Critical Commentary on the Wider HD Picture

Bowing to overwhelming demand [perhaps a slight exaggeration], we're creating a second Blog page, where we want to carry commentary and critical chat on the wider social and political context, within which youth and community must be situated. Indeed a number of our readers from outside of Youth and Community Work itself have suggested this as a useful addition to the site, where links to stimulating dissident political writing can be placed. As usual send suggestions, thoughts to Tony Taylor on tonymtaylor@gmail.com

London Citizens : Civil Society on the Move? // Tuesday, September 09, 2008, 11:33 PM Go to http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Another-world-is-possible for an article supportive of this pluralist group's appearance on the scene. What are the responses of friends down in London?. Does this feel promising?

Moving the Civil Society Debate Forward As an example of a wider discussion we're moving the blossoming 'civil society' argument to this new Blogging Beyond page. Hoping to hear your views. Stopping the juggernaut - can the notion of civil society help or not? It's pleasing to report that my speculative worries about the significance of the notion of 'civil society' have elicited responses from our friends in the National Coalition of Independent Action [NCIA]. These can be found at the NCIA's discussion forum at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/ncia-discussions. Now this may be a bit clumsy, but at this point I'm going to copy and paste this debate into our site - all in the name of encouraging further responses. If anyone sends stuff directly to me, I'll just post it here and copy it across to th NCIA site. So find the following: From Penny Tony Taylor raises the question of whether the notion of civil society will help us to tackle State interference and keep our autonomy. And I think it's a very good question (I've only recently come to this term civil society and don't really know what it means). So, tony here's the beginning of a debate....he says: "Somewhere down the line it would be good to debate with NCIA activists their adoption of the notion of 'civil society' as significant and useful in mounting resistance. Speaking off my own bat, 'civil society' seems to take us up a cul-de-sac. It perpetuates in common with 'representative democracy' our separation from the State and the economy, accepting as given our lack of control over the State and the Market. Thus, even if social networking revives, the best civil society can expect is that it will be encouraged to put forward insightful suggestions to the State and the Ruling Class. Then the real decision-makers will step in and weigh up whether to take cognisance of civil society's supplications.  It would be stimulating to develop a debate about this question." Now, this is interesting because this question was raised with us when we recently talked to Edinburgh academics, Mae Shaw and Ian Martin: is the State part of the people or is it separate? should the struggle be to make it ours or to accept it is not part of us and provide checks and balances. My response to this is pragmatic. I've yet to experience a State that acted as if it were part of the people (I'm 58, so I'd hope I might have seen some glimpse of this by now). Even if you take the view that in theory it's part of us, so what? if it doesn't act like this then it's purely an academic construct. and the theory takes up a large part of our time, by coopting our efforts and resources in an attempt to have a productive dialogue or even an attempt to influence it. we end looking up to them, not down & across to ourselves - the result: a stiff neck and injury from falls because you've not noticed the crack in the pavement. I've always taken the view that the State is to be watched like a hawk, that it is not benign, even when it might act a tiny bit benign     * it will revert to it's nature, which is to look after it's own interests not mine. hence the critical importance of a space that is NOT the State and where I can live without hostile interference and can challenge, harass and impede the acts of a State which I don't like. Now, I have no idea where this will lead. I'm ignorant about political science and the machinations of global capitalism. But on a personal level, in my small domestic world, I hope to create a power base and inspiration where we can get on with our agendas and as a side show make the state's agendas, where we don't like them (spoilt for choice), bend to new wind. so thanks tony for starting this debate - what do others think? From Christine 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. Christine Forrester From Penny 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. From Tony As, hopefully, this debate develops, 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