This is a short article to explain an often misunderstood concept. Civil society is one of those terms that all political practitioners employ. In the activities undertaken by the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue, however, it has become painfully apparent that not all of them are clear about what the concept means or its relevance for even the most complex forms of conflict resolution. Civil society is a cornerstone of liberal governance and, basically, it connotes everything that is not of the state: public associations, interest groups, media, clubs, youth groups, women's groups and the market. Ironically, just therein lies its political potential. The argument generally runs that the more robust these "secondary associations" of civil society, the more individuals who participate in its workings, the more democratic the state. But that ultimately depends upon the degree of independence that these private associations possess. Fascist and communist regimes had vibrant civil societies, but they were "coordinated" by the party-state and participation in organizations like the Hitler Youth was demanded rather than undertaken freely.
Civil society tends to deflect the power of the sovereign over the individual. So, for example, it is assumed that if a person goes into a confessional, the priest will keep his confession confidential; media contradict one another, papers publish divergent views, and thus the state's power - and that of its leaders -- is again deflected. Sovereigns are totalitarian to the extent that the associations of civil society become subordinate to expressly political forces in a political arrangement that has no elections, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, protection of minorities, and the like. Civil society makes use of these freedoms to pressure the government and, even more than that, provide a public sphere, a catalyst for democratic will formation or, in the vernacular, a source of public opinion. The International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue-- USA is committed to maximizing its power and that of its organizational representatives in negotiations over crucial issues.
Civil society should have a far greater role than it does in diplomacy and conflict resolution not only between states, but groups within and between states. Sovereigns are, by definition, enmeshed in immediately practical power relations, and their interests are always presented as national in character.. Negotiations thereby tend toward the narrow calculation of their aims, rather than the needs of the people that they represent. For this reason, the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue-- USA has undertaken the complex task of engaging the civil society of states before entering into negotiations between these states themselves. Civic associations and popular interests in the two conflicting national public spheres should deal with one another as directly as possible so that can create the preconditions for more directly political negotiations. This requires a combination of public and private meetings that have a specific agenda and that are organized in an efficient manner. The introduction of civil society into diplomacy is neither overly idealistic nor abstract. It recognizes the centrality of the sovereign's political power but it is also aware that civil society can pressure governments. In fact, under the proper circumstances, it can pressure them in such a way that the voice of the people can better be heard.
