1. CIVIL SOCIETY, DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE IN SOUTH ASIA:
ISSUES, CONSTRAINTS AND EMERGING TRENDS
Dr.Sonam Dixit
The South Asian region has witnessed proliferation of democracy during the
last few years. The countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal have
experienced alternation of power and systemic changes through strong democratic
movements while Bhutan and Maldives have also moved towards democratization
considerably. There has been a mix situation in India and Sri Lankan, the
democracies which have a long stranding of democratic rule and constitutionalism.
There have been attempts towards decentralization of power in these two countries
but some aberrations in democratic governance at the same time. On the whole the
situation of democratic installations have progressively improved in the South
Asian region. What role civil society has played in bring back democracy in some
countries and democratic stabilization and governance in others is a significant
issue.
The challenges and complexities of democratic functioning and governance
have also surfaced in most of the countries of the region. There have been inter-
caste conflicts, ethnic conflicts, communal riots sectarian conflicts; political
violence, regional and sub-regional movements, revolutionary movements and
autonomy and secessionist movements have brought democratic regimes under
tremendous pressure. It has constrained the state apparatus to take recourse to use
of power.
Not only that there has been a violent and a situation of civil strife
everywhere in South Asia, there have been distressing trends in the working of the

2. democratic governments. Groupism, feuds and ideological fragmentation within
political parties, weak social bases, lack of consensus on national issues,
uncompromising postures by political parties, ethno-regional identities of parties,
failure in providing stable governments, political Compton favoritism, degradation
of the parliamentary norms, institutional decay, compromises and red tapism in
bureaucracy, lack of initiatives and delays by the governments, dis-functionalism,
etc have seriously questioned the legitimacy of the government. All these in fact
indicate a crisis of governability. These trends along with governmental instability
have contributed to the loss of faith in the viability of the democratic governance.
This is sufficient to indicate that there have been problems and challenges of
democracy and governance in South Asia.
Despite the distressing situation, there have been certain positive trends in
the forms of activisation of civil society organizations. Not only that the civil
society has played a role in bringing democracy back in Pakistan, Bangladesh and
Nepal, it has raised the issues of corruption, efficiency and responsibility of the
people’s representatives, etc. The recent civil society upsurge against corruption
and governmental order has generated new hopes not only in India but also in
South Asia as well. What does it indicate? Are civil societies in a position in South
Asia to take up the role as a social capital? To what extent civil society represents
public good and is civil society becoming an answer to the maladies of democracy
and governance in South Asia? These seem to be some of the issues within the
scope of this paper.
Civil Society: Theoretical Conceptual Premises
Civil society though received attention in the writings of a number of
political philosophers, as a concept in the context of development and democracy,

3. it has a recent origin. In most of the earlier writings civil society has been viewed
as a westernized concept. In recent times it is also been seen as a possible avenue
for the promotion of democracy in the multi-cultural states. What is the relevance
of the concept of civil society in the context of the third world countries? Is civil
society a pre-condition for democracy? What role civil society can play in the
process of democratization? What kind of role civil society is expected to play in a
feudal-authoritarian state? These are some of the issues that seem to be relevant.
The idea of civil society can be seen in the writings of a number of political
philosophers. For instance, John Locke and Montesquieu viewed civil society as a
means against the despotic nature of the state. 1 Alexis de Tocqueville talked about
citizen’s associations as an instrument to limit powers of the government. Hegel
and others also talked of civil society. Among the contemporary proponents of
civil society there have been different streams such as the liberal democrats,
corporatists, proponents of free market economies, neo-liberals, communitarians,
etc who have tried to explain the phenomenon of civil society. 2
Civil society has been viewed as a paradigm shift from a formal, hierarchical
and rigid political system to an informal, egalitarian and decentralized system.3
Civil society is also seen in terms of a reaction against the repressive and despotic
nature of state.4 The idea of associationalism is considered to be central to the
notion of civil society.5 Civil society is an association between family and sate that
works independently to foster the idea of identity, equality and human rights. It is
viewed as a value in itself.
Civil society is a space for popular forces for the re composition of their
capacity to imagine, organize and act for the larger good of the people. Civil
society is a critical consciousness for social action.6 Diamond states that civil

