Civil society: concept, characteristics, structure. Functions of civil society
Details Updated: June 18, 2016Topic 13. Civil society
1. Definition of civil society
1.1. Concept of civil society
The most important prerequisite and at the same time a factor in the formation of a political system of a democratic type is the presence of a civil society. Civil society characterizes the entire set of various forms of social activity of the population, not determined by the activities of government bodies and embodying the real level of self-organization of society. The state of public relations and relations described by the concept “civil society” is a qualitative indicator of the civic activity of the inhabitants of a particular country, the main criterion for the division of functions of the state and society in the social sphere.
Real personal freedom becomes possible in a society of true democracy, where it is not the state, but political power that dominates society and its members, and society has unconditional primacy over the state. The transition to such a society is a historically long process, and it is associated with the formation of a civil society.
Between the concept of “civil society” and the related concept of “society” there is not only an obvious relationship, but also very significant differences. Society as a set of relations between people becomes civil only at a certain stage of its development of maturity, under certain conditions. In this regard, the adjective “civil,” despite some of its vagueness, has a very specific and very capacious content. The category of civil society reflects a new qualitative state of society, based on developed forms of its self-organization and self-regulation, on the optimal combination of public (state-society) and private (individual-personal) interests with the determining significance of the latter and with unconditional recognition of man, his rights and freedoms as the highest value of such a society. Therefore, civil society is opposed not just by a “non-civil” society, i.e. a society that does not have the qualities of a civil society, but by a society of violence, suppression of personality, state total control over the public and personal lives of its members.
The term “civil society” itself is used in both broad and narrow meanings. IN in a broad sense civil society includes the entire part of society not directly covered by the state or its structures, i.e. something that the state “doesn’t get its hands on.” It arises and changes in the course of natural-historical development as an autonomous sphere, not directly dependent on the state. Civil society in a broad sense is compatible not only with democracy, but also with authoritarianism, and only totalitarianism means its complete, and more often partial, absorption by political power.
Civil society in its narrow, proper meaning is inextricably linked with the rule of law; they do not exist without each other. Civil society represents a variety of relationships between free and equal individuals not mediated by the state in market conditions and a democratic legal state. This is the sphere of free play of private interests and individualism. Civil society is a product of the bourgeois era and is formed mainly from below, spontaneously, as a result of the emancipation of individuals, their transformation from subjects of the state into free citizen-owners with a sense of personal dignity and ready to take on economic and political responsibility .
Civil society has a complex structure, including economic, family, ethnic, religious and legal relations, morality, as well as political relations not mediated by the state between individuals as primary subjects of power, parties, interest groups, etc. . In civil society, in contrast to state structures, it is not vertical (subordination) that prevails, but horizontal connections—relations of competition and solidarity between legally free and equal partners.
For a modern understanding of civil society, it is not enough to imagine it only from the position of its opposition to state power and, accordingly, to the sphere of realization of public interests. The main thing in the modern, general democratic concept of civil society should be the determination of its own qualitative characteristics of those real social relations that, in systemic unity, can be defined as modern civil society.
Civil society is not just some broad concept that characterizes a certain sphere of social relations, the limits of which are determined only by the fact that it is “the area of action of private interests” (Hegel). At the same time, “civil society” is not a legal, not a state-legal concept. The state cannot, is not able to “establish”, “decree”, “establish” with its laws the image of civil society it desires.
Civil society is a natural stage, the highest form of self-realization of individuals. It matures with the economic and political development of the country, the growth of well-being, culture and self-awareness of the people. Like a product historical development of humanity, civil society appears during the period of breaking down the rigid framework of the estate-feudal system, the beginning of the formation of a rule-of-law state. Required condition the emergence of civil society is the emergence of the opportunity for all citizens to have economic independence on the basis of private property. The most important prerequisite for the formation of a civil society is the elimination of class privileges and the increasing importance of the human person, a person who turns from a subject into a citizen with equal legal rights with all other citizens. The political foundation of civil society is the rule of law, which ensures individual rights and freedoms. Under these conditions, a person’s behavior is determined by his own interests and he is responsible for all actions. Such a person places his own freedom above all else, while at the same time respecting the legitimate interests of other people.
Since great power is concentrated in the hands of the state, it, with the help of officials, the army, the police, and the court, can easily suppress the interests of social groups, classes and entire people. The history of the establishment of fascism in Germany and Italy is a striking example of how the state absorbs society, how its spheres are nationalized, and universal (total) control over the individual is exercised.
In this regard, civil society is an objectively established order of real social relations, which is based on the requirements of justice and the measure of achieved freedom, the inadmissibility of arbitrariness and violence, recognized by society itself. This order is formed on the basis of the internal content of these relations, which turns them into a criterion of “justice and a measure of freedom.” Thus, the relations that make up civil society acquire the ability to carry certain requirements, normative models of behavior of citizens, officials, government bodies and the state as a whole in accordance with the ideals of justice and freedom.
This means that in the relations that make up civil society, the ideas of law as the highest justice, based on the inadmissibility of arbitrariness and guaranteeing an equal measure of freedom for all members of civil society, are embodied. These are those normative (generally binding) requirements that develop and exist in civil society, regardless of their state recognition and enshrinement in laws. But following them on the part of the state is a guarantee that the law in such a society and state acquires a legal character, that is, they not only embody the state will, but this will fully complies with the requirements of justice and freedom.
The daily life of individuals, its primary forms, constitute the sphere of civil society.However, the diversity of everyday needs and primary forms of their implementation requires coordination and integration of the aspirations of individuals and social groups to maintain the integrity and progress of the entire society. Balance and the interrelation of public, group and individual interests are carried out by the state through management functions. Consequently, global society, that is, the all-encompassing human community, consists of civil society and the state.
Civil society and the state are social universals, ideal types, reflecting various aspects and states of life in society, opposing each other.
Civil society constitutes the sphere of absolute freedom of individuals in their relations with each other. By definition J-L. Kermonna, “civil society is composed of a multiplicity of interpersonal relationships and social forces that unite the men and women who make up a given society without the direct intervention and assistance of the state.”
Civil society appears in the form of a social, economic, cultural space in which free individuals interact, realizing private interests and making individual choices. On the contrary, the state is a space of totally regulated relationships between politically organized subjects: state structures and associated political parties, pressure groups, etc. Civil society and the state complement each other. Without a mature civil society, it is impossible to build a legal democratic state, since it is conscious free citizens who are capable of rational organization of human society. Thus, if civil society acts as a strong mediating link between a free individual and the centralized state will, then the state is called upon to counteract disintegration, chaos, crisis and decline by creating conditions for the realization of the rights and freedoms of an autonomous individual.
1.2. Scientific concepts of civil society.
The idea of civil society is one of the most important political ideas of the New Age. Arising in the middle of X VII V. in Europe, the concept of “civil society” has undergone a certain evolution, giving rise to several concepts and interpretations. However, it is invariably viewed in opposition to the concept of “state”.
Liberal interpretation of civil society goes back to the times of T. Hobbes and J. Locke. The concept of “civil society” was introduced by them to reflect the historical development of human society, the transition of man from a natural to a civilized existence. Man in a “wild”, “natural” state, knowing neither civilization nor state, develops in the chaos of general mutual hostility and continuous wars. The natural, pre-state state of society is contrasted with the civilized, socio-political state, personifying order and civil relations.
The natural beginning of society and human life is not nature and the unbridled natural passions of man, but civilization, that is, the exceptional ability of man to consciously unite with his own kind to live together. Civil society was recognized as a condition for satisfying basic human needs for food, clothing, and housing. Civil society emerged as a result of processes of differentiation and emancipation of various spheres public life(economic, social, cultural), within the framework of which the everyday needs of the individual are satisfied.
The formation of independent spheres of social life reflected the processes of increasing diversity of individual activities and complexity social relations. The diversity of social relations was a consequence of the formation of an autonomous individual, independent of power and possessing a level of civic consciousness that allowed her to build her relationships with other individuals wisely and expediently. The process of crystallization of an independent individual, according to J. Locke, is based on private property. It is an economic guarantee of his freedom and political independence.
Relations between the state and civil society were built on a contractual basis. In essence, these relations were civilized, since the state and civil society together created the conditions for satisfying basic human needs and ensuring the livelihoods of individuals. The state protects the inalienable rights of citizens and, with the help of power, limits natural enmity, relieves fear and anxiety for relatives and friends, for its wealth; and civil society restrains the authorities’ desire for domination.
Another tradition is represented by the approach of G. Hegel, who considered civil society as a set of individuals who satisfy their everyday needs with the help of work. The basis of civil society is private property. However, according to G. Hegel, it was not civil society that was the driving force of progress, but the state. The primacy of the state in relation to civil society was due to the fact that, as G. Hegel believed, the basis for the development of everything and everyone is the “World Spirit”, or the “Absolute Idea”. Civil society was an “other existence” of the spirit-idea, namely the state personified all the virtues and was the most perfect embodiment of the world self-developing idea, the most powerful manifestation of the human personality, the universality of the political, material and spiritual principles.
The state protected people from accidents, ensured justice and realized the universality of interests. Civil society and the individual were subordinated to the state, because it is the state that integrates individual groups and individuals into an organic integrity, setting the meaning of their life activities. The danger of the existence of an all-encompassing state is that it absorbs civil society and does not seek to guarantee citizens their rights and freedoms.
Rejecting G. Hegel's thesis about the primacy of the state in relation to civil society, K. Marx considered the latter the foundation of global society, and the life activity of individuals as a decisive factor in historical development. This followed from the materialistic understanding of history, according to which the evolution of society is the result of the evolution of the material conditions of life. Civil society is a set of material relations between individuals. K. Marx considered civil society as a social organization developing directly from production and circulation. The totality of economic, production relations of individuals (i.e., the relationships into which individuals enter among themselves in the production process) and the corresponding productive forces (means of production and labor) constitute the basis. The economic base determines the superstructure, political institutions (including the state), law, morality, religion, art, etc. The state and politics are a reflection of production relations.
Following the thesis about the dependence of the superstructure on the base, K. Marx considered the state to be an instrument of political domination of the class possessing the means of production. Consequently, the bourgeois state is, according to K. Marx, a mechanism for realizing and protecting the interests of the economically dominant owner class, including industrialists, entrepreneurs, financiers, and landowners. In such a state, only the propertied classes and social groups are citizens. The bourgeois state, realizing the will of the economically dominant class, prevents the free development of autonomous individuals, absorbs or over-regulates civil society. Consequently, the relationship between the state and civil society is not equal and contractual.
