Bob Widdowson forwarded the post from Tony Taylor to me and I'm very
interested in taking part in this debate. I have worked extensively
in the
transition states of central and eastern Europe, where we commonly use
the
term "Civil society" as encompassing more than our designation of
charities
and voluntary organisations. Civil society also includes trades
unions,
political parties, religious organisations etc - in fact all the types
of
activities and organisations through which people take part in
associational
activity, whether formal or informal. It also, by definition, covers
the
individual citizen. The relationship between the state and civil
society
should be (note the "should be") the one where the institutions of the
state
are accountable to the citizen, are transparent in their operations.
We
elect our representatives to keep a check on the appointed
institutional
structures (civil service etc) - but clearly here in the UK, one of
the
failures is the full accountability of our government to our elected
representatives. So where civil society comes in is by holding to
account
elected representatives, and through its organisations, mobilising
citizens
to demand that accountability. What civil society organisations in
the
transition countries are currently concerned about is how they can
continue
their advocacy/lobbying roles, which in some places are being
restricted
(just like here - often through lack of resources/moves towards the
contract
culture restricting the scope of their activities etc). The dynamics
are of
course more complex than the simplistic overview I've given here, but
where
we need the discussions in the UK is precisely around these issues
(which we
discuss endlessly in countries like Ukraine) - who oversees those who
are
appointed (whether through elections or in other ways) to ensure that
there
is open, transparent and accountable decision-making where these
decisions
are being made for public interest/benefit. I start to feel that our
current government would take at face value the thoughts expressed in
a
Brecht poem about the 1953 events in East Germany - that the
government
would like to elect a new people. We have to make sure that
governments, of
whatever hue, in a so-called democratic state, are constantly aware of
the
pressures that come from civil society. Of course, the problem is
that we
may not always like the views that are expressed by those we disagree
with -
this is one of the issues that arises when we look at mechanisms which
are
in the sphere of "participative democracy" - town and community
meetings,
budget hearings, and a range of other technologies which enable the
"civic"
(civil society) voice to be heard. Globalisation makes the issue
more
complex again, but there is a real common cause to be made across the
world,
where many organisations and individuals are confronting the same
issues,
particularly where a connection has been made between democracy and
the free
market. One of our problems is that we are following a particular
model -
the Anglo-American model - and there are alternatives. We need to be
rethinking all of these issues - the "end of ideology" must be
challenged.
Concepts of civil society can be called in aid to help us break down
the
barriers to thinking that our current "governments" have been very
happy to
erect, as this thinking is a challenge to the currently accepted
orthodoxies.
welcome christine, good to have this perspective because it widens our
picture beyond service provision and sector interests, into society,
power, accountability and alternative models for how we want to live
together. now the trick is to find ways in which we can be a NOT so
civil society - politeness doesn't seem to be getting us very far. but
how do we hold the tension between challenge and dissent, and the glue
we need to keep us together so we have some semblance of a society?
perhaps you might invite friends and contacts outside UK to join us in
our discussions, so we can learn from other situations.
On 22 Apr, 13:15, bobw <r...@gumpol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Bob Widdowson forwarded the post from Tony Taylor to me and I'm very
> interested in taking part in this debate. I have worked extensively
> in the
> transition states of central and eastern Europe, where we commonly use
> the
> term "Civil society" as encompassing more than our designation of
> charities
> and voluntary organisations. Civil society also includes trades
> unions,
> political parties, religious organisations etc - in fact all the types
> of
> activities and organisations through which people take part in
> associational
> activity, whether formal or informal. It also, by definition, covers
> the
> individual citizen. The relationship between the state and civil
> society
> should be (note the "should be") the one where the institutions of the
> state
> are accountable to the citizen, are transparent in their operations.