4. society is the realm of organized social life, which operates in a self organized and
self-sustained basis within a legal order and having certain shared values.7 Civil
society can be viewed as a group of citizens that out collectively in public, to
express their interests and ideas, exchange information, achieve mutual goals,
make demands of the political system and hold state officials accountable.8
Civil society consists of non-state, non-governmental people’s forums
organized with a wide range of vision, objectives, strategies and activities. Civil
society has been viewed as a necessary component and pre requirement of a
healthy democracy. 9 In fact, modern democracies cannot function without vibrant
civil society. It acts as a buffer between the people and the government.10 It indeed
provides the social capital, the trust, the cooperation and the legitimacy that makes
democracies functional.11
The approach to civil society has been different in different contexts. In
America civil society has been viewed as an answer to anomie. In Europe it has
been looked as an answer to the interventionist sate and as an alternative way
towards accomplishing collective goals. In the third world it is considered to be a
vehicle of towards multi culturism, democracy, equality and rights. Therefore, the
nature and role of civil society is contextual.12
Civil society is not a goal in itself rather it is a process. The growth of civil
society is attributed to a number of factors such as the historical foundations of sate
and society and relationship between the two, modernization and development,
nature and pattern of political development, historico-cultural, traditions and
values.
The boundaries of civil society are flexible. Various educational,
intellectual, professional, economic, cultural, development issue oriented,

5. environmental, human rights groups and associations fall within the purview of
civil society.
Civil Society and Democracy
There are significant inter-linkages between civil society, state and
democracy. The nature and scope of civil society is determined by the nature of
state-society relations. State is a facilitator of civil society. State can create
conditions that are necessary for the development of civil society. Civil society
grows once the process of transition from an authoritarian to a democratic sate
takes place. But in the case of many of the third world countries it has been
observed that the authoritarian states were constrained to allow the process of
modernization and development, even though they were not prepared for political
modernization. It had indeed become a necessity for the authoritarian rulers for of
their own survival and sustenance. The process of modernization and development
even if it was controlled had also provided certain conditions for the growth of
civil society. The authoritarian state tried to patronize the civil society groups and
control them. Nevertheless, civil society became a significant factor in the
transition from authoritarian to democratic state. It can be said here that even if
civil society is not a precondition for democracy, it has the potential to play a vital
role in this regard13. Civil society plays a significant role not only in the process of
democracy but is an important factor in the sustenance of democracy. Civil society
helps in creating such values and norms in the society that are helpful in the
successful working of democracy.14 In that way civil society can made democracy
more effective. Walzer rightly points out that, “only a democratic state can create a
democratic civil society; only a democratic civil society can sustain a democratic
state”.15

6. Thus one would say that the role of civil society is more pronounced in a
democratic state. It can help consolidation of democracy through good governance
and human governance.16
It should be clear that there are close inter-linkages between civil society and
democracy. However, the relationship between civil society and democracy can be
negative as well. Rudolph has cautioned that not all associations generate mutual
trust and collaborations. Nor all have the capacity to generate mutuality and
cooperation.17 Such complications are more pronounced in the multicultural
societies.18
The selfishness, casts, ethnic and regional interest and identities may pose
challenges for civil society and democratic process. There is therefore, a need for
democratic civil society and inclusive democracy in multicultural societies.
Civil Society in South Asia
In most of the countries in South Asia civil society has become an important
factor in recent years. The civil society is being looked at and praised for its role
and initiatives and its criticism. This has largely happened due to the fact that the
popular faith on political parties and trade unions have come down significantly.
However, it can be said that in some countries of South Asia civil society is a very
recent phenomenon. In fact, till recent past role of civil society was being
questioned in countries like Nepal and may still be questioned in countries like
Bhutan. In recent years an increased emphasis on civil society may have occurred
due to the upsurge of democracy in all the countries of the region and the role
played by civil society in Nepal, Bangladesh Pakistan in recent years in
reinstallation of democracy. In more developed democracies like India much hopes

