It is very important for civil society actors to be able to claim legitimacy as a natural part of society as a whole. It can be difficult to determine what is organic, and what is not. We discussed weather or not an actor can be politically motivated and still be called a part of civil society. It can be hard to determine what is politically involved, and what is not. Are projects designated to alleviate poverty politically motivated? Though probably not, it is important to note that most actors are somewhat involved with the purpose of enacting political change. Could one not say that Non-Profits wish governments to provide more for its poorer citizens? Doesn't that mean they are political motivated to enact change?
But if civil society actors are not politically involved, does that make them more legitimate as a part of society? I believe it does, because an actor that is not politically, can usually be labeled as not seeking power, just seeking change. If an actor does not seek power, than it will not abuse what authority it does have to enact such change.
If actors who are politically motivated are not considered a part of civil society, than the idea that civil society plays a role in democratization is challenged. The actors who are politically motivated are more likely to partake in activities that seek an increase in democracy. If these actors are not considered a part of society, then civil society would not be necessary in increasing democracy, as those groups would be considered outside the realm of civil society.
No comments:
Post a Comment