K. Marx saw the possibility of bridging the gap between civil society and the state under capitalism in the creation of a new type of society - a communist society without a state, where individual principles will completely dissolve into the collective.
K. Marx's hopes that the proletarian state would create conditions for the development of associations of free citizens turned out to be unrealistic. In practice, the socialist state has subjugated public property and deprived civil society of its economic basis. On the basis of state property, a new political class arose - the party nomenklatura, which was not interested in the formation of an autonomous and free individual, and, consequently, a mature civil society.
Analyzing the consequences of the implementation of Marxist doctrine in Russia, which led to the establishment of a totalitarian regime and the destruction of the sprouts of civil society, A. Gramsci defended the idea of the hegemony of civil society. By the latter he understood everything that is not a state. In a mature civil society, such as it was in the West, the process of social reconstruction should begin not with a political revolution, but with the achievement of hegemony by advanced forces within civil society. This statement by A. Gramsci follows from his definition of the independent role of the superstructure as an essential factor in historical development.
Considering the process of formation of civil society in the West, A. Gramsci drew attention to the great importance of ideology and culture in establishing the political dominance of the bourgeoisie. By establishing intellectual and moral dominance over society, it forced other classes and groups to accept its values and ideology. Of particular importance in the superstructure, according to A. Gramsci, belongs to civil society, which is closely connected with ideology (science, art, religion, law) and the institutions that create and disseminate it (political parties, church, media, school etc.). Civil society, like the state, serves the ruling class in consolidating its power.
The relationship between the state and civil society depends on the maturity of the latter: if civil society is vague and primitive, then the state is its “external form”. The state can destroy civil society and act as the only instrument of power. And only in the conditions of a mature civil society, as in the West, its relations with the state are balanced. In the latter case, according to A. Gramsci, the state must be understood as the “private apparatus” of the “hegemony” of civil society.
Consequently, an analysis of the concepts of civil society allows us to draw a number of conclusions.
Firstly, For a long time in political science, the concepts of “state” and “civil society” were not distinguished and were used as synonyms. However, starting from the middle of X VII c., the processes of differentiation of various spheres of society, their liberation from all-encompassing state power, the isolation of an autonomous and independent individual with inalienable rights and freedoms have actualized the search for a balanced representation of two trends in historical development: on the one hand, the aspirations of the individual to autonomy and freedom and, as a consequence, an increase in spontaneity and spontaneity in social development, which in political science reflected the concept of “civil society”, and on the other hand, the need for ordering, integrity, neutralization of conflicts in ever-increasingly complex social interactions, which reflected the concept of “state”. Most often, the state and civil society were opposed to each other.
Secondly, civil society (basically bourgeois) replaces traditional, feudal society. In Western political science, with all variations, two interpretations of civil society dominate. The first considers civil society as a social universal, denoting the space of interpersonal relations opposed to the state in any of its forms. As a sphere for realizing the everyday needs of individuals, civil society includes the entire historical complex of interactions of individuals with each other.
In the second interpretation, civil society appears as a phenomenon of Western culture, as a specific historical form of existence of Western civilization. A feature of Western culture is its amazing adaptability to changing conditions and increased survival in a foreign cultural environment. The uniqueness of civilization is due to the balance of three forces: separate institutions of power, civil society and the autonomous individual. The idea of progress, expressed in the orientation of consciousness towards the constant improvement of man, civil society and the state, was recognized as the basis for the balanced interaction of these forces.
Third, modern political science interpretation views civil society as a complex and multi-level system of non-power connections and structures. Civil society includes the entire set of interpersonal relationships that develop outside the framework and without government intervention, as well as an extensive system of public institutions independent of the state that realize everyday individual and collective needs. Since the everyday interests of citizens are unequal, the spheres of civil society have a certain subordination, which can be conditionally expressed as follows: basic human needs for food, clothing, housing, etc. are satisfied by production relations that make up the first level of interpersonal relationships. They are implemented through such public institutions as professional, consumer and other associations. The needs for procreation, health, raising children, spiritual improvement and faith, information, communication, sex, etc. are realized by a complex of sociocultural relations, including religious, family, marital, ethnic and other interactions. They form the second level of interpersonal relationships and occur within the framework of institutions such as family, church, educational and scientific institutions, creative unions, and sports societies.
Finally, the third, highest level of interpersonal relations consists of the needs for political participation, which is associated with individual choice based on political preferences and value orientations. This level presupposes the formation of specific political positions in the individual. The political preferences of individuals and groups are realized with the help of interest groups, political parties, and movements.
If we consider modern civil society in developed countries, it appears as a society consisting of many independently operating groups of people with different orientations. Thus, the structure of civil society in the United States is a comprehensive network of various voluntary associations of citizens, lobbying groups, municipal communities, charitable foundations, interest clubs, creative and cooperative associations, consumer, sports and other societies, religious, social -political and other organizations and unions, reflecting a wide variety of social interests in the industrial, political, spiritual spheres, personal and family life.
These independent and independent of the state socio-political institutions sometimes tensely confront each other, fighting for the trust of citizens, sharply criticize and expose social evil in politics, economics, morality, in public life and in production. At one time, A. Tocqueville named the presence of an extensive system of civil society institutions, which became a guarantor of the stability of American democracy, as one of the features of the United States.
1.3. Characteristics of civil society.
The legal nature of civil society, its compliance with the highest requirements of justice and freedom is the first most important qualitative characteristic of such a society. This feature of civil society is embodied in the normative requirements inherent in the content of the categories of justice and freedom. Freedom and justice are a social factor in a civil society that normalizes (orders) the activities of people, groups and organizations. On the other hand, the person himself, as a member of civil society, gains freedom as a result of his ability to obey the normative requirements of freedom as a cognized necessity.
The second qualitative characteristic of civil society is functional in nature. It is connected with the fact that the basis for the functioning of such a society is not simply the creation of a certain field (space) for the realization of private interests, formally and legally independent of state power, but the achievement of a high level of self-organization and self-regulation of society. The main functions of establishing joint activities of members of civil society in certain areas (entrepreneurship and other forms of economic activity, family relationships, personal life, etc.) should be carried out in this case not with the help of tools and means standing above society of state power as a “special public power”, and society itself on truly democratic, self-governing principles, and in the sphere of a market economy - primarily on the basis of economic self-regulation. In this regard, the new functional characteristic of civil society does not lie in the fact that the state “generously cedes” a certain sphere of private interests to the society itself and delegates to it the solution of certain problems. On the contrary, society itself, reaching a new level of its development, acquires the ability to independently, without government intervention, carry out the corresponding functions. And in this part, it is no longer the state that absorbs society, establishing total state forms of leadership and control over the development of relevant areas, but the reverse process of absorption of the state by civil society occurs: the primacy of civil society arises (at least in these areas of “civil life”). -society over the state.
In accordance with this, we can identify a third qualitative feature of civil society, which characterizes its highest values and the main goal of its functioning. In contrast to the initial ideas about civil society, based on the absolutization of private interests (their main bearers, of course, are private owners), the modern general democratic concept of post-industrial civil society should be based on the recognition of the need to ensure optimal, harmonious combination of private and public interests.
Freedom, human rights and his private interests should be considered in this case not from the position of the egoistic essence of the “economic man”, for whom freedom is property, but, on the contrary, property itself in all the diversity of its forms becomes a means of establishing ideals liberated personality. And this should happen on the basis of unconditional recognition as the highest value of civil society of a person, his life and health, the honor and dignity of a politically free and economically independent individual.
In accordance with this, one should approach the determination of the main goal of the functioning of modern civil society. The main goal is to satisfy the material and spiritual needs of man, to create conditions that ensure a decent life and free development of man. And the state in this case (in the conditions of a legal civil society) inevitably acquires the character of a social state. We are talking about enriching the nature of the state with social principles, which significantly transform its power functions. Establishing itself as social, the state abandons the role of the “night watchman” and takes responsibility for the sociocultural and spiritual development society.
Taking into account the noted qualitative characteristics, we can define the concept of civil society as a system of socio-economic and political relations based on self-organization, functioning in the legal regime of social justice, freedom, satisfaction of the material and spiritual needs of a person as the highest value of civil society.
The foundations of civil society in the economic sphere are a diverse economy, various forms of ownership, regulated market relations; V political sphere- decentralization of power, separation of powers, political pluralism, access of citizens to participation in government and public affairs, the rule of law and the equality of all before it; in the spiritual sphere - the absence of a monopoly of one ideology and worldview, freedom of conscience, civilization, high spirituality and morality.
2. Conditions for the emergence and functioning of civil society
2.1. Structure and main elements.
Modern civil society has the following structure:
1. Voluntarily formed primary communities of people (family, cooperation, association, business corporations, public organizations, professional, creative, sports, ethnic, religious and other associations).
2. The totality of non-state, non-political relations in society: economic, social, family, spiritual, moral, religious and others: this is the industrial and private life of people, their customs, traditions, mores.
3. The sphere of self-expression of free individuals and their organizations, protected by laws from direct interference in it by government authorities.
Thus, the structure of civil society in developed countries is a wide network of public relations, various voluntary organizations of citizens, their associations, lobbying and other groups, municipal communes, charitable foundations, interest clubs, creative, cooperative associations , consumer, sports societies, socio-political, religious and other organizations and unions. All of them express a wide variety of social interests in all spheres of society.
A specific analysis of the main elements of civil society follows from this.
Firstly, economic organization civil society is a society of civilized market relations. The market as a unique “component” of economic freedom is impossible without the development of independent entrepreneurial activity aimed at systematically generating profit.
The second structural element of civil society is its social organization. In market conditions, it is of a very complex nature, which primarily reflects the differences between individual social groups. Three main groups of the civil society population can be distinguished: employees, entrepreneurs and disabled citizens. Ensuring a balanced balance of economic interests and material capabilities of these groups is an important area of social policy.
Hired workers need to create economic, social and legal conditions for effective work, fair payment for their work, and broad participation in profits.
