It appears that being a part of the state is the equivalent of having a target on your back. Anything that goes wrong immediately becomes the problem of the government, and all hell breaks loose. In an article about the Iranian currency crisis, the analyst said that traders are getting angry with the government for not giving more direction in the crisis, which is making the monetary values even more unstable, and of course, that is making people even angrier because the instability is making trading that much more impossible. Also, while reading Professor Hardig's reflection to our readings about civil society, I noticed that the state is still not included, and that any group or organization that has any affiliation to the state is almost labeled as taboo and is not accepted into the civil society realm as a "non-state" actor. Basically, civil society is like a club.
Maybe I'm not getting the full point of the readings, but couldn't it be possible to include the state in some way to civil society? Or is it just natural that the government will turn greedy and corrupt and destroy anything positive it could have gained/ created in civil society? I feel that maybe this focus on what is "state" and what isn't is covering up the larger picture of how effective these groups are in civil society and if they are really leading their people to a higher level of "civilized" living.
No comments:
Post a Comment