This post is an excerpt from Philanthropy and Digital Civil Society: Blueprint 2018, my ninth annual industry forecast. Read the entire Blueprint series and join the conversation on social media with #blueprint2018.
The logic, theory, and experiences that connect an open civil
society with a stable majority-run democracy are well known. Civil society is
meant to be a third space where we voluntarily come together to take action as
private citizens for the public good. Majority-run democracies need to, at the
very least, prevent those who disagree with them (minorities) from revolting
against the system. Civil society provides, at the very least, the
pressure-release valve for majority-run governments. Positioned more
positively, civil society is where those without power or critical mass can
build both and influence the majority. It serves as a conduit to the majority
system and a counterbalance to extreme positions. It also serves as an outlet
for those actions, rights, and views that may never be the priority of a
majority, but that are still valid, just, or beautiful. When it exists, civil
society offers an immune system for democracy—it is a critical factor in a
healthy system, and it requires its own maintenance. Immune systems exist to
protect and define—they are lines of defense that “allow organism[s] to persist
over time.”
Civil society always struggles to define its independence from
governments and markets. Civil society is shaped by laws and revenue streams,
but has different accountability mechanisms and relies on voluntary
participation. It is distinct from compulsory government rights and
obligations, and can often operate in ways that aren’t about financial profit.
But to describe the resulting space as truly independent is aspirational at
best. While universal human rights such as free expression, peaceable assembly,
and privacy provide its moral and philosophical underpinnings, civil society is
shaped by the laws of the country in question. These include regulations about
allowable sources of financing, public reporting, governance structures, and
defined spheres of activity. At the very least, the boundaries of civil society
in modern democracies are set by government action.
We are surrounded by big, fragile institutions. Global
companies, established political structures, and big nonprofits have purchased,
suppressed, or ignored the fluid and small alternatives surrounding them.
Fluid, networked alternatives exist and will continue to spawn. For some time
now, the fate of these alternatives was absorption by the top or diffusion with
limited impact. In each sector, there appears to be a notable change of
attitude in the way the small views the big. While corporate near-monopolies
and dominant political parties are still viewed by some as the natural and best
order of things (see, for example, tech executives and incumbent politicians),
the big players in each sector are rigidifying. I sense that this is matched by
a new attitude from the emergent, smaller, and more fluid groups who aspire to
challenge rather than to buttress.
This is where reminding ourselves of the dynamism of a social
economy within civil society is so important. It helps us to keep our eyes
simultaneously on emerging forms and on the relationships between them (the
nodes and the networks). It’s where we see tech-driven alternatives to party
politics, nonprofit or research-driven alternatives to corporate data
monopolies, and the crowdfunding of public services. What’s changed is not the level of dynamism among these
small, fluid, and cross-sector strategies. What’s new is the confrontational
nature they now bring. These alternatives don’t see themselves as mere fleas on
an elephant; rather, they challenge themselves to be the termites that topple
the houses.
The sense of failed systems can be seen in the rise of
autocrats where democracy once ruled, in the lived experience of a changed
climate even as a few powerful holdouts cling to their self-interested denials,
and in the return to prominence of racist or nationalist factions where they’d
been marginalized before. Threats about nuclear warheads catch people’s
attention. There is a pervasive sense of uncertainty.
Democracies depend on civil society. Closing civil society
often precedes a democracy’s shift into autocracy or chaos. Defending civil
society is not just an act of self-preservation. Protecting the rights and
interests of minority groups, and allowing space for collective action and
diverse beliefs, a cacophony of independent voices, and activities that yield
neither financial profit nor direct political power, are in the best interest of
elected political leaders and businesspeople.
No comments:
Post a Comment