Measures should be taken in relation to entrepreneurs aimed at guaranteeing them freedom of all forms of economic activity, at stimulating their investment in the development of efficient, profitable production of goods and services. As for disabled citizens, they should be provided with targeted social protection, social security and service standards should be determined that will allow them to maintain acceptable level their lives.
The third structural element of civil society is its socio-political organization. It cannot be identified with a state-political organization, with public administration society. On the contrary, the real democracy of civil society as the basis for ensuring real personal freedom becomes possible precisely when society, acquiring the qualities of a civil and legal society, develops its own, non-state socio-political mechanisms of self-regulation and self-organization. In accordance with this, the so-called political institutionalization of civil society occurs, that is, society self-organizes with the help of institutions such as political parties, mass movements, trade unions, women's, veteran, youth, religious organizations, voluntary societies, creative unions, communities, foundations, associations and other voluntary associations of citizens created on the basis of the commonality of their political, professional, cultural and other interests. An important constitutional basis for the political institutionalization of civil society is the principle of political and ideological pluralism and multi-party system. Civil society is alien to political and ideological monopoly, which suppresses dissent and does not allow any other ideology than the official, state one, no other party other than the ruling one - the “party in power.” An important condition for ensuring political and ideological pluralism, and, consequently, the institutionalization of civil society is the freedom of organization and activity of the media.
This, however, does not mean the identity of personal freedom “and legal status citizen. Freedom, as already noted, has such a property as normativity. It follows from this, on the one hand, that a person gains freedom as a result of his ability to obey its normative requirements (generally binding rules of behavior). On the other hand, this means that the external form of existence of personal freedom is social norms that determine the measure and acceptable boundaries of freedom. And only in the most important areas, those of increased significance for society or for the person himself, the measure of freedom is determined and normalized by the state itself. This is done with the help of legal norms and laws. Laws, if they are of a legal nature, are in this regard, according to Marx, “the bible of freedom.” The main legal means of securing and recognizing on the part of the state the achieved personal freedom is the constitution.
At the same time, the rights and freedoms themselves, including constitutional ones, on the one hand, are determined by the level of development of civil society, the maturity of its economic, social, socio-political organization; after all, civil society is a social environment where most human and civil rights and freedoms are realized. On the other hand, the development and deepening of the most important characteristics of civil society as a legal, democratic society, as a society of genuine freedom and social justice largely depends on the completeness of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, the degree of their guarantee, and the consistency of implementation. . In this regard, human and civil rights are an instrument for the self-development of civil society and its self-organization. This two-pronged relationship is also consolidated at the state-legal, legal level, when the Constitution and other laws establish the responsibility of not only the citizen to the state, but also the state to the individual.
2.2. Functions of civil society.
The main function of civil society is the most complete satisfaction of the material, social and spiritual needs of its members. Various economic, ethnic, regional, professional, religious associations of citizens are called upon to promote the individual’s full realization of his interests, aspirations, goals, etc.
As part of this main function, civil society performs a number of important social functions:
1. On the basis of legality, it ensures the protection of private spheres of human and citizen life from unjustified strict regulation of the state and other political structures.
2. Mechanisms of public self-government are created and developed on the basis of civil society associations.
3. Civil society is one of the most important and powerful levers in the system of “checks and balances”, the desire of political power for absolute dominance. It protects citizens and their associations from illegal interference in their activities by state power and thereby contributes to the formation and strengthening of the democratic bodies of the state and its entire political system. To perform this function, he has a lot of means: active participation in election campaigns and referendums, protests or support of certain demands, great opportunities in shaping public opinion, in particular, with the help of independent media and communications.
4. Institutions and organizations of civil society are called upon to provide real guarantees of human character and victories, equal access to participation in state and public affairs.
5. Civil society also performs the function of social control in relation to its members. It is independent of the state, has the means and sanctions with which it can force individuals to comply with social norms, ensure socialization and education of citizens.
6. Civil society also performs a communication function. In a democratic society there is a diversity of interests. The widest range of these interests is the result of the freedoms that a citizen has in a democracy. A democratic state is called upon to satisfy the interests and needs of its citizens as much as possible. However, in conditions of economic pluralism, these interests are so numerous, so diverse and differentiated that state power has practically no channels of information about all these interests. The task of institutions and civil society organizations is to inform the state about the specific interests of citizens, the satisfaction of which can only be achieved through the efforts of the state.
7. Civil society performs a stabilizing function through its institutions and organizations. It creates strong structures on which all social life rests. In difficult historical periods (wars, crises, depressions), when the state begins to waver, it “lenders its shoulder” - the strong structures of civil society.
One of the functions of civil society is also to provide a certain minimum level of necessary means of subsistence to all members of society, especially to those who cannot achieve this themselves (disabled people, the elderly, the sick, etc.).
2.3. Forms of interaction between the state and civil society
The transition from a traditional, feudal society to a civil, fundamentally bourgeois society meant the emergence of a citizen as an independent social and political subject with inalienable rights and responsibilities. The development of horizontal non-government social ties formed by autonomous associations of citizens encountered opposition from the centralized state. However, the state was forced not only to take into account the emerging associations of citizens, but also to take the path of legal regulation of relations with the population and significantly rebuild its own power structures.
Not in all countries there is a conflict between civil society and the state, which in some cases resulted in clashes between parliament as a body of the people representation and royal power regarding their political role and scope of powers, was resolved by establishing constitutional and legal principles of their relationship. This struggle was a reflection of the ongoing search for specific political and organizational forms of ensuring stable and moderate government, in which the distribution of political power in society would be balanced.
The transition from absolutist-monarchical rule to democracy began, as a rule, with the subordination of the state and civil society to legal norms, with the introduction of the principle of separation of powers that constitute unified system constitutionalism. Constitutionalism, as a political and legal principle, has different interpretations due, probably, to its long evolution. According to the classical legal definition, constitutionalism, like parliamentarism and absolutism, is a specific form of government. Absolutism is a form of state in which all power is concentrated in the monarch. In this sense, constitutionalism is opposed to absolutism as a form of the rule of law, in which relations between the state and civil society are regulated by legal norms.
The nature of the relationship between popular representation (parliament) and the government (executive branch) depends on the dominance in the mechanism of power of either the principle of parliamentarism or the principle of constitutionalism. Parliamentarism means the government's dependence on the decisions of parliament. Constitutionalism presupposes the independence of the government from the will of parliament. An example of such a distribution of power is the system of ministerial government within a constitutional monarchy. In this case, a minister appointed by and responsible to the monarch is responsible for translating a particular policy direction. The formal legal side of constitutionalism means the presence in society of the basic law of the state (constitution), which determines popular representation, the division and scope of powers of various branches of government and guarantees of the rights of citizens.
According to the method of emergence, determined by the relationship of political forces (progressive and traditionalist, reactionary), constitutionalism can have a contractual nature, that is, be the result of mutual consent of society and the state, or octroied, that is, “descend” from above -state. In the second case, the monarch “bestows” a constitution on society, deliberately limiting his own powers, abandoning them in favor of the government and parliament.
Treaty constitutionalism prevailed in countries of classical, chaotic modernization, where the processes of formation of civil society and the rule of law proceeded in parallel and gradually. These processes had economic, social and cultural prerequisites and naturally formed social structure civil society represented by the middle class (small traders, entrepreneurs, artisans, farmers, liberal professions, etc.), ensured the economic dominance of the bourgeoisie. Then the economic dominance of the bourgeoisie through the revolution was complemented by the political - the transfer of power into its hands. In the process of modernization, the state and civil society interact closely.
Octroted constitutionalism characteristic of countries with lagging modernization, which lack certain prerequisites (economic, social, cultural, legal) for the transition from traditional to civil society. Thus, the absence of a mature middle class leads to the fact that reforms can be carried out by part of the liberal bourgeoisie in alliance with the enlightened bureaucracy and using state institutions. The catching-up type of development of such countries requires intensification of the process of transformation and the use of authoritarian methods of modernization. This leads to constant conflicts between the state and civil society.
The choice of specific political forms of transition from absolutism to democracy, during which the relationship between the state and civil society changed, in addition to historical and national characteristics, was determined by the struggle of three political forces: royal power, popular representation (parliament) and government bureaucracy. The maturity of civil society, expressed in the presence of an extensive party system capable of expressing the interests of citizens in parliament, limited the power of the monarch. However, the process of rationalization of management activities has noticeably strengthened the role of the bureaucracy. Almost all executive power passed to it, and the monarch only formally remained its pinnacle.
Based on this, the distribution of powers between the three political forces determined the choice of the political form of government that was supposed to replace absolutism. Naturally, a long period of absolutist-monarchical rule formed political traditions that influenced the choice of political organization. It is no coincidence that the political modernization of absolutist regimes in most Western countries, with the exception of the United States, gave rise to a mixed form - a constitutional monarchy. However, the proportion and volume of political dominance in the mechanisms of power of the king, parliament and government bureaucracy are different. They were determined by the nature of the political coalition that these forces preferred. The type of regime determined the direction of interests of the coalition participants.
First type of regime within a constitutional monarchy - parliamentary monarchy - gave English revolution. It was the result of a coalition of an all-powerful parliament and a powerless monarch. England was the first to implement the classic version of the political system of constitutionalism. Its meaning was the transfer of real power from the monarch to the government and prime minister, completely dependent on parliament. A feature of British constitutionalism is the absence of a written constitution and the presence of special means of regulating relations between the legislative and executive powers by means of customary legal precedents.
Most Western European countries tried to move English version into their communities. However, the presence of two opposing political currents - the republican-democratic, which sought to establish the principle of popular sovereignty, and the absolutist-monarchical, which preferred to preserve the full royal authorities did not allow the English system to be reproduced. As a result, a constitutional monarchy was established there in a dualistic form. This meant the emergence of independent legislative power in the form of parliament, but with the retention of legislative and executive functions by the monarch (the king remained the head of the executive branch, supreme commander and supreme arbiter). The presence of monarchical and representative power created a system of checks and balances, which, however, was not sustainable due to the cultural and political heterogeneity of society. The political coalition of the monarch and the bureaucracy against parliament gave rise to a third type of constitutional monarchy, called monarchical constitutionalism. If the English version of political modernization meant a change in the essence and goals of the political order while maintaining traditional institutions, then with this option the essence of government remained the same, and only political institutions were transformed. This version of political modernization was the personification of imaginary constitutionalism. The constitutions granted by the monarchs were only the legitimation of the traditional bearers of power. The establishment of imaginary constitutionalism in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and in Russia was a consequence of the immaturity of civil society.