> We
> elect our representatives to keep a check on the appointed
> institutional
> structures (civil service etc) - but clearly here in the UK, one of
> the
> failures is the full accountability of our government to our elected
> representatives. So where civil society comes in is by holding to
> account
> elected representatives, and through its organisations, mobilising
> citizens
> to demand that accountability. What civil society organisations in
> the
> transition countries are currently concerned about is how they can
> continue
> their advocacy/lobbying roles, which in some places are being
> restricted
> (just like here - often through lack of resources/moves towards the
> contract
> culture restricting the scope of their activities etc). The dynamics
> are of
> course more complex than the simplistic overview I've given here, but
> where
> we need the discussions in the UK is precisely around these issues
> (which we
> discuss endlessly in countries like Ukraine) - who oversees those who
> are
> appointed (whether through elections or in other ways) to ensure that
> there
> is open, transparent and accountable decision-making where these
> decisions
> are being made for public interest/benefit. I start to feel that our
> current government would take at face value the thoughts expressed in
> a
> Brecht poem about the 1953 events in East Germany - that the
> government
> would like to elect a new people. We have to make sure that
> governments, of
> whatever hue, in a so-called democratic state, are constantly aware of
> the
> pressures that come from civil society. Of course, the problem is
> that we
> may not always like the views that are expressed by those we disagree
> with -
> this is one of the issues that arises when we look at mechanisms which
> are
> in the sphere of "participative democracy" - town and community
> meetings,
> budget hearings, and a range of other technologies which enable the
> "civic"
> (civil society) voice to be heard. Globalisation makes the issue
> more
> complex again, but there is a real common cause to be made across the
> world,
> where many organisations and individuals are confronting the same
> issues,
> particularly where a connection has been made between democracy and
> the free
> market. One of our problems is that we are following a particular
> model -
> the Anglo-American model - and there are alternatives. We need to be
> rethinking all of these issues - the "end of ideology" must be
> challenged.
> Concepts of civil society can be called in aid to help us break down
> the
> barriers to thinking that our current "governments" have been very
> happy to
> erect, as this thinking is a challenge to the currently accepted
> orthodoxies.
And a warm thanks from me for pursuing and widening the debate around
the meaning and significance of 'civil society', particularly in view
of your experience of the Eastern European situation. I'll wait a
little before gathering my thoughts into a response. Thanks for the
stimulus.
Tony Taylor
On 22 Apr, 15:42, penny <i...@penandy.co.uk> wrote:
> welcome christine, good to have this perspective because it widens our
> picture beyond service provision and sector interests, into society,
> power, accountability and alternative models for how we want to live
> together. now the trick is to find ways in which we can be a NOT so
> civil society - politeness doesn't seem to be getting us very far. but
> how do we hold the tension between challenge and dissent, and the glue
> we need to keep us together so we have some semblance of a society?
> perhaps you might invite friends and contacts outside UK to join us in
> our discussions, so we can learn from other situations.
> On 22 Apr, 13:15, bobw <r...@gumpol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Bob Widdowson forwarded the post from Tony Taylor to me and I'm very
> > interested in taking part in this debate. I have worked extensively
> > in the
> > transition states of central and eastern Europe, where we commonly use
> > the
> > term "Civil society" as encompassing more than our designation of
> > charities
> > and voluntary organisations. Civil society also includes trades
> > unions,
> > political parties, religious organisations etc - in fact all the types
> > of
> > activities and organisations through which people take part in
> > associational
> > activity, whether formal or informal. It also, by definition, covers
> > the
> > individual citizen. The relationship between the state and civil
> > society
> > should be (note the "should be") the one where the institutions of the
> > state
> > are accountable to the citizen, are transparent in their operations.
> > We
> > elect our representatives to keep a check on the appointed
> > institutional
> > structures (civil service etc) - but clearly here in the UK, one of
> > the
> > failures is the full accountability of our government to our elected
> > representatives. So where civil society comes in is by holding to
> > account
> > elected representatives, and through its organisations, mobilising
> > citizens
> > to demand that accountability. What civil society organisations in
> > the
> > transition countries are currently concerned about is how they can
> > continue
> > their advocacy/lobbying roles, which in some places are being
> > restricted
> > (just like here - often through lack of resources/moves towards the
> > contract
> > culture restricting the scope of their activities etc). The dynamics
> > are of
> > course more complex than the simplistic overview I've given here, but
> > where
> > we need the discussions in the UK is precisely around these issues
> > (which we
> > discuss endlessly in countries like Ukraine) - who oversees those who
> > are
> > appointed (whether through elections or in other ways) to ensure that
> > there
> > is open, transparent and accountable decision-making where these
> > decisions
> > are being made for public interest/benefit. I start to feel that our
> > current government would take at face value the thoughts expressed in
> > a
> > Brecht poem about the 1953 events in East Germany - that the
> > government
> > would like to elect a new people. We have to make sure that
> > governments, of
> > whatever hue, in a so-called democratic state, are constantly aware of
> > the
> > pressures that come from civil society. Of course, the problem is
> > that we
> > may not always like the views that are expressed by those we disagree
> > with -
> > this is one of the issues that arises when we look at mechanisms which
> > are
> > in the sphere of "participative democracy" - town and community
> > meetings,
> > budget hearings, and a range of other technologies which enable the
> > "civic"
> > (civil society) voice to be heard. Globalisation makes the issue
> > more
> > complex again, but there is a real common cause to be made across the
> > world,
> > where many organisations and individuals are confronting the same
> > issues,
> > particularly where a connection has been made between democracy and
> > the free
> > market. One of our problems is that we are following a particular
> > model -
> > the Anglo-American model - and there are alternatives. We need to be
> > rethinking all of these issues - the "end of ideology" must be
> > challenged.
