By: Dr Matevž Tomšič
In the past decades, numerous works have been written in the field of social sciences about the position and role of civil society in the modern world, with special attention given to its significance for democracy. Under this concept, most people refer to non-governmental organisations, meaning those that are not part of political structures, and therefore, their functioning is more or less autonomous.
Civil society organisations, appearing in the form of associations, unions, societies, movements, and initiatives, are often presented as the opposite of political organisations such as political parties. They are even considered their positive antithesis! While the latter are seen as instruments in the struggle for power, expressing the particular aspirations of individual groups for power and influence, the former are understood as entities where active citizens come together to achieve goals that serve the public interest. On one side, there is egoism, and on the other side, altruism.
In these perceptions, civil society is generally depicted as something highly positive for the functioning and development of democracy. However, critical views of civil society, which highlight its more problematic aspects, are less frequently encountered.
There are no reasons to idealise civil society organisations
It is important to realise that civil society is heterogeneous, meaning that within its framework, there are groups that are highly diverse in terms of their interests and values. Some groups are entirely apolitical, while others are explicitly politically oriented. Among the latter, some lean more to the left, others to the right, and still others strive to transcend these differences. Thus, portraying civil society as something monolithic is quite misleading. Yes, some civil society organisations hold moderate views and adhere to democratic values, while others advocate for extremist (and thus anti-democratic) ideologies and, in certain cases, even seek to abolish democracy.
Pluralism is not only a characteristic of the political sphere in a democratic system but also of civil society. Both in politics and in the civil sphere, individuals and groups with varying ideological profiles operate, pursuing their often highly particular goals. Therefore, there is no basis for excluding political parties on one side and idealising non-governmental organisations on the other. Moreover, political parties that manage to gather enough votes in elections to enter parliament are undoubtedly at least somewhat representative. This cannot be said for non-governmental organisations, which may have only a few dozen members and have never “tested” their support among citizens.
The deceptive portrayal of civil society as something beyond politics is demonstrated by the composition of the Council of the Slovenian public broadcaster (RTV Slovenia), which was formed based on a new (controversial) law regarding this institution. Representatives of the ruling party celebrated triumphantly that party politics had been removed from the organisation. However, the mere fact that party representatives, in the form of parliamentary members, no longer appoint people to its governing bodies does not mean that politics has withdrawn. In reality, the opposite has happened. Not only have we now obtained a body that is significantly less internally pluralistic than its predecessors, but we have actually acquired an outpost of the ruling political ideology, particularly its most radical part. At the helm of this body is an extreme leftist who became notorious for publicly instructing people in NGOs whom they should (not) vote for before the parliamentary elections in 2018. The decision-making process, with practically unanimous voting, resembles that of a party’s central committee. Through this selectively curated civil society, we have not achieved greater political neutrality and impartiality, but rather taken a step towards strengthening the political-ideological monopoly of the left.