As shown political history world democracy, the activity of public associations and the growth of their members, first of all, contribute to the following structural factors: increasing the educational level of the population; development of public communications; periods of intensified political protest, attracting new recruits to social associations; public reaction to newly put forward government reform programs, etc.
At the same time, the eternal difficulties of the formation and development of civil society are not only the activity of the state, the desire of the ruling elites to strengthen their positions in society and even exceed their own powers. A serious danger to the formation and existence of civil society is also posed by the activities of various types of corporate-bureaucratic structures within the state, which invariably belittle the status of citizens’ independent activity and seek to strengthen state guardianship over it. Independent and extremely important reasons for the weakening of the positions of civil society are the lack of clarity for the population about the values of social initiative, the lack of commitment public opinion values of the ideology of human rights. Therefore, civil society does not arise where people do not fight for their rights and freedoms, where there are no traditions of critical public analysis of the activities of the authorities and, finally, where political freedoms are perceived by people as self-will and lack of responsibility for their actions.
3. The principle of the primacy of the individual
3.1. Origin of the principle.
Let us turn to the liberal democratic principle “not man for society, but society for man.” If we take it literally, then any moral virtues from absolute ones certainly turn into relative ones: they oblige the individual only to the extent that they are useful to him personally. Moreover, this principle excludes such recognized types of civic duty as, for example, the defense of the Fatherland.
Consequently, this principle is not real, but normative-ideal: it allows one to defend the dignity of the individual before society and assert its civil sovereignty. The latter is revealed in the principle of a civil contract, which assumes that people enter into relations between themselves and the state to the extent that they find it acceptable and appropriate. The principle of a civil contract means that no one can force anyone into those long-term social relations and agreements; they are valid for a person only to the extent that he voluntarily accepted them as a subject of equal contractual relations.
Secondly, this principle means an apologetics for the so-called state of nature: if a person is left to his own nature, not re-educated, not forced to force his will, then in all respects the results will be better than under the opposite conditions.
The principle of the state of nature has a purely normative meaning: it is the ideal assumption without which it is impossible to justify the autonomy of the individual in the face of society and his civic dignity
The normative assumption that became the basis of Western democracies reflected the social attitude and status of one particular class - the third. It was this particular and specific worldview that was destined to become a civilized norm, which the West demonstrates and promotes as “natural”, i.e. universal.
But along with this class experience, the adoption of this principle was also influenced by the national historical experience of Western countries. Contrary to ideas about the naturalness of the principle itself and its organic characteristic of Western man and Western culture, historical experience testifies that it was, rather, a difficult and problematic choice. On the one hand, the problem was to end endless civil strife and war at the cost of ceding local and individual rights and freedoms to a despotic centralized state capable of establishing peace and order with an iron fist. On the other hand, the problem was to avoid the abuses of this state itself in the form of attacks by unrestrained and uncontrolled political despotism on human life, his personal well-being and dignity.
3.2. The modern political embodiment of the principle.
The individual principle with all the postulates that flow from it means the primacy of civil society in relation to the state. The civil state is based on relations of exchange between sovereign and equal individuals. At the same time, a state is recognized as normal when equal in rights and free citizens satisfy all their needs, without exception, in the course of a partner exchange - according to the principle “you - to me, I - to you.” That is, citizens do not need the state to provide certain benefits - they satisfy their needs based on the principle of individual initiative.
The main paradox of modern Western democracy is that it presupposes a non-political way of life for the majority of citizens and is therefore called representative. The classical ancient democracy of Ancient Greece and Rome was a participatory democracy. It really united the citizens of the polis, jointly participating in resolving the main issues in the life of their city-state.
That is, we are talking about a choice: either complete freedom of private life is established at the cost of losing personal participation in solving public affairs entrusted to certain individuals - political professionals, or citizens directly decide general collective issues. But then they no longer have time or even the right to privacy.
For the man of the ancient polis, the state was not a monster hanging “from above”: he himself was both a full-fledged amateur participant and the embodiment of all its decisions. It was in modern times that two poles arose in Europe: on one side - a specific person, speaking in all his diversity social roles, but at the same time not equal with others, often suffering from exploitation and inequality, and on the other - an abstract citizen of the state, having equal rights, but at the same time socially empty, removed from the needs and concerns of everyday life. This provision is called formal freedoms and formal democracy.
Modern society has separated amateur and political lifestyles, everyday authoritarianism and formal democracy. In everyday civil life, an amateur-individualistic lifestyle is led mainly by only the entrepreneurial minority, while the lives of the rest are given over to the non-political authoritarianism of the real masters of life - production managers and company owners. On the contrary, in political terms all citizens are recognized as equal, but this equality does not affect their meaningful everyday roles, but concerns only the right to go to the ballot box once every few years.
It must be said that the consumerism of representative democracy, which forces the majority of people to accept the anti-democraticism of civil life in exchange for high wages and technical comfort, is not limited to the actual material side. The point is also that a private, socially passive way of life has become a kind of habit and even a value of modern consumer society. A citizen, who in everyday life lays aside the affairs and concerns of citizenship, enjoys his non-participation - the fact that “competent persons” relieve him of the responsibility associated with making everyday social decisions. Many people value their right not to participate in decisions no less than others value their right to participate. Where exactly modern trends are leading, and which of these types of citizens is growing faster, remains controversial.
Participatory democracy requires such external mobilization professional life, such tension and responsibility that are not always psychologically acceptable for people.
Another functional property of the principle of the primacy of the individual, which makes it indispensable in the system of representative democracy, is its ex-group character.
If people voted in elections as stable members of certain social communities, then the distribution of votes in general terms would be known in advance (based on the numerical ratio of the corresponding groups of society), and in this case elections are a procedure of the open will of the majority would be completely unnecessary. The entire system of election manipulation, agitation and propaganda is based on the fact that the connections of individuals with the relevant groups are not stable, so voters can be lured away by seeking their votes.
At the same time, without minimal intergroup mobility, society would essentially be class-based or even caste-based, and the nation, in turn, would not be able to achieve stable unity and identity.
3.3. Costs of the principle.
In modern political science there is such a thing as the G. Bakker paradigm. Bakker is a representative of the Chicago school, who received the Nobel Prize for his work “Human Capital” (1964). As a follower of the liberal tradition, Bakker proceeds from the fact that the sphere of power-political relations will continuously narrow, giving way to relations of civil partnership exchange.
He interprets literally all social relations as economic, associated with expectations of the maximum possible economic return on invested capital. Bakker applies the economic law of saving time not only to the sphere of production, but also to the sphere of consumption; It is this technique that allows him to declare economic theory as universal, explaining all human relations without exception.
According to Becker, just as in the sphere of production the law of reducing the time of production of goods operates, so in the sphere of consumption the law of reducing the time of satisfying needs operates. That’s why a modern person prefers to buy a refrigerator and store food in it, instead of cooking every day, prefers to invite friends to a restaurant instead of hosting them at home, etc. Actually, modern consumer society is described as a society that does its best to save consumption time, which means a steady devaluation of those areas of life and human relationships that are fraught with unnecessary waste of time.
Why is the birth rate falling in modern society? Bakker explains this by the law of marginal utility. Children in a traditional society, firstly, quickly got on their feet, and secondly, remained in the family as assistant workers for their father and mother. Therefore, the well-known love of children of traditional societies, in fact, believes Bakker, is economically rational behavior, because we are actually talking about children as capital, which gave a quick and significant return. Since in modern society children do not quickly become independent and there is no hope for them as breadwinners in old age, modern economic man prefers to have few or none of them.
In the theories of the Chicago School, it is not politics that retreats before economics, but society that retreats before the world of commerce. The Chicago School does not simply liberate civil society from the world of politics; it frees civil relations from everything that was civil, intimate, personal, moral, and spiritual in them. If Marx’s theory at one time subordinated everything to production relations, then the Chicago school subordinates everything to exchange relations and declares the consumer to be the type before whom all higher spheres, values and relationships should fade.
The second drawback of the libertarian interpretation of civil society is the attitude towards the socially disadvantaged - all those who have nothing to offer within the framework of equivalent exchange relations. No one can deny that with the victorious march of liberalism throughout the world as a new great teaching, the attitude towards the socially vulnerable has noticeably worsened.
Liberal theory considers culture, education, qualifications, developed intelligence, and professional ethics to be valuable not in themselves, not as a prerequisite for civilized existence, but as a means of immediate market returns and benefits.
What kind of society can result from the consistent social application of this theory? A society in which the best - not only in the strictly spiritual and moral sense, but also in the professional and intellectual sense - retreat before the worst, the higher dimensions of human existence before the lower, so that market society gradually slides towards a pre-civilized state, towards savagery. Even if we push aside the actual spiritual criteria of progress, leaving only material and practical ones, then even then we have to admit that the Chicago theory does not meet its criteria, because the mechanisms it developed consistently reject everything developed and highly complex in favor of the primitive and one-dimensional . It is the professional and social groups that are leading according to the usual sociological criteria that are shrinking and losing their status, giving way to primitive market predators.
Bakker also deserves credit for the discovery that predetermined the transition from the theory of industrial society to the theory of post-industrial society. We are talking about human capital as the main form of social wealth. IN post-industrial society The importance of intangible sources of social wealth, related primarily to the human factor, is increasing. Bakker was one of the first to theoretically prove and justify mathematically that profitable investments in science, education, healthcare, comfort and hygiene systems provide several times higher economic returns than investments in intra-production factors that are usual for capitalism.
In general, we can conclude that the main shortcoming of modern liberal theory is the same as that of Marxism - it assumes that such factors of social life are economically assessed and countable, which have a stochastic, uncertain character in relation to their own economic use.
Literature
Butenko A.P., Mironov A.V. State and civil society // Socio-political journal. 1997. No. 1.
Vasilyev V.A. Civil society: ideological and theoretical origins // Socio-political magazine. 1997. No. 4.
Gadzhiev K.S. Political science: Tutorial. - M., 1995.
State and civil society // Socio-political magazine. 1997. No. 4.
Davletshina N.V., Kymlicka B.B., Clark R.J., Ray D.W.Democracy: state and society. - M., 1995.
Political science course: Textbook. - 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M., 2002.