7. are being laid on civil society activists to ensure democratic functioning and good
governance.
In India civil society associations had begun to take shape during the
colonial phase itself, under the influence of the Nationalist Movement. However, it
can be said that in general, in South Asia the growth and expansion of civil society
is closely knitted with the installation of democracy. Therefore in most of the
countries it has been a post 1950 phenomenon and in some countries it is still
emerging.
The process of modernization and development and constitutionalism and
democracy encouraged and provided the necessary space for the growth of civil
society. Where the process of modernization and the impulses of democracy were
weak, growth of civil society also remained weak. The difference can easily be
seem in the context of India and Sri Lanka on the one hand and Pakistan, Nepal,
Bangladesh on the other.
Actually civil society needs a space within the system so that it can produce
a civil space within the political space. It is not possible within the authoritarian
regions.
In south Asian countries a large number of associations have come up in
different fields that have assumed the status and role of civil society. Some of these
are voluntary associations, intellectual forms, professional organizations, expert
bodies, advocacy, groups, sports groups, media organizations, NGO’s etc. The
following trends are visible in this regard.
1. The boundaries of civil society are highly flexible and there is overlapping.
2. The religion, caste, ethnicity and regional factors have influenced civil
society associations.

8. 3. The civil society associations are yet to fully succeed in creating a civil
space within the political space.
4. Foreign assistance has influenced in the evolution and growth of civil
society associations in many countries.
Civil Society, Democracy and Governance in South Asia
The role of civil society in democracy and governance in South Asia has
been examined by different scholars differently and there does not appear to be a
clear cut perception. It has been argued that the role of civil society as a linkage
between people and governance depends on its status as a social capital which has
lacked in South Asia. Civil society has also been viewed as a bourgeois society
which naturally lack a civil space.19 It has also been questioned whether civil
society is independent of state and is it in a position to articulate democratic
demands. Equally important is the issue that in plural societies multiple identities
are buildup corresponding to ethno-cultural, religious, linguistic and territorial
identities. They try to organize and wield power and resources to achieve their
goals through constitutional means. The consolidation of these groups and
associations in the form of civil society is a part of democracy building. In
countries where the process of democracy building has been weak, consolidation
of civil society has also lagged behind.20
Despite several challenges it can be said that civil society is playing an
important role. However, it is difficult to generalize it as there have been country
wise variations. In India civil society has been quite vibrant. But in other countries
also the emerging trends are encouraging. In Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal, as
stated earlier, civil society associations have worked for the installation of
democracy.21 The issues of free and fair elections, corruption, responsibilities of

9. the democratic institutions, human rights and civil liberties issues have been raised.
There have been citizen protest movements.
However, the problem of democracy in South Asia has been absence of
institutionalization and internalization of democratic values and principles. There
have been serious obstacles to democratization such as civil disorder, violation of
human rights and civil liberties, criminalization of politics, erosion of
parliamentary procedures and norms, etc. This has also hampered the process of
consolidation of civil society in the form of social capital.
The final test of democracy lies in the patterns and process of governance. It
can be said that most ills of democracy are attributed to the phenomenon of miss-
governance. Civil society can play an important role in making governments
functional. In South Asia regime failures, systemic upheavals and political
instability has posed challenges of governance. The civil society has the role to act
as pressure agents for good governance. But it depends on their capacity to
represent public good and their capability of interest articulation and to interact
with the state. The South Asian countries are still lacking institutionalization of
democracy and a broad based civil society from this perspective as well.
There is also a trend that the civil society movements are viewed as an act
against state authority. Nevertheless, the emerging trend in South Asia seem to be
that the political parties and trade unions are neither being considered truly
representative nor effective in realizing public good. Therefore, a greater
importance is being laid on civil society to ensure articulation of public demands
and good governance.
Issues and Challenges

10. There has been a gradual and progressive consolidation and activation of
civil society in South Asia. Civil society has got expanded and strengthened with
the establishment of democracy and it is seriously concerned to stabilization of
democracy and peace. However, there are certain problems and challenges which
may be underlined here as following:
1. The South Asian societies are still characterized to a considerable extent, by
hierarchical order, caste supremacy, feudal orientation, weak middle class,
low rate of literacy, etc. These factors impinge on the growth of a broad
based –democratic civil society.
2. Most of the civil society associations have linkages with one or the other
kind of political parties and groups. The political parties also look towards
the civil society groups for support. Such civil society groups are hardly
critical to the parties whom they like. The intellectual and academics are
often divided on political and ideological grounds. Media is highly
politicized in many countries. Civil society members look towards the
government and the political parties for rewards in terms of public positions,
etc for their support to it. It naturally affects their objectivity.
3. Civil society has an elitist orientation. They lack a representative character
in true sense of the term.
4. Civil society organizations have been active in urban-areas by and large.
They also had a gender bias in some countries. It is now that some women
related civil society associations are coming up all over the region.
5. The Non-government Organizations working in South Asian countries are
not seen as not-state actors as much as they are seen as profit making
organizations. They are viewed as sources of additional income. Most of the
professionals are involved with NGO’s for financial gains. These are funded

11. by foreign agencies and provide much more money to the NGO workers
compared to what they earn from their parent institutions. These NGO’s
serve the interest of the funding agencies and are not that much concern to
the social cause. There is a gap between the perception and functioning of
NGO’s and needs and aspirations of the society at large.
6. It is true that media constitutes an important segment of civil society. No
doubt, media has played a significant role in the struggle for democracy in
South Asian countries. But there has not only been the problem of free
media but there is also the problem of fair media. There is a government
owned media, which has naturally been with the government. The private
media also looks for political patronage. The smaller media groups have
tried to survive on the basis of rumor mongering. Media has lacked
responsiveness.
7. The high academics and intellectuals who are considered to be pathfinders
and opinion builders in civil society lack self-confidence, consistency and
stability.
8. In plural societies ethnic, religious, caste and regional factors become
important in social and political mobilization. There is always a danger of
civil society being divided along these lines. It is in this context that the
consolidation of civil society has been problematic.
Despite the fact that civil society is still in an emergent situation in most of the
countries of South Asia, it is becoming a necessity. The civil society has to
acquire a broader space and consolidate its role. In this context the following
aspects seem to be important:
1. Civil society has to play the role of an educator and promoter of democratic
values.

12. 2. It needs to work for the promotion of values of accountability, transparency,
development and good governance.
3. Civil society can facilitate democratic governance by acting as an opinion
maker and working for interest articulation and interest aggregation in a
broader framework.
4. The plural nature of the society has to be taken into view and civil society
needs to promote social cohesion and integrity.
5. Civil society has to act as an observer on political institutions and political
actors and build public opinion over their functioning.
Problems and Prospects
The resurgence of democracy in South Asia has also underlined an increased
role of civil society. There is an increased reliance on the civil society associations.
The civil society is also becoming active in ensuring proper delivery of goods and
good governance. However, the issue is to what extent civil society is broad based?
Two what extent it is in a position to raise the issues of inclusiveness and
democratic consolidation? To what extent civil society associations constitute
social capital? An equally important issue is are all associations friendly to
democracy and constitute part of civil society?
In response to these issues what has been observed here is that the civil
society is emerging in South Asia, it has a role to play and many hopes are being
laid on civil society in terms of democracy and governance. However, plural
character of the societies, authoritarianism and lack of institutionalization of
democracy has obstructed civil society in acquiring a broader space. Moreover, the
confrontationist nature of the society often disrupts the process by which civil
society acquire social capital. The civil society is still to acquire a broad based

