Antinomies Of Civil Society

C. D. Bhatta

Since the last couple of years, the word 'civil society' has been used frequently in different perspectives of state affairs. Nothing is complete without an explicit reference to the civil society. However, the discussion on civil society in Nepal is such that there are many who use the term lavishly in different aspects but hardly describe its content. The actual nature of civil society is not sufficiently acknowledged and, if it is, is done so only in a half-hearted way. Much of the discussion on civil society seems to be driven either by a radical disenchantment with the present, an insidious nostalgia of the past or uncritical glorification about its role during the people's movements.

Debate

The current debate on civil society mostly emanates from the people's movement of 2006 wherein civil society organisations played an important role in regime change. If the regime change was driven by a collective consciousness of the civil society that rose against the King for democracy and the Maoists for peace, the same organisations have a responsibility of leading the ongoing changes to their logical end. But this does not seem to be the case with the Nepali civil society.

The fundamental problem lies with the fact that there is (1) politicisation of the civil society and elite shift of the civil sphere into the political sphere and vice versa, (2) elite domination in the civil society, hierarchy between members and leaders within civil society activists and missing link between the civil society and citizenry, (3) patron-client relationship between the civil society, political society and donors, and (4) split among the self-declared civil society leaders on ideological grounds.

These factors are contributing towards incivility, and civic euphoria is slowly evaporating. And these are among reasons why the civil society in Nepal has failed to institutionalise democracy and peace in the country once the aim of regime change is accomplished. This is what happened during the 1990s as well. This is the paradox with civic movements. Civic movements are waged to meet certain objectives, mostly political, and transform quickly into an 'amorphous' mass wrestling in the streets to meet vested interests in the name of civil society. This is what Nepal is experiencing after the April uprising of 2006.

The protests in the streets, strikes and chakka jams, lock outs in the government and private business houses, rallies, dharnas to put undue pressure on the transitional government have become the norm of the day. What is really disturbing is the blank support these groups are getting from official civil societies. Paradoxically, these activities are only pushing the Nepali state towards anarchy and further instability. Perhaps, this could be the reason, among others, why the official civil society has been blamed for having represented more radical agendas than democratic values. It is because this civil society has never paid any attention to making the society civil. The official civil society, in contrast, engages in spearheading activities that might help to champion its own goal.

This is another reason why the civil society has been blamed for being anti-state rather than pro-state. Interestingly, when we look at the development of post-modern civil society organisations in Nepal, one can conclude how organised and well-off sections of the society have created their own empire of civil societies. And the civil society as a concept has been used and abused on different occasions, beyond movements, by using the amorphous mass, which is often equated with the civil society. The vertical classification of the civil society into two categories - official and unofficial civil society makes a clear distinction as to how creamy layers are forming in this field as well.

The official civil society is mostly Kathmandu-based and comprises post-modern and well-off sections of the society, a profusion of NGOs, pro-democracy groups, civil society activists (official) and other interest groups. The public sphere created, thus, is largely captured by the self-declared conglomerate of the urban elite and retired bureaucrats who prefer to be known as civil society leaders - with the provision of hierarchy - and carry populist agendas. The unofficial civil society on the periphery, for its part, includes duty-bound rural civil society organisations. They extend throughout the nation but do not have the capacity to bargain with the state.

The hijacking of the public sphere by the official civil society and marginalisation of the unofficial civil society raises some fundamental questions. It begs clarification as to what constitutes the civil society in Nepal and whom does it represent and what are its parameters? The civil society in Nepal is unharmonious for the development of a democratic political culture in the country. The actual relationship between the civil society and existing public sphere (that is, what constitutes to be a civil society - who are able to participate and who are denied access to this public sphere) is determined by a patron-client relationship.

Inclusive culture

Likewise the unabated protests wearing the civil society tag at the national level are posing a great threat for an orderly society in Nepal. What is needed for its significant prevalence is to ensure a more inclusive culture based on civility to build networks and coalitions among poor groups to strengthen the voices of the unrepresented mass, represent crucial issues and change the people's perception about the civil society and mobilise for a greater cause.

Source: The Rising Nepal, May 25, 2007