Levin I.B. Civil society in the West and in Russia // Polis. 1996. No. 5.
Mukhaev R.T. Political science: a textbook for students of law and humanities faculties. - M., 2000.
Panarin A.S. Political science. Textbook. Second edition revised and expanded. - M., 2001.
Political science in questions and answers: Textbook for universities / Ed. prof. Yu.G.Volkova. - M., 1999.
Political science for lawyers: A course of lectures. / Edited by N.I. Matuzov and A.V. Malko. - M., 1999.
Political science. Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M., 1993.
Soloviev A.I. Three faces of the state - three strategies of civil society // Polis. 1996. No. 6.
The state and law are a product of the development of society. This is what explains their interrelation and interdependence. Each of these concepts has features. Throughout the history of the development of civilization, the best minds of mankind, due to the era we were living through, tried in the form of teachings or practical activities create a society of justice and equal opportunity. The world experience of revolutions, social discoveries, democracy, new systems of managing society - was accumulated literally bit by bit. Its reasonable use, taking into account systemic conditions in the form of forms of state and national systems of law, is a guarantor of the constant progress of humanity in the present and future.
However, as noted by V.V. Putin “we will not be able to solve any of the pressing problems facing our country without ensuring the rights and freedoms of citizens, without the effective organization of the state itself, without the development of democracy and civil society.”
YES. Medvedev, while serving as President Russian Federation, also considered one of the tasks of the state to be “creating conditions for the development of civil society.”
Thus, one of the goals of Russian reforms is to build a civil society. But few people can really explain what it is. The idea put forward sounds attractive, but is difficult to understand for the vast majority of the population, including government officials.
N.I. Matuzov notes that “behind the epithet “civil,” despite its convention, there is extensive and rich content. The meaning of this phenomenon is multifaceted and ambiguous, and is interpreted differently by scientists.”
The purpose of this test work is to study the basic concepts of civil society and analyze its state in modern Russia.
Based on the goal, the tasks of the work are:
Study of basic concepts of civil society;
Consideration of the concept of “civil society” at the present stage of development of the theory of state and law;
Identification of problems and trends in the formation of civil society in modern Russia.
The work consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion and a bibliography.
1. Basic concepts of civil society
1.1. Concepts of civil society in antiquity and the Middle Ages
In ancient philosophical thought, the category “civil society” first appears in Cicero, but it seems possible to identify it within the texts of Plato and Aristotle. The ideas expressed in antiquity formed the basis for all subsequent concepts, which are essentially their development, systematization or criticism.
In Plato's Republic, a division of the categories “private” and “public” appears, referring to the family and the state, respectively. However, in Plato’s model, society, state and civil society are united, civil society is inseparable from both the state and the pre-state state of society. At the same time, it acts not as a kind of “connecting link”, not as a property acquired over time, but as an integral condition for the existence of a community of people. Thus, “civil society” is identified with society in its modern understanding and the basis is laid for its separation from the state.
Aristotle's Politics reaffirms the separation of "family" and "society", formally equating the latter with "state", but leaving room for interpretation. The family is the “primary unit of society,” subordinate to the state and at the same time the purpose of its existence. The state is defined as "an association of equal citizens living in a polis" or as "a society formed from several villages", which formed the common pre-Enlightenment idea that the state consisted of several societies identified with cities. Aristotle calls private property the basis of society and the state, and its goal is its protection. According to Aristotle, civil society is a society of citizens, that is, there is no difference between society and civil society.
In “On the State,” Cicero, in addition to the classical formulations of key concepts for civil society (citizen, rule of law, private property), proposed the terms “civil community” and “civil society.” Developing the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, Cicero records the emergence of a “civil community” with the advent of interpersonal communication, and this process does not necessarily coincide with the emergence of a state and the status of a citizen for an individual belonging to a civil community. Following Aristotle, a “civil community” also refers to a city-state, while a state is a collection of cities. According to Cicero, the state is a thing that is in use by the civil community. Thus, for the first time, the “civil community” (in modern transcription - civil society) is separated from the state and is called the fundamental principle, and the state is only a superstructure. The concepts of “society of citizens” and “civil society” characterize a society in which the law serves as a social regulator and a connecting link between its members, that is, as a synonym for a “rule of law state.” This creates the basis for the separation of “civil society” from “society”. Cicero's concept is the highest stage in the development of ancient state thought.
In the Middle Ages, “civil society” did not attract attention from scientists, limiting itself to fragmentary statements, usually borrowed from ancient texts. Thus, A. Augustine in “On the City of God” writes about “civil society” as a higher association than the family, a collection of families, all of which are citizens. Aristotle's thoughts are repeated that the state is a union of cities, and the city is a civil society. The main contribution of the Middle Ages to the theory of civil society was the humanistic ideas of freedom and their dissemination in the minds of people. Augustine considers virtue to be the driving force of civil society, and the condition of its viability is the harmony and proportionality of the groups of people included in it. “Society” is still not separated from “civil society”.
1.2. Concepts of civil society of modern times
In modern times, T. Hobbes, D. Locke and J. Rousseau formulated and finally separated from the state the concept of “civil society” as a system that ensures the realization of individual rights. The concepts of this time repeat each other, so we will consider in detail only the classical theory of D. Locke.
In “On the Two Types of Government,” D. Locke considered civil society as a sphere opposed to the natural state of things. The purpose of civil society is to preserve property; civil society exists where and only where each of its members has renounced natural, traditional power, transferring it into the hands of society. Thus, civil society is opposed and even antagonistic to the natural state, i.e. traditions.
Since J. Locke proceeded from the contractual theory of the origin of the state, he substantiated the right of the people to resist the state in the event that it neglects its rights and interests. He argued that, having concluded a social contract, the state receives from people exactly as much power as is necessary and sufficient to achieve the main goal of the political community - creating conditions for everyone to ensure their civil interests, and cannot encroach on natural rights person - for life, freedom, property, etc.
Although J. Locke had not yet distinguished between society and the state, his distinction between individual rights and state rights had great importance for the formation of a modern concept of civil society.
1.3. Concepts of civil society by Hegel and Marx
According to Hegel, civil society is, first of all, a system of needs based on private property, as well as religion, family, classes, government, law, morality, debt, culture, education, laws and the mutual legal relations of subjects arising from them.
From a natural, uncultured state, people must enter civil society, because only in the latter do legal relations have reality.
Hegel wrote: “Civil society was created, however, only in the modern world...”. In other words, civil society was opposed to savagery, underdevelopment, and uncivilization. And by this we meant, of course, classical bourgeois society.
The main element in Hegel’s teaching about civil society is man - his role, functions, position. According to Hegelian views, the individual is an end for himself; its activities are aimed primarily at satisfying its own needs (natural and social). In this sense, she represents a kind of egoistic individual. At the same time, a person can satisfy his needs only by being in certain relationships with other people. “In civil society, everyone is his own goal, everything else is nothing to him. However, without relationship with others, he cannot achieve his goals in their entirety.”
The importance of relationships between subjects is emphasized by Hegel in property relations: “Most property in civil society rests on an agreement, the formalities of which are firmly defined.”
Thus, Hegel put an end to the distinction between three main social forms: family, civil society and state.
Civil society in Hegel’s interpretation is a system of needs mediated by labor, resting on the dominance of private property and the general formal equality of people. Civil society and the state are independent but interacting institutions. Civil society, together with the family, forms the basis of the state. The state represents the general will of the citizens. Civil society is a sphere of special, private interests of individuals.
From the Hegelian concept came the ideas of K. Marx, who understands civil society as a form of economic relations adequate to a certain level of development of the productive forces. The family and civil society are the driving forces that transform themselves into a state.
In his early works, Marx quite often used the concept of civil society, denoting by it the organization of the family, estates, classes, property, distribution, the real life of people, emphasizing their historically determined character, determination by economic and other factors.
K. Marx and F. Engels saw the basic principle of the materialist understanding of history “in that, based precisely on material production immediate life, consider the actual process of production and understand the form of communication associated with this method of production and the form of communication generated by it - i.e. civil society at its various stages - as the basis of all history; then it is necessary to depict the activities of civil society in the sphere of public life, and also to explain from it all the various theoretical creations and forms of consciousness, religion, philosophy, morality, etc. and trace the process of their emergence on this basis."
Civil society, according to Marx, covers all material communication of individuals within a certain stage of development of the productive forces. This “material communication” includes the entire spectrum of market relations: private enterprise, business, commerce, profit, competition, production and distribution, capital movements, economic incentives and interests. All this has a certain autonomy and is characterized by its own internal connections and patterns.
Critically analyzing human rights, K. Marx pointed out that they are nothing more than the rights of a member of civil society. Among them, K. Marx, like G. Hegel, especially emphasizes the right to individual freedom. This individual freedom, and the enjoyment of it, form the basis of civil society. In civil society, each individual represents a certain closed complex of needs and exists for the other only insofar as they mutually become a means for each other.
1.4. Modern concepts of civil society
According to domestic researchers of civil society (N. Boychuk, A. Gramchuk, Y. Pasko, V. Skvorets, Y. Uzun, A. Chuvardinsky), the modern liberal model of civil society is most fully and systematically set out by E. Gellner in “Conditions of Freedom. Civil Society and Its Historical Rivals" (1994).
Consistently approaching the definition of civil society, Gellner gives it the following definitions: “... civil society is a set of various non-governmental institutions that are strong enough to serve as a counterweight to the state and, without interfering with it, play the role of a peacemaker and arbiter between the main interest groups, restraining its desire to the domination and atomization of the rest of society." Civil society is what “denies both stifling communalism and centralized authoritarianism.”
Finally, Gellner states: “Civil society is based on the separation of politics from the economy and from the social sphere (that is, from civil society in the narrow sense of the word, which is the social remainder obtained from the subtraction of the state as such), which is combined with the principle of non-interference by those in power into social life."
The separation of politics from economics, according to Gellner, distinguishes civil society from traditionalist society. At the same time, the economic component is decentralized and priority, and the political component is vertical with centralized coercion. In contrast to the one-dimensionality and economic holism of Marxism, modern civil society is characterized by at least three-axis stratification - economic, political and cultural (social). The classical triad characterizing modern society: the economy of transnational capitalism, the ideology of neoliberalism and the electoral system of democracy. Following Aristotle, Locke and Hegel, the position on the right of private property as the basis of civil society is developed. It is based on the understanding of civil society as a form of relations of production first proposed by Marx. It can equally be argued that the basis of civil society is that sense of civic duty and tolerance, which is the basis modern type a person he called “modular”.
