Civil Society Response

As we begin to explore the concept of civil society more in depth, it becomes evident that there is no clear “definition” of this institution. The original assumption of civil society is that all actors in it are “non-political” actors; that civil society is separate from politics in a country. However, if this is the case, then how are advocacy, lobbying, and monitoring groups “non-political”? This poses the question then, of whether specific lobbying groups or NGO’s are legitimate, “organic” parts of broader society. If these actors are “non-political”, then how will reform be created in order to improve civil society as a whole? I think this distinction between political and “non-political” actors definitely hinders civil society’s role in democratization. If these actors are not “legitimate” parts of society, change will be difficult to facilitate. The sole reason of these actors is to bring about democratic reform, and if they are not able to claim legitimacy, then democratization seems unlikely. It seems inevitable that these actors become political, because in order to democratize a country, democratic reform in the political system must be instilled. However, this then contradicts claims of civil society being strictly “non-political”. Nevertheless, without legitimate actors in society, whether it be in a civil society or in the political institution of a country, the democratization process will be slow and difficult.