13. social capital in South Asia and that way their role in ensuring democratic
governance is challenging. However, the trends are encouraging and the role and
significance of civil society cannot be undermined.
REFERENCES
1. Taylor, Charles. “Modes of Civil Society”, Public Culture, Vol.3, No.1,
1990:95-118.
2. For some of the explanations in this regard see, , Robert D. Putnem,
Making Democracy work: Civic Traditions in Italy, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, N.J.1993; John Hall, Civil Society: Theory, History,
Comparison, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1995;C. Hann,. and E. Dunn,
(eds.), Civil Society: Challenging Western Models, Routledge, London,
1996; Michael Bernhard, ”, Civil Society and Democratic Transition in
East Central Europe”, Political Science Quarterly”, 108 (2), 1993.
3. M.Gladwin “The Theory and Politics of Contemporary Social
Movements”, Politics, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1994:62; Quoted in Heinz Bongartz
& Dev Raj Dahal Development Studies, Self Help Organizations, NGO’s
and Civil Society NFAS, Kathmandu, 1996.
4. B.Geremak, “Civil Society Then and Now”, Journal of Democracy,
3(2),1992.

14. 5. Susane Hoeber Rudolph, “Is Civil Society the Answer”? In M.L. Sharma
et.al. (eds.), Globalization, Democracy and Governance in South Asia:
Issues and Alternatives, Kalinga Publications, Delhi, 2003:397.
6. Heinz Bongartz, n. 3:63.
7. Lerrwy Diamond, “Rethinking Civil Society: Toward Democratic
Consolidation”, Journal of Democracy, 5(3), 1994:5.
8. Lerrwy Diamond, n.7.
9. Davidand Beetham & Kevin Boyle “Democracy and Civil Society” in
Democracy, National Book Trust, New Delhi, 1995:95
10. Susane Hoeber Rudolph, n.5:396.
11.Davidand Beetham, n.9.
12. John Keane, Civil Society: Old Images, New Visions Stanford University
Press, Stanford, 1998:114, quoted in Rudoplh, n.5:395.
13. See Neera Chandhoke, State and Civil Society, Sage Delhi, 1995.
14. Neera Chandhoke, “The Civil and the Political in Civil Society” in
Carolyn M. Elliot (ed.), Civil Society and Democracy, A Reader, Oxford
University Press, Delhi, 2003:258.
15. Michae Walzer, “The Idea of Civil Society, A Path to Social
Reconstruction”, in Carolyn M. Elliot (ed.), Civil Society and Democracy: a
Reader, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2003: 79.
16. Rajni Kothari, State against Democracy: In Search of Human
Governance, Ajanta, Delhi, 1989, Introduction.
17. Susane Hoeber Rudolph, N.5: 413.
18. See for details Ernest Gellener, Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society and
Its Rivals, Penguin Press, New York, 1994.

15. 19. See, Partha Chatergee, “Democracy and the Violence of the State: A
Political Negotiation of Death”, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, Vol. 2, 2001:
8-10.
20. For some explanations of trends and issues of democracy in South Asia
see, B.C. Upreti, Dynamics of Democracy in South Asia: Issues and
Emerging Trends, CAS-I, Department of International Relations, Jadavpur
University, Kolkata, 2011:1-29.
21. For some case studies see, Nira Wickeamasingle, Civil Society in Sri
Lanka, New Circles of Power, Sage, New Delhi, 2001; Niloy Ranjan
Biswas, “Governance, Policy Orientation and Civil Society Organizations:
Reflections on Global Governance and CSo’s in Bangladesh”, South
Asian Affairs, 2: 122, Jan-Dec., 2009; Dev Raj Dahal, Weak State, Social
Classes and Social Transformation in Nepal, FES, Kathmandu, 2007,
Chandra D. Bhatt, “Antimonies of Civil Society and Public sphere in
Nepal”, Indian Journal Nepalese Studies, Vol. XIV, 2008.
……………………………….