Gellner believes that the essence of civil society is “to form connections that are effective and at the same time flexible, specialized, instrumental. A significant role here was indeed played by the transition from status relationships to contractual ones: people began to comply with the agreement, even if it in no way correlates with a ritually formalized position in society or belonging to one or another social group. Such a society is still structured - it is not some sluggish, atomized inert mass - but its structure is mobile and easily amenable to rational improvement. Answering the question of how institutions and associations can exist that balance the state and at the same time do not shackle their members, we must say: this is possible mainly due to the modularity of man.”
Gellner associates civil society with a new type of mass consciousness, which he called “modular man” - capable of occupying positions in society other than those prescribed to him by the state.
The emergence of a “modular man,” according to Gellner, became possible thanks to the spread of means of processing and transmitting information. In addition to the denial of traditionalist monism, the “modular man” is characterized by a rejection of those changes that threaten his own existence.
The modern neoliberal view of civil society, adapted to the current political situation, is well expressed by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights T. Hammarberg, who stated that in the post-Soviet space “the role of civil society in human rights projects and the protection of fundamental values and the rights of minorities” . Hammarberg also noted that civil society neither in the CIS countries nor in Europe has any mechanisms that control its competence and formalize its legitimacy. Thus, modern Europe is interested in civil society solely as a means of controlling power.
The most important feature of the Western concept of civil society is organic compound this concept with the idea of tolerance, which can be characterized by the following principles:
A truly tolerant person believes that everyone has the right to defend, with the help of rational arguments, his understanding of what is good for individuals, regardless of whether this understanding is true or false, and also strives to convince others that he is right;
No tolerant person will tolerate actions that destroy the internal right of choice of himself and others;
Evil should be tolerated only in those cases where its suppression creates equal or greater obstacles to goods of the same order, or obstacles to all goods of a higher order.
2. The concept of “civil society” at the present stage
The explanatory dictionary of the Russian language gives the following definition of civil society: “a society of free and equal citizens, relations between whom in the sphere of economics and culture develop independently of state power.”
However, there are no and should not be legally established definitions of civil society at the international and national levels, just as there cannot be a single approach to the concept of democracy.
So yes. Medvedev believes that “civil society is an integral institution of any state. Feedback Institute. An organization of people who are not in office, but are actively involved in the life of the country." From this statement it follows that the degree of independence of society, as well as the degree of independence of the state, must necessarily be in a state of dynamic equilibrium, which provides for taking into account mutual interests.
For the emergence and development of civil society, it is necessary for the state to create real conditions and opportunities for self-expression in the form of granting rights and freedoms, as well as guarantees (political, legal, organizational, economic, ideological and other) for their implementation.
A truly civil society can be considered a community of people where an optimal balance has been achieved in all spheres of public life: economic, political, social and spiritual.
In the existence of civil society, the state acts as an exponent of compromise various forces in society. The economic basis of civil society is the right to private property. Otherwise, a situation is created where every citizen is forced to serve the state on the terms dictated to him by state power.
In fact, the interests of minorities in civil society are expressed by various social, political, cultural and other unions, groups, blocs, and parties. They can be either state-owned or independent. It allows individuals to exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens of a democratic society. Through participation in these organizations, one can influence political decisions in a variety of ways.
The generally accepted typical features of a highly developed civil society are:
Availability of property at the disposal of people (individual or collective ownership);
The presence of a developed structure of various associations, reflecting the diversity of interests of various groups and strata, developed and ramified democracy;
A high level of intellectual and psychological development of members of society, their ability to perform independently when included in one or another institution of civil society;
Functioning of the rule of law.
Civil society includes the entire set of interpersonal relationships that develop outside the framework and without government intervention. It has an extensive system of public institutions independent of the state that implement everyday individual and collective needs.
In civil society, a single set of fundamental, axial principles, values, and orientations is being developed that guide all members of society in their lives, no matter what place they occupy in the social pyramid. This complex, constantly improving and updating, holds society together and determines the main characteristics of both its economic and political subsystems. Economic and political freedoms are considered a form of manifestation of the more fundamental freedom of a person as a member of society, as a valuable and self-sufficient individual.
A.V. Melekhin notes: “Civil society can be imagined as a kind of social space in which people interact as individuals independent from each other and from the state. This is the sphere of social relations that exist outside, in addition to, and often in opposition to the stricter rules established by the state in various spheres.
The basis of civil society is a civilized, independent, full-fledged individual, therefore, it is natural that the essence and quality of society depend on the quality of the individuals composing it. The formation of civil society is inextricably linked with the formation of the idea of individual freedom, the self-worth of each individual.”
The emergence of civil society led to the distinction between human rights and civil rights. Human rights are ensured by civil society, and civil rights are ensured by the state. It is obvious that as the most important condition the existence of civil society is an individual who has the right to self-realization. It is affirmed through the recognition of the right of individual and personal freedom of every person.
Speaking about the signs indicating the presence of civil society, it is necessary to take into account the following mandatory condition: they must reflect the mentality of the population, the system of economic relations, morality and religion existing in society, and other behavioral factors.
Thus, civil society presupposes the active manifestation of the creative potential of the individual in all spheres of social relations, and the main features of such a society are the economic, political and spiritual freedom of the individual.
The presence of private property contributes to the creation of financial and economic conditions for the formation of civil society structures that are autonomous in relation to state power.
The main political feature of a civil society is the functioning of a rule of law state in such a society. The rule of law, as researchers note, is actually the political hypostasis of civil society, correlating with each other as form and content. Their unity personifies the integrity of society as a system in which forward and backward connections find normal and progressive manifestation.
In the spiritual sphere, civil society is characterized by the priority of universal human values. One of the main ideals of civil society (as well as the rule of law) is the desire to create conditions for the fullest disclosure creative potential and human intelligence. This is where the growing importance of individual rights and freedoms comes from.
3. Realities of the formation of civil society in modern Russia
Civil society is not clearly reflected in the Russian Constitution, which does not even contain this term, although certain elements of civil society are still enshrined in it (private property, market economy, human rights, political pluralism, freedom of speech, multi-party system, etc.).
At the beginning of the 21st century. Russia tried to take the path of building a civil society. However, this process has now stopped.
Civil society, in contrast to political society with its vertical structures of hierarchical relationships, necessarily presupposes the presence of horizontal, power-free connections, the deep basis of which is the production and reproduction of material life, the maintenance of the life of society. The functions of civil society are performed by its structural elements - amateur and voluntary civil associations. It is in this kind of association that a civic active personality “matures.”
Until recently, civil movements in Russia were experiencing a real boom. More and more new professional, youth, environmental, cultural and other associations emerged; however, their quantitative growth outpaced their qualitative growth. Some organizations appeared as a response to immediate problems (for example, unions of defrauded investors), others from the very beginning were openly political in nature (“Women of Russia”). Control over such associations by the state was greatly facilitated, and many of the civil initiatives, becoming the subject of political bargaining, lost their alternative and generally valid character. Thus, the main features of civil society were leveled: non-political nature and alternativeness to the political system.
YES. Medvedev, in his Address to the Federal Assembly on December 22, 2011, noted: “Our civil society has strengthened and become more influential, the social activity of public organizations has increased significantly, this has been confirmed by events last weeks. I consider the increase in the activity of non-profit organizations one of the key achievements of recent years. We have done a lot to support them, to develop and stimulate volunteerism in the country. And today there are more than 100 thousand non-profit organizations in our country. It has become easier to register them, and there are significantly fewer checks on the activities of NPOs.” However, already in July 2012, Federal Law No. 121-FZ of July 20, 2012 “On Amendments to Certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation in terms of regulating the activities of non-profit organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent”, which served to strengthen control over non-profit organizations by the state.
Based on the concept of civil society, parallel to its formation there should be a process of development of legal democratic state when the individual and state power form equal subjects of law. The gradual development of the rule of law, which is a condition for the existence of a democratic system, contains not only the traditional division of power into three branches, but also a complementary division between civil society and the state. In this regard, the Russian state, burdened with authoritarian features, can hardly be called legal and democratic. In Russia, all branches of state power ineffectively perform their role function, including the legislative branch, which is constantly changing, or even not at all, adopting the laws necessary for society.
According to the English political scientist R. Sakwa, incomplete democratization in Russia gave rise to a kind of hybrid that combined democracy and authoritarianism, which he called a “regime system of government.” The regime system, having narrowed the role of parliament and the judiciary, was able to significantly protect itself from the surprises of the electoral struggle and protect itself from control civil institutions. The interaction of the state with “society” under the regime system is built on the principle of power and subordination. The structural elements of society here are a collection of subjects who must be kept within the framework of social control by those in power.
Despite the fact that property for the most part has ceased to be state-owned, it is still not used very effectively and is not always in the interests of the state and society. The state's economic policy has not yet consistently stimulated the formation of prerequisites for increasing the size of the middle class. Enough high level inflation, strong tax pressure, limiting entrepreneurial activity, the lack of developed private ownership of land does not allow making serious investments in production, in land, and does not contribute to the formation of a mature citizen with inalienable rights and responsibilities.
The basis of civil life is formed by medium and small businesses. They are either absorbed by large financial and industrial groups fused with the state apparatus, or die under the influence of tax and financial pressure from state power. As a result, the competitive sector of the small economy is destroyed, and instead of the main principles of civil life (competition, individualization and cooperation), the monopoly of economic and political power is established. The most negative consequence of a decrease in the regulatory function of the state in the economic sphere is the formation of a significant gap in the income level of a small group of people and the majority of the poor population. In the conditions of modern Russia, in the presence of a huge budgetary sphere, when the only source of existence is wages, it is not yet possible to talk about the mass character of civil relations.
Financial dictatorship makes independent media increasingly biased, so often the “voice” of civil society is almost inaudible.
In addition, in its essence, civil society has an ethno-regional character. The gap in the degree of maturity and level of development of civil relations in different regions is too great (it is enough to compare, for example, life in megacities like Moscow and existence in the outback of the Primorsky Territory or Siberia).
The Russian elite is in a state of “dysfunctionality.” Although it cannot be denied that the ruling political elite has many influential supporters of the democratic functioning of state institutions, today it is not able to aggregate the interests of even the active part of civil society.
