book review- civil society and its rivals

8/3/2019 Book Review- Civil Society and Its Rivals

1/5

Ideological

pluralismConditions ofLiberty:

Civil Societyand its RivalsBy Ernest GellnerPublished by Hamish Hamilton, 1994Republished by Penguin Books, 1996Pages: 225Price:$86.98

By Nadeem Omar Tarar

Ernest Gellner, who died on 5 November 1995, was one of thegreat polymaths of the century. Many of his twenty books wereconcerned with philosophy, sociology and anthropology. Yet, at thecore of his work was an historical question. In the backdrop of thecollapse of the Soviet Union, Gellner wