-Study. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 35(1):17-35, March. Keohane, R., Nye, J. 1977. Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Lawson, S. 2003. International Relations: Short Inductions. Oxford: Polity Press. Linders, A. 2004. Victory and beyond: A Historical Comparative Analysis of the Outcomes of the Abortion Movements in Sweden and the United States. Sociological Forum, 19(3): 371-404, September. Nelson, P. J. 1997. Deliberation, Leverage or Coercion The World Bank, NGOs, and Global Environmental Politics. Journal of Peace Research, 34(4): 467-470, November. Passy, F., Giugni, M. 2001. Social Networks and Individual Perceptions: Explaining Differential Participation in Social Movements. Sociological Forum, 16(1): 123-153, March Raustiala, K. 1997. States, NGOs, and International Environmental Institutions. International Studies Quarterly, 41(4): 719-740, December. Schippers, B. 2005. Civil Society. (In MacKenzie, I. (ed.), Political Concepts: A Reader and Guide, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, p. 343-369.) Scholte, J. A. 2001. The Globalization of World Politics. (In Baylis, J., Smith, S. (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 13-32. Shin, E. H. 2003. The Role of NGOs in Political Elections in South Korea: The Case of the Citizens. Asian Survey, 43(4): 697-715, July - August. Shrum,W. 2000. Science and Story in Development: The Emergence of Non-Governmental Organizations in Agricultural Research. Social Studies of Science, 30(1): 95-124, February. Turner, S. 1998. Global Civil Society, Anarchy and Governance: Assessing an Emerging Paradigm. Journal of Peace Research, 35(1): 25-42, January. United Nations. 1994. United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 1994: New Dimensions of Human Security. New York: Oxford University Press. Wapner, P. 1995. Politics Beyond the State: Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics. World Politics, 47(3): 311-340, April. Read More