One of the obstacles to the creation of a civil society in the Russian state is the high level of corruption and crime. Widespread corruption has a negative impact on the population's acceptance of the values of democracy as a system of governing society.
CONCLUSION
The concept of “civil society” arose long before the formation of modern neoliberal theories that serve as the basis for generally accepted rhetoric. The first concepts of the state, civic activity, self-organization of citizens and, ultimately, civil society appeared in antiquity. Elements of civil society are inherent in all existing state formations, starting with the ancient polis, and were present even in strictly stratified communities. Therefore, the understanding of civil society as a modern Euro-Atlantic cultural phenomenon, which is actively being introduced into public consciousness with the help of the mass media, very simplified and politicized.
The formation and development of civil society took several centuries. This process is not completed either in our country or on a global scale.
Laws designed to give a civilized character to the formation of civil society in the country must meet a certain set of necessary principles of interaction between society and the state, developed by world and domestic democratic theory and practice.
These include:
Ensuring human rights in full, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international legal norms;
Ensuring voluntary civil cooperation through freedom of association;
Ensuring full public dialogue, ideological pluralism and tolerance of different views;
Legal protection of civil society and its structures;
Responsibility of the state to the citizen;
Conscious self-restraint of power.
The legal framework of civil society should be a system of meaningfully interconnected blocks of legislation reflecting the federal character government system Russia, problems of relationships between citizens and the state in the economic, social spheres and creating the legal basis for the activities of civil society institutions.
The degree of development of civil society institutions is also determined by the level of legal culture of the population, its readiness to comply with the principle of legality in all spheres of public life.
Activities to create favorable conditions for the development of civil society in Russia should be carried out by all subjects of the Federation, at any level of government. Only with the successful solution of the entire complex of tasks listed above is it possible for forward movement and, ultimately, the construction of civil society in Russia. A prerequisite for this process should be citizens' perception of the ideas and actions of the state.
However, at present in Russia there is no comprehensively developed unified concept for the protection of human rights and freedoms, which would be shared and supported by all branches of government, local governments, the media and society as a whole, and, accordingly, there is no civil society.
in the theory of constitutional law, a set of relations in the economy, culture and other spheres that develop within the framework of a democratic society independently, autonomously from the state. The main elements of G. o. are: diversity and equality of forms of ownership, freedom of labor and entrepreneurship, ideological diversity and freedom of information, inviolability of human rights and freedoms, developed self-government, civilized legal authority. In recent years, in a number of countries there has been a tendency to consolidate the foundations of civil society. as a comprehensive constitutional and legal institution.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
Civil society
a complex of social relations, an independent set of established forms of joint activity of people. This is a part of society, taken as if outside of political power and including predominantly non-political relations; the totality of all non-state social relations and institutions, expressing the diverse values, interests and needs of people. The ability to express the private interests of an individual in addition to the state and the institution of bureaucracy is one of the main features of civil society. It stands primarily for the protection of private interests and guarantees the inviolability of private life. The structural elements of civil society are: in the economic sphere - non-state and municipal enterprises, business partnerships and societies, production and other cooperatives (artels), unions (associations) and other voluntary associations of legal entities and citizens in the region economic activity created on their initiative; in the social sphere - family, public organizations and movements, other institutionalized informal associations, public self-government bodies, non-state media, etc.; in the spiritual sphere - independent and independent of the state creative, scientific and other associations (religion). In Russia, civil defense has not yet been formed, but there are only its individual fragments, sprouts that were torn out, trampled and are being trampled by both the previous and current Russian authorities. This is largely due to the lack of traditions for the development of civil defense in the country. Therefore, in Russia it is necessary to form civil society as an extensive network of public relations and institutions independent of the state, expressing the will and protecting the interests of citizens. The necessary conditions for the formation of civil society are: the creation of a social and legal basis for civil society in a social and legal state, where the state and citizens are equally responsible to each other and to the law, where all public authorities and all citizens are subject to the rules of law; a fairly high level of development of the individual himself, his internal freedom, the ability to join one or another civil society institution. A certain level of civil culture of the population is needed - without this, they will be unable to accept the values of civil society, and will not even understand the need for its formation and development.
Historically, the idea of G.o. originated in the ancient world along with the formation of such concepts as “citizenship” and “citizen”. The concept of civitas (society) was formed precisely from the concept of civis (citizen). Transition from the idea of G.o. to a certain philosophical and legal concept of G.o. was first clearly expressed in the works of T. Hobbes “On the Citizen” (1642) and “Leviathan” (1651). In subsequent centuries, this concept was developed and deepened by a whole galaxy of representatives of philosophical and political thought - J. Locke, J.-J. Rousseau, I. Kant, G. Hegel, K. Marx, A. Gramsci. J.-J. Rousseau, in his treatise “On the Social Contract,” for the first time separated political and civil society identified by J. Locke. A member of the first, according to Rousseau, is the subject, while the second forms the citizen. Accordingly, human rights and civil rights are divided.
In the history of modern times, the development of the idea and concept of G.o. received state-legal embodiment in the transition from feudal absolutism to constitutional-monarchical or republican political regimes (England, Sweden, Denmark, France). IN Russian history rudiments of formation of G.o. constantly encountered much stronger trends towards the nationalization of everything and everyone. Russian state Almost always, sooner or later, it absorbed and subjugated any public initiatives or structures. Amorphous and anemic G.o. does not pass without a trace for the state either. For Russian history of modern times, this is the social dead end of Bolshevism-communism.
In Germany it is Hitlerism and everything connected with it. Optimal model for the development of the state and G.O. should include a mechanism of constantly adjusted dynamic equilibrium, a balance of forces of state regulation and social self-organization, self-development. It is always a process, not a state. The watchdog state, the minimal state, can and should, in certain historical periods, turn into an interventionist state, taking on the function of an arbiter of acutely conflicting parties to the state. Industrially and socially developed countries of the West have long experienced a state of economy completely free from any government intervention in it, and are implementing in practice programs of state regulation of socially significant areas of the economy. The experience of these and other countries suggests that with a weak state, the invisible hand of the market mainly helps the rather small members of society who are easily adapted to market conditions. As a result - G.o. sharply polarized, turning into a field of serious socio-political conflicts. The solution to this problem lies in the effective influence of the “visible” (and therefore socially controlled) hand of the state, compensating for the temporary social consequences of market transformations.
a society consisting of independent, self-sufficient individuals with fundamental rights and freedoms; a system of voluntary, self-governing communities of people created to achieve their own goals and interests, realize their abilities and talents: family, economic associations, professional, sports, creative, religious unions and associations, etc.
Civil relations include the sphere of non-commercial existence: family-related, community, educational, religious, moral, commodity-money, etc., connecting people joint activities to satisfy material and spiritual needs.
G.O. complements the hierarchical power relations approved by the state with horizontal relations operating on the basis of the principle of self-regulation.
G.O. – a society of pluralism in the economy (multiformity, variety of forms of ownership), politics (multi-party system, competitive elections), spiritual life (freedom of speech, conscience, religion).
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
CIVIL SOCIETY
includes the entire set of non-political relations in society, that is, economic, spiritual and moral, family and everyday life, religious, demographic, national, etc. Thus, G.o. a multidimensional, self-organizing system, intermediate between the family and the state; it is a naturally developing social, non-political relationship between individuals. In the system of civil society, everyone acts not as a subject of the state, but as a private person who has his own special life goals that differ from the national goals. In the formal-structural aspect, G.o. is a set of voluntary associations, unions, organizations that allow individuals to communicate on the basis of similar spiritual and practical interests. It does not allow citizens to become like scatterings of autonomous atoms and offers many forms of social cooperation and encourages various manifestations of human solidarity. G.o. - a rather late historical formation, characteristic of Western civilization of the New Age. Its emergence presupposed two main conditions - the transition of traditional feudal society to the industrial phase of development and the emergence of mass generations of emancipated citizens aware of the inalienability of their natural rights. Carrying out social initiatives coming from below, G.O. ensures self-regulation processes within the civilizational system. It complements the vertical power relations established by the state with horizontal relations operating on the basis of the principle of self-regulation. The state and the individual, which at first seem to be incomparable social values, in the presence of a developed G.o. acquire value equality. Without encouraging either statist arbitrariness or legal nihilism of individuals, G.O. contributes to the strengthening of social order, imparts to it such a quality as civilization. Therefore, G.o. this is the sphere of self-expression and self-development of the interests of free individuals, as well as voluntarily formed associations, non-governmental organizations of citizens. In democratic countries, civil society is protected by the necessary laws from direct interference, control and arbitrary regulation by government authorities. Today, civil society is one of the central categories of social philosophy, denoting that part of social existence in which the non-state and most active economic, social, spiritual life of people is concentrated and in which their “natural” rights and freedoms are realized, the equality of different subjects of activity, especially in a market space where all participants, regardless of any differences, enter into free and equal relations with each other. From this point of view, civil society is opposed to the state, whose task is to resolve conflicts between subjects of civil society by political (or in extreme situations - military) means and ensure its normal functioning.
The concept of civil society was formed in the course of the development of world political thought. The first clear ideas about civil society were expressed by N. Machiavelli, T. Hobbes and J. Locke. The ideas of natural rights as a model of the status and moral equality of people, as well as the social contract as a way to control the achievement of agreement, formed the basis of the modern understanding of civil society.
The creation of civil society implied the liberation of private life, family and business from the control of the state. At the same time, the individual received freedom of religion; everyday life emerged from political control; individual interest, especially in matters of private property and commercial activity, received support from the law. The presence of a mature civil society means respect for inalienable natural human rights and recognition of their moral equality. The central question became the ratio “ sovereign state"to the "sovereign people", representing the legitimate basis of state power. The system of checks and balances ensured that a balance was found between the branches of government, between society and the state, freedom and responsibility, force and law. The state was not simply expelled from private life, the economy, and spiritual life, but, on the contrary, was placed under control by society, which was exercised, in particular, on the issue of the ability of the authorities to ensure the security of these spheres and their freedom, to suppress any claims even through legitimate violence, to exert influence on They are also under pressure from non-state structures, for example, criminals, monopolies, etc.
