The State of Civil Society in India and its Implications
Marx`s conception of civil society was more or less similar to that of Hegel. He believed that “ civil society is driven by private economic interests even when it appears in the clothing of universal rights.’’ [Andre Beteille, Distributive Justice and Institutional Well –being, Economic and Political Weekly vol.xxvi, nos. 11and 12, pp.591-600] Marx`s conception, in other words, is a more or less negative one.
Discussing the relative merits of the different theories, Beteille argues that one can learn about civil society, both its theory and practice profitably by adopting a positive view. In this connection , he stresses the importance of LEXI DE Toqueville, the famous 19th century writer. Toqueville held that the success of democratic way of life requires the diversity of institutions. Toqueville here emphasizes the importance of the mediating institutions- between the state on the one hand and the individual [ citizen] on the other. In other words, whether or not democratic aspirations, whose two pillars are the constitutional state [nation] and the citizen[individual], get transformed into reality in any given society depends to a large extent on the kind and content of the mediating institutions. A plurality of the right kind of institutions is what can promise successful democratic government. One has, then, to look at three interrelated components viz., [a] state; [b] citizenship; and [c] mediating institutions in order to understand the nature and significance of civil society.
II
STATE: In the context of the discussion of civil society , the state that concerns us the modern constitutional state- the kind of state that the Indian Constitution has sought to establish. This state is based on a system of rational, impersonal law. It is based on the rights of individuals as citizens, and not on the privileges and disabilities of castes and communities. The Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. This formal equality derives from the impersonal rule of law which is the basic characteristic of the Constitution. The Constitution and the laws are impersonal in the sense that they cannot be altered by the arbitrary decision of any individual , whether acting on his own or in the name of the people, but only in accordance with prescribed rules of procedure.
CITIZENSHIP: According to Beteille, citizenship and the moral and jural significance assigned to it are the result of a long line of historical development. Changes in the laws and the Constitution cannot produce a citizen all at once. The transformation of a peasant into a citizen in traditional, agrarian society is a slow and tortuous process. It entails, for instance, the task of making the people in the remote rural areas of contemporary India transcend their traditional sense of social identity and think in terms of the modern categories of state and citizen. The creation of citizenship in an effective way in a large, complex and in many respects, still backward society such as India faces numerous obstacles.“ For centuries, the ordinary Indian has viewed himself as a member of a hamlet, a village,a family, a lineage, a caste or community rather than what may be described as Indian society as a whole. The Indian peasant or even the Indian worker did not become transformed into a citizen of India overnight with the adoption of the Constitution of India, with its chapter on citizenship, in January 1950. Creating citizenship as a socially meaningful category is not the same thing as recording a set of rights on a document, no matter how greatly we value the document. Indeed, there is no dearth of rights in India , if we go by Acts and Statutes: the question is how to make those rights secure and effective.’’[ Beteille, Civil Society and its Institutions,
1996]
MEDIATING INSTITUTIONS : Mediating institutions are those that link individuals or citizens at one end with the nation or the state on the other. They are the internal arrangements that every society has: the associations, organizations and institutions; and the network of interpersonal relations, linking the different parts to each other and to the whole. While such internal arrangements are a universal feature of all human societies , not all such arrangements make for civil society. When it comes to civil; society, the nature and type of mediating institutions present are of crucial significance. Civil society has nothing to do with institutions that characterize traditional society , viz., those that are based on kinship, caste and religion. Civil society comes into being and grows out of open and secular institutions. Open institutions in the sense that membership in them is not restricted on the basis of race, caste, creed, gender and such other considerations. Further, selectionto positions of respect and responsibility is based, at least in principle, on open competition. Secular in the sense that the internal arrangements are not controlled by religious rules or categories.
III
In India, the emergence of these secular institutions of civil society began under the influence of colonial rule. After independence and the adoption of a new Constitution in 1950, committed to the goal of development and modernization, the growth of these institutions received a hefty push forward. The process was aided by the spread of modern education and the growth of a new occupational system that opened up new economic opportunities. Equally important here is the role played by the early leaders of our nation.
It is however obvious that the new institutions of civil society have not dislodged all the old ones based on caste, kinship and religion even among the well-educated and well-off sections, not to speak of the rest. The civil society institutions , it is clear, remain unassimilated by the society. That is to say, the institutions of civil society which have sprung up in India after independence, and without whose mediating presence the words in the constitutional document cannot be translated into live substance, have not yet acquired a meaningful existence. And until such time this happens, there is no escape from poor governance. One can cite any number of examples : Gram Sabhas( village councils) that are made to meet `on record’ and ` for record`s sake’ four times a year just to formally fulfil constitutional obligations under the new Panchayati Raj setup; highly politicized and corrupt civil and police services that are supposed to be `rational’ and `impersonal’- again on record; a democratic government featuring personal rule in the name of party rule at all levels of the polity-national, state ,district/local. As these examples demonstrate, what we are witnessing is an erosion of institutional authority and the resulting crisis in governance. How has this come about? Who or what is responsible? At the core of the crisis lies the erosion of the legitimacy of the institutions. An institution is a social arrangement and as such , it has not only a certain form and purpose but also a certain legitimacy and meaning for its individual members. To the outsider, only the form and function are visible.But fo its members, as important as the form and function are its meaning and legitimacy. Beteille obverses: “ …An institution has meaning and legitimacy for its members only when they acknowledge its moral claims over them and are willing to submit to its demands, at least some of the time, even when they find those demands contrary to their individual interests.’’ This applies not only to institutions that are part of the government but to all public institutions including those created by an individual or group of individuals with vision and commitment. It is only by participating in the activities of a number of such institutions that an individual ina constitutional state gets transformed, over a period of time, in to a citizen. Where this happens, good governance is sure to follow. Now, the way the leaders of political parties-both national and regional- have shaped politics in India since the mid- 60s has only served to undermine the meaning and legitimacy of the nation`s political institutions in the eyes of the public. Personalization of political authority , politicization of the bureaucracy , populism and the resultant corruption have all set a negative example. The institutions of civil society- both governmental and others- across the nation carry little meaning and legitimacy for their members. The transaction of business is `on record’, for record`s sake. It is not civil society that has been established ; only its aberration. Hat is what accounts for poor governance.
By: Dr.N.Swaminathan
About the Author:
Filed under Politics by on Jan 1st, 2010. 