Much confusion prevails in India about the respective roles that civil society and the state should play in policy making, legislation and governance in general. Some, like Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, have warned against the tyranny of civil society and its attempts to usurp the legitimate functions of the government. Civil society activists claim the right to speak on behalf of the people and to propose policy options and laws to be enacted by Parliament. Large crowds are assembled to show popular support for their movements. The ongoing debate has not, however, helped to clarify the legitimate role of these institutions and the manner in which they should interact and influence each other.
A good starting point is to spell out what civil society is and what its role should be in a democracy. The roles that the state and market institutions play in a society are clear to most people. Civil society plays a role distinctly different from these two. It refers to the third sector where associations of citizens come together to solve their collective problems, including those that arise in their transactions with the state and the market. Citizens who are not part of government, and therefore can speak and act independently, constitute the core of civil society.
Though there can be an overlap, those working for the government, political parties and other organisations attached to the state do not normally act as part of civil society since they are linked to the establishment. It explains why we do not hear civil servants or even activists in the National Advisory Council speaking out in the current debate on corruption. Autonomy is a defining feature of civil society. The organisations and fora that people set up to address common causes are referred to as civil society movements or associations.
In general, all democratic governments provide reasonable space for civil society initiatives and movements to function. Their role in critiquing government policies and actions and organising and pressuring governments to listen to their views is widely accepted. It does not imply that civil society represents all people. Nor is civil society a monolithic entity. There will be diverse views and movements. Attempts to enforce uniformity among them are bound to fail. The extreme view that once an elected government is in place there is no such role for civil society is inconsistent with the basic tenets of democracy. Even in the US, which claims to be the greatest democracy, the civil rights movement would have been suppressed if this view were to be accepted. In most countries, reforms and legislation on the environment, women’s rights, voting rights and so on were the result of civil society action, not the initiative of their respective governments. Rather than viewing civil society initiatives as a subversion of the institutions of governance, it is best to see them as aids to improving the functioning of these institutions and taking corrective actions before a crisis erupts.
In the present context, the basic issue is not so much about the legitimacy of civil society action than the modes and methods of interaction between the state and civil society. Government leaders are signalling that Anna Hazare and Ramdev have crossed the limit and that the methods adopted by them are not acceptable. They argue that the two have gone beyond dialogue to dictation and threats (fast unto death). Thoughtful members of civil society need to reflect on the implications of this argument.
Civil society movements play a useful role when they point out and challenge a government’s failures in important areas of public policy and action. But all failures cannot be treated alike. When the poor are displaced unfairly as a result of dam construction, and are not resettled according to policy, the remedies are straightforward. Present the evidence and demand action according to the declared policy. Publicising the problem, mobilising the affected people and demanding action through protests are logical steps to follow. But this approach may not be the way forward when it comes to other more complex issues. Tackling corruption is a multifaceted issue. The Lok Pal Bill may deal with part of the problem. The scope and content of the Bill, however, can be determined only through a process that examines the pros and cons of its provisions. There can be legitimate differences of view on the inclusion of the higher judiciary or how much power should be concentrated in one super body or the black money problem. These contentious issues deserve thorough discussion. Demonstrations and fast unto death cannot be the basis on which such complex issues can be resolved.
Since laws are enacted in Delhi, civil society has turned out to be a Delhi-centric phenomenon, given the concentration of government, civil society views, media and commentators in the Capital. India is a large and diverse country and its civil society is widely distributed. Yet demonstrations and fasts in Delhi seem to have become a substitute for the involvement of civil society across the country. No one should assume that the priorities of civil society are the same in all regions. There are many other problems that are ripe for fasts unto death. No one has so far pointed to the neglect of electoral reforms, a basic cause of corruption and black money. Many public services that the aam admi needs cannot be accessed without bribes, a problem that cannot be solved by merely passing laws. Are fasts unto death the best way to tackle these issues? One can now envisage counter fasts unto death by some civil society groups that disagree with other groups. Will policies be decided by who dies first? We need to avoid the road to anarchy.
Civil society’s role is to challenge abuses of public power, and influence policies, laws and public action through the power and logic of its ideas and arguments. Five people in a Lok Pal Bill committee do not represent a billion people. All they can claim is the citizens’ right to present their ideas to the government for a law that is long overdue. We already have representative institutions. It is their failure that necessitated the creation of this committee. And, it is the wisdom and persuasiveness of the civil society members that will make the difference, not their claim to be people’s representatives.
In many countries, when such dialogues and protests fail, civil society may demand a referendum on critical issues. Sometimes, such referendums are combined with elections. Given India’s large population, this option may be difficult to implement for some time to come. That leaves our periodic elections as the only option to unseat a government that does not listen to its citizens. It is a difficult and cumbersome process. But then, such is the nature of democracy.
The author is founder, Public Affairs Centre, Bangalore, and co-author of Corruption in India: Agenda for Action