The idea of building a civil society belongs to the liberal thought of the 18th century, which did not yet separate civil liberties from problems of morality and social equality. Later, the concept of civil society retains a positive attitude towards the freedoms of citizens, their rights and responsibilities in relation to the state. The state, for its part, is interpreted as expressing the interests of citizens. Civil society includes the separation of public and private spheres and at the same time their interaction. Based on this principle, women were involved in public sphere, although previously only a man was understood as an autonomous and responsible individual.
Today Western social theories have a set of empirical features, without which a society cannot be called good. The concept of “good society” is based on the idea of civil society and expands its boundaries. The “good society” is not a reality, but a theoretical tool for analyzing human achievements in the social sphere and conceptualizing them at the level of empirical generalizations. The essential features include: freedom and human rights, a person’s ability to be responsible in freedom, to strive not only for negative freedom - freedom “from” (coercion, dependence), but also for positive freedom - freedom “for” (self-realization, implementation of one’s plans , setting social goals, etc.); the achievability of a minimum of social and natural benefits; presence of social order. Civil society has this order. Classic term of philosophy, political science and legal science until the 60s 20th century meant a society that is capable of bringing the state under control. In the 60s lawyer R. Neider organized a consumer protection society and made a theoretical expansion of this concept. This is a society that is capable of bringing under control not only the state, but also wealth. Similar attempts had been made before in Wilson's antitrust legislation and in antitrust policy, but were not conceptualized in terms of civil society. Before the proclamation of this idea, there was a popular phrase in America: “What is good for General Motors is good for America.” R. Neider questioned this thesis. Despite the fact that society cannot exist without the state as a body of legitimate violence, it is taken under control in civil society. The same should happen with corporations. In this new doctrine, which up to certain limits (through the legal service of the consumer society, bureau best service, consumer courts, etc.) operates in the United States, taking into account not only civil liberties and individual rights, but also economic rights, which in classical liberalism are more likely to be benefits.
Lit.: Modern liberalism. M., 1998; Held D. Models of Democracy. Stanford, 1987; Held D. Prospects for Democracy. North, South, East, West. Stanford, 1993; Isaac K. Citizens for Democracy. Wash., 1992; Liberalism and the Good, ed. by R. B. Douglass, G. M. Mare, N. S. Richardson. N.Y.-L., 1990; PelcynskiZ. A. The State and Civil Society. N.U., 1984.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
The term “civil society” is firmly included in the categorical apparatus of jurists, historians, philosophers, sociologists, political scientists, etc. At the same time, a large dispersion is obvious both in the specific definition by various authors of the very concept of “civil society” and in the approaches to its analysis. There are several definitions of this term, but the main idea, of course, is the same.
Civil society is 1) the presence of property at the disposal of people (individual or collective ownership);
the presence of a developed, diverse structure, reflecting the diversity of interests of various groups and layers, a developed and ramified democracy;
a high level of intellectual and psychological development of members of society, their ability to perform independently when included in one or another institution of civil society;
the rule of law of the population, that is, the functioning of the rule of law.
Civil society can be considered a community of people where an optimal balance has been achieved in all spheres of public life: economic, political, social and spiritual, where the constant forward movement of society is ensured. “Civil society is a society in which associations of citizens that are different in nature (parties, unions, labor unions, cooperatives, groups) establish a connection between a person and the state and do not allow the latter to usurp the individual.”
That is, in the presence of civil society, government is only one element that coexists with various institutions, parties, associations, etc.
All this diversity is called pluralism and assumes that many organizations and institutions of a democratic society do not depend on government for their existence, legitimacy and authority. In the existence of civil society, the state acts as an exponent of the compromise between various forces in society. The economic basis of civil society is the right to private property. Otherwise, a situation is created where every citizen is forced to serve the state on the terms dictated to him by state power.
In fact, the interests of minorities in civil society are expressed by various social, political, cultural and other unions, groups, blocs, and parties. They can be either state-owned or independent. It allows individuals to exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens of a democratic society. Through participation in these organizations, one can influence political decisions in a variety of ways.
Concept and structure of civil society
Civil society exists and functions in contradictory unity with the state. In a democratic regime, it interacts with the state; in a totalitarian regime, it stands in passive or active opposition to the state.
Let us note that the basis of any civil society is a number of the most general ideas and principles, regardless of the specifics of a particular country. These include:
economic freedom, diversity of forms of ownership, market relations;
legitimacy and democratic nature of government;
unconditional recognition and protection of natural rights and freedoms of man and citizen;
class peace, partnership and national harmony;
a legal state based on the principle of separation and interaction of powers;
equality of all before the law and justice, reliable legal protection of the individual;
political and ideological pluralism, the presence of legal opposition; civil society power state
freedom of speech and press, independence of the media;
non-interference by the state in the private life of citizens, their mutual duties and responsibilities;
effective social policy that ensures a decent standard of living for people.
Thus, civil society is defined as an integral social system, characterized by the development of market relations, the presence of social classes and strata that have their own sources of existence, independent of the state; economic freedom of producers, the presence of political, social and personal freedoms of citizens, democracy of political power, the rule of law in all areas social activities, including the state one.
The structure of civil society is internal structure society, reflecting the diversity and interaction of its components, ensuring the integrity and dynamism of development.
The system-forming principle that generates the intellectual and volitional energy of society is a person with his natural needs and interests, externally expressed in legal rights and obligations. The constituent parts (elements) of the structure are various communities and associations of people and stable relationships (relationships) between them.
The structure of modern civil society can be represented in the form of five main systems, reflecting the corresponding spheres of its life. These are social (in the narrow sense of the word), economic, political, spiritual, cultural and information systems.
In the social sphere, the institutions of civil society are the family and various groups of people: labor, service, groups based on mutual friendship, interest groups (clubs, hunting, fishing groups, gardening partnerships, etc.), children's and youth organizations that are not political in nature (for example, boy scout organizations). It should be noted that in this case we mean the social sphere - this is the sphere of all public life, including the economic, political, spiritual-cultural, information spheres.
In the economic sphere, civil society institutions are organizations, enterprises, institutions engaged in the production of material goods, the provision of various types of services, both material and intangible (banking and credit institutions, travel agencies, organizations for the provision of paid legal services).
In the political sphere, the institutions of civil society are political parties, organizations, movements of various political orientations (right, left, center, religious), pursuing political goals, participating in the struggle for state or municipal (public power). This also includes youth political organizations (for example, communist youth unions).
The most important institution of civil society in the political sphere is local self-government, whose bodies, together with state bodies, represent the system of public power and are the link between civil society and the state. All of the above institutions, together with the state, constitute political system society. The civil society institution known as trade unions is unique. They operate in both the political and economic spheres.
In the spiritual and cultural sphere, the institutions of civil society are cultural institutions, creative organizations and unions, educational institutions, physical education and sports clubs, unions (federations), churches and religious (confessional) organizations that are not political in nature.
In the information sphere, the institutions of civil society are the media (newspapers and magazines, radio and television, information pages on the Internet). In a totalitarian state, all of the above spheres of public life are either completely nationalized or are under the strict, comprehensive control of state bodies, and in an ideologized state, which was the former USSR, and under the control of organizations of the ruling party (in the USSR - the Communist Party of the Soviet Union - CPSU) .
The economic and political spheres turned out to be the most nationalized in the former USSR. In the economic sphere, only the socialist (state and collective farm-cooperative) form of ownership of the means of production was recognized. Private property was prohibited, criminal liability was provided for private entrepreneurial activities and commercial intermediation (Article 153 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960).11 As a result of this, organizations, enterprises, institutions engaged in the production of material goods, the provision of various types of services, both material and intangible character, were mainly state-owned. The collective farm form of ownership was collective farms (kolkhozes), engaged primarily in agriculture. In fact, collective farms enjoyed no independence; their activities were completely controlled by government agencies and the CPSU. Production cooperatives represented a negligible percentage in the economic system of Soviet society.
The political sphere of Soviet society was characterized by strict one-party rule. No other political parties except the CPSU were active. The only youth political organization was the All-Union Leninist Communist Youth Union (VLKSM) - Komsomol. Even the children's organization - the All-Union Pioneer Organization - the All-Union Pioneer Organization named after V.I. Lenin was political in nature.
There was no local self-government in the former USSR - local Councils were part of the system of government bodies and were completely subordinate to higher government bodies.
Trade unions had centralized leadership in the person of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions (AUCCTU). Legally, trade unions were considered public organizations. However, the actual nationalization of trade unions began in the first years Soviet power. They were declared a “school of communism” and actually entered into the mechanism of the Soviet state, and trade unions were initially even given second place after communist party. Regarding V.I. Lenin, in his work “Children’s life of “leftism” in communism” he wrote: “The party directly relies on trade union bodies, which now, according to the last (April 1920) congress, number over 4 million people. Virtually all the leading institutions of the vast majority of unions... consist of communists and carry out all the directives of the party... Then, of course, all the work of the party goes through the Soviets, which unite the working masses without distinction of professions... This is the general mechanism of proletarian state power, considered "from above "from the point of view of the practice of dictatorship."
The spiritual and cultural sphere of Soviet society was also subject to strong nationalization, and the information system was completely in the hands of the state. Only the church and religious organizations remained outside the state; on the contrary, anti-religious, atheistic propaganda constituted a significant part of the state ideology, and religious institutions themselves and their representatives were periodically subjected to persecution, including criminal persecution.
In the political sphere there really is a multi-party system. Nationalization of the spiritual and cultural sphere has become minimal. For example, most preschool institutions and schools are currently not state-owned, but municipal; There are numerous private and other non-state educational institutions. In the information sphere there are both state and municipal, as well as other (independent) media.
We can conclude that when characterizing the structure of civil society, three circumstances should be kept in mind.
Firstly, the classification presented is for educational purposes and is of a conditional nature. In fact, the named structural parts, reflecting the spheres of life of society, are closely interconnected and interpenetrated. The unifying factor, the epicenter of the diverse connections between them, is the person (citizen) as the totality of social relations and the measure of all things.
Secondly, when studying social, economic and other systems as relatively independent phenomena, other structural components (ideas, norms, traditions) cannot be underestimated.
Thirdly, we must see that the connecting, ordering factor in the structure and process of life of a social organism is law with its natural, general humanistic nature, supported by progressive, democratic legislation, that the logic of the development of civil society inevitably leads to the idea of legal statehood, a legal democratic society.
Loading...