> > Concepts of civil society can be called in aid to help us break down
> > the
> > barriers to thinking that our current "governments" have been very
> > happy to
> > erect, as this thinking is a challenge to the currently accepted
> > orthodoxies.
As hopefully this debate prospers, people might find Michael Edward's
overview of 'civil society', with which I have serious differences,
nonetheless illuminating, see http://www.infed.org/association/civil-society.htm
On 22 Apr, 17:36, Taylorakis <tonymtay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And a warm thanks from me for pursuing and widening the debate around
> the meaning and significance of 'civil society', particularly in view
> of your experience of the Eastern European situation. I'll wait a
> little before gathering my thoughts into a response. Thanks for the
> stimulus.
> Tony Taylor
> On 22 Apr, 15:42, penny <i...@penandy.co.uk> wrote:
> > welcome christine, good to have this perspective because it widens our
> > picture beyond service provision and sector interests, into society,
> > power, accountability and alternative models for how we want to live
> > together. now the trick is to find ways in which we can be a NOT so
> > civil society - politeness doesn't seem to be getting us very far. but
> > how do we hold the tension between challenge and dissent, and the glue
> > we need to keep us together so we have some semblance of a society?
> > perhaps you might invite friends and contacts outside UK to join us in
> > our discussions, so we can learn from other situations.
> > On 22 Apr, 13:15, bobw <r...@gumpol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Bob Widdowson forwarded the post from Tony Taylor to me and I'm very
> > > interested in taking part in this debate. I have worked extensively
> > > in the
> > > transition states of central and eastern Europe, where we commonly use
> > > the
> > > term "Civil society" as encompassing more than our designation of
> > > charities
> > > and voluntary organisations. Civil society also includes trades
> > > unions,
> > > political parties, religious organisations etc - in fact all the types
> > > of
> > > activities and organisations through which people take part in
> > > associational
> > > activity, whether formal or informal. It also, by definition, covers
> > > the
> > > individual citizen. The relationship between the state and civil
> > > society
> > > should be (note the "should be") the one where the institutions of the
> > > state
> > > are accountable to the citizen, are transparent in their operations.
> > > We
> > > elect our representatives to keep a check on the appointed
> > > institutional
> > > structures (civil service etc) - but clearly here in the UK, one of
> > > the
> > > failures is the full accountability of our government to our elected
> > > representatives. So where civil society comes in is by holding to
> > > account
> > > elected representatives, and through its organisations, mobilising
> > > citizens
> > > to demand that accountability. What civil society organisations in
> > > the
> > > transition countries are currently concerned about is how they can
> > > continue
> > > their advocacy/lobbying roles, which in some places are being
> > > restricted
> > > (just like here - often through lack of resources/moves towards the
> > > contract
> > > culture restricting the scope of their activities etc). The dynamics
> > > are of
> > > course more complex than the simplistic overview I've given here, but
> > > where
> > > we need the discussions in the UK is precisely around these issues
> > > (which we
> > > discuss endlessly in countries like Ukraine) - who oversees those who
> > > are
> > > appointed (whether through elections or in other ways) to ensure that
> > > there
> > > is open, transparent and accountable decision-making where these
> > > decisions
> > > are being made for public interest/benefit. I start to feel that our
> > > current government would take at face value the thoughts expressed in
> > > a
> > > Brecht poem about the 1953 events in East Germany - that the
> > > government
> > > would like to elect a new people. We have to make sure that
> > > governments, of
> > > whatever hue, in a so-called democratic state, are constantly aware of
> > > the
> > > pressures that come from civil society. Of course, the problem is
> > > that we
> > > may not always like the views that are expressed by those we disagree
> > > with -
> > > this is one of the issues that arises when we look at mechanisms which
> > > are
> > > in the sphere of "participative democracy" - town and community
> > > meetings,
> > > budget hearings, and a range of other technologies which enable the
> > > "civic"
> > > (civil society) voice to be heard. Globalisation makes the issue
> > > more
> > > complex again, but there is a real common cause to be made across the
> > > world,
> > > where many organisations and individuals are confronting the same
> > > issues,
> > > particularly where a connection has been made between democracy and
> > > the free
> > > market. One of our problems is that we are following a particular
> > > model -
> > > the Anglo-American model - and there are alternatives. We need to be
> > > rethinking all of these issues - the "end of ideology" must be
> > > challenged.
> > > Concepts of civil society can be called in aid to help us break down
> > > the
> > > barriers to thinking that our current "governments" have been very
> > > happy to
> > > erect, as this thinking is a challenge to the currently accepted
> > > orthodoxies.
Been meaning to reply to this for some weeks and this morning the sun
got me up early so I've at last the time!!
What I wanted to ask you is to say some more about the alternative
models to the 'anglo-american model'. One of the problems we are all
struggling with is that things seem to have gone so far (popular
disenchantment, government 'day-is-night' spin, repressive funding
regimes etc.) that it is difficult to get beyond what we don't like
about what we see around us. And we have to do this. Criticism and
moaning definitely have their place (I'm very good at it actually) and
this cetainly gets the conversation going. But people working with
these issues at whatever level have to make their own manifestos -
their own programme of what they want to replace the tired old
rhetoric with.
Also is it possible usefully to debate this aspect of the problem at a
'generic' level without descending into general platitudes that have
little meaning; is the manifesto we need to construct necessarily to
be found at the next level of detail down - what I want my sector to
do in my area, or in homelessness. mental health etc etc.? And the
answers to the questions at that level of detail are always contingent
on the particular circumstances one faces - this particular Council,
that particular government initiative. Whihc then makes it difficult
to make clear what it is you're standing for as a matter of principle.
Would be interested to hear some more about your eastern European
experience and how it impacts on the above,
Confused of Suffolk!
On 22 Apr, 13:15, bobw <r...@gumpol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Bob Widdowson forwarded the post from Tony Taylor to me and I'm very
> interested in taking part in this debate. I have worked extensively
> in the
> transition states of central and eastern Europe, where we commonly use
> the
> term "Civil society" as encompassing more than our designation of
> charities
> and voluntary organisations. Civil society also includes trades
> unions,
> political parties, religious organisations etc - in fact all the types
> of
> activities and organisations through which people take part in
> associational
> activity, whether formal or informal. It also, by definition, covers
> the
> individual citizen. The relationship between the state and civil
> society
> should be (note the "should be") the one where the institutions of the
> state
> are accountable to the citizen, are transparent in their operations.
> We
> elect our representatives to keep a check on the appointed
> institutional
> structures (civil service etc) - but clearly here in the UK, one of
> the
> failures is the full accountability of our government to our elected
> representatives. So where civil society comes in is by holding to
> account
> elected representatives, and through its organisations, mobilising
> citizens
> to demand that accountability. What civil society organisations in
> the
> transition countries are currently concerned about is how they can
> continue
> their advocacy/lobbying roles, which in some places are being
> restricted
> (just like here - often through lack of resources/moves towards the
> contract
> culture restricting the scope of their activities etc). The dynamics
> are of
> course more complex than the simplistic overview I've given here, but
> where
> we need the discussions in the UK is precisely around these issues
> (which we
> discuss endlessly in countries like Ukraine) - who oversees those who
> are
> appointed (whether through elections or in other ways) to ensure that
> there
> is open, transparent and accountable decision-making where these
> decisions
> are being made for public interest/benefit. I start to feel that our
> current government would take at face value the thoughts expressed in
> a
> Brecht poem about the 1953 events in East Germany - that the
> government
> would like to elect a new people. We have to make sure that
> governments, of
> whatever hue, in a so-called democratic state, are constantly aware of
> the
> pressures that come from civil society. Of course, the problem is
> that we
> may not always like the views that are expressed by those we disagree
> with -
> this is one of the issues that arises when we look at mechanisms which
> are
> in the sphere of "participative democracy" - town and community
> meetings,
> budget hearings, and a range of other technologies which enable the
> "civic"
> (civil society) voice to be heard. Globalisation makes the issue
> more
> complex again, but there is a real common cause to be made across the
> world,
> where many organisations and individuals are confronting the same
> issues,
> particularly where a connection has been made between democracy and
> the free
> market. One of our problems is that we are following a particular
> model -
> the Anglo-American model - and there are alternatives. We need to be
> rethinking all of these issues - the "end of ideology" must be
> challenged.
> Concepts of civil society can be called in aid to help us break down
> the
> barriers to thinking that our current "governments" have been very
> happy to
> erect, as this thinking is a challenge to the currently accepted
> orthodoxies.
