& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Civil society: Rhetoric and reality

M. Abdul Hafiz
IN Bangladesh there is growing clamour for a civil society. During the regime of the last caretaker government, it was amazing to see the proliferation of individuals and groups claiming themselves as part of civil society. Perhaps the bitter memories of protracted military rule with its concomitant curtailment of basic rights provided an incentive to civil society messiahs to articulate their demands.
Yet, expressions like "civil norm" in our administration, more "civility" in governance and founding of a "civil society," as voiced in some of the civil and military debates, ring an optimistic note for the nation's civilisational regeneration. There are signs that even after long years of military and quasi-military rule in our country, a craving for building up an enduring civil order exists.
However, a gross misperception also persists. A civil society is taken to be something opposed to the military and the efforts to achieve it seem directed against an imaginary military society, which is blamed not only for usurping state power but also condemned for not allowing the politicians to run the administration unhindered when in power. But is that all a civil society is?
A civil society is much wider a con- * cept in social and political thought, having its origin in the Greek citystates. During the 18th century, when it was revitalised in Europe, it continued to mean simply the state, seen as encompassing, like the Greek polis, the whole realm of politics. It also meant a civilised society that ordered its relations according to the system of law rather than the whim of a despot.
Hegel, to whom we owe the modern meaning of the concept, preferred, however, to see civil society as the sphere of ethical life interposed between the family and the state. To Toqueville, it is only the political society where there will be primary of political forces.
The concept had, however, been radicalised in the 20th century when, during its early half, Antinio Gramsci's concept of civil society found favour with those who wanted to oppose the ruling structure of the society not by direct political confrontation but by waging a cultural war -- as the "Solidarity" people did in Poland in the '80s.
Nevertheless, the western world
where the notion of a civil society finds more currency is still grappling to acquire the best standards set by 18th century theorists of the concept; which is to effect the supremacy of the civilian authority in statecraft, which needs to be an exclusive turf for the politicians. With the progress of the civilisation it was a universal human urge to live in an ambience conditioned by rule of law, norms of civility and an exercise of fundamental rights. In a civilised society all physical forces were supposed to be subordinated to the moral and ethical values. Reason and rationality guiding the destiny of mankind is indeed one of the ultimates in human civilisation.
So, a civil society is more of a civilisational objective to be achieved by a people, and not just given on the platter by anyone or any quarter. Even in the western democracies, where civil societies are in vogue, their achievement has been far from easy -- and often turbulent.
In Europe, the establishment of civil society was preceded by the Renaissance — the great enlightenment -- as well as the proliferation of nation states, which provided its intellectual and civilisational base.
It can thus be seen that to agitate for bringing down a military regime to be replaced by a civil government is one thing, and to be able to build up, bit by bit, a stable enduring civil society is
another. A civil government may not necessarily provide a civil society.
Notwithstanding the lack of incentive or civilisational support, the people of Bangladesh showed a penchant for rule of law ever since a legal system was introduced by the British in this part of the subcontinent. They are on record as having successfully developed, nourished and sustained institutions like political parties, parliament and legislation — some of the essential ingredients for civil rule.
Vibrant local self-government grew and an independent judiciary was upheld. As a matter fact, democracy --an inescapable pre-requisite for a successful civil society -- struck root in this part of British India. Our war of independence was in essence to assert, among other things, our resolve to establish a civil order in the country. The flame of that desire still burns.
Yet, the country could so easily be grabbed by the military', which ruled the country for so many years. Where did our civilian leadership falter? Soul-searching enquiries need to be made into the disturbing question before we iir ieiaM can address the problem of a civil society in our country.
As has been indicated earlier, the establishment of a civil society is an enormous intellectual and emotional commitment. Despite a promising beginning we, as a nation, have so far miserably failed in bringing about a civil society.
Even our brave generation of politicians who spearheaded our independence couldn't deliver on it. It was a pity that the heroes of the anti-Ayub uprising as well as the veterans of the independence war panicked at the sight of a few rumbling tasks with their gun chambers empty in 1975. Again, in 1982, another brand of politicians succumbed to a wind-bag general. Why did all this happen?The politicians must do some introspection over it.
The military has often been blamed for intervening in politics. It is an irony that seldom has anyone blamed the politicians for abetting or even inviting the military' to intervene so that they have some share of the spoils. Few condemn the judicial patriarchs who gave a measure of legitimacy to the military takeover by adorning the titular position at the apex. None accuses the intellectuals and otherworldly clerics who rush to pay fealty to the new master in exchange of paltry favours.
What we face today is perhaps the end result of pervasive social maladies, erosion of values, moral crises and intellectual decay, which are enough disincentive for a civil society. Moreover, today's military in our country has come to enjoy an edge over its civilian counterparts due to a variety of reasons, the prominent one being the military's coming of age.
It is now professional and mature, and an institution par excellence. It has an enlightened officer corps - well groomed, well read and well exposed. Anyone or agency having supremacy over them will have to be more or equally efficient. The political control will have to be convincing.
The making of a civil society is not just an empty slogan. Knowledge, vision and a perspective will have to be combined in civilian political masters to be able to bring under their thrall all institutions, agencies, social forces and professional groups challenging their authority.
The services chiefs, it is said, used to be on their toes when Krishna Menon was Nehru's defence minister. Menon, for example, couldn't be bullied by the generals because he well understood the intricacies of the submarine, jet engines, and the ballistics of artillery projectiles — apart from being an astute politician.