A Better World Volume 2

[

] 56

A B

et ter

or ld

Revisiting the controls over civil society

organizations in Asia

Mst Marzina Begum, Associate Professor; Md Nurul Momen, Associate Professor, Department of Public

Administration, Rajshahi University

ince the expansion of Civil Society Organizations

(CSOs) in the 1980s and 1990s, the bringing of anti-

corruption struggles to the campaign programme has

led to a growing visibility of anticorruption fights. With

the call for promoting good governance, which emphasizes

transparency and accountability of the government and

awareness of public sector corruption, this has become a

major agenda for civil society actors.

Since the mid 1980s, the term civil society has been “dusted

off and deodorized to suit a variety of ideological, intellectual

and practical needs.”

In the broader term, civil society refers

to public space which is independent from the influence of

the state; however, different forms of association may exist.

It has also been used to refer to all activities outside the state,

and those activities could be either spontaneous or organized

efforts. However, many political scientists saw the protest

movements that emerged to facilitate transformation in the

political regimes of Eastern Europe in the 1980s as a success

story of the CSOs. Since then, the notion of civil society has

been very much linked with opposition to state activities.

The concept “civil society” has been developed within the

discipline of social sciences, but it goes back to Aristotle,

albeit with a very different definition of the term. While the

contemporary debate is, to a large extent, concerned with the

division between state and civil society, early social theories

considered the existence of a powerful state to be a neces-

sary precondition for all forms of social life that constitutes

civil society.

On the other hand, contract theorists, Thomas

Hobbes and John Locke, differed in their opinions on both

state and civil society, but agreed that a functioning civil

society would be impossible without protection from the

state. However, in the many transitional democratic coun-

tries in Asia, the recent debate on civil society has been

strongly influenced by democratization theories emphasiz-

ing the importance of an independent civil society. The term

“civil society” has, over time, coincided with a strong domi-

nance of liberal social theory and with the consolidation of

the neo-liberal regime. But, in the last decade, the debate and

discussion over civil society is now an important part of the

dominant models or agenda designed and developed by the

World Bank and the IMF.

The environment in which CSOs operate are likely to have

an impact on their size, capacities and operations. In 1994

Salamon and Anheier’s international survey of nonprofit

sectors presents that the nature of the sector is heavily influ-

enced by some factors and issues such as the legal provisions

under which it operates, the extent of the centralized nature

of the state, and the degree of social and economic develop-

ment in a country.

Furthermore, it is also perceived that,

in the countries where there is a long history or tradition

of public acceptance of CSOs, their activities in society are

widely respected. In many countries in Asia, however, there

is relatively little understanding or recognition of the legiti-

macy of civil society organizations. Without such acceptance

from common citizens, CSOs may be very vulnerable to be

attacked from the state as external challenges or from within

CSOs itself as internal challenges. In the annual report

published by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch

and Freedom House, it states that civil society groups are

directly or indirectly intimidated, violently harassed or even

killed in many parts of Asia, either internally or externally.

Theoretically, public legitimacy is often associated with

the existence of legal systems that establish rights of assem-

bly and freedom of speech, and systems of regulation that

support CSOs. A lack of legal framework to support CSOs

can be exacerbated by problems of accountability. In many

countries, support of CSOs through national and interna-

tional organizations is “limited by the lack of clear, coherent,

and supportive regulations”.

In the absence of government

recognition and established regulations, CSOs may be

defenceless against arbitrary interference by the state actor.

Relations between CSOs and the state often give rise to

serious challenges. In many countries, state actors are deeply

suspicious that CSOs will be potential competitors as deliver-

ers of services in electoral constituencies, shifting resources

from international donors, and acting as watchdogs and chal-

lengers of state policies and actions.

However, CSOs may

initiate a wide range of programmes for dealing with govern-

ment actions and policies, albeit with suspicions arising,

particularly in transitional democratic countries and where

state power is highly centralized. It could also be said that

CSO’s activities are seen as potential threats to the power

of the state as they are potential critics of government inef-

ficiency in the delivery of services.

Another paradox of control over the CSOs is the restrictive

implementation and wide discretion of the state that exists

in many Asian countries. However, in all of these countries,

CSOs are protected in their respective constitution, but

when translated into further detailed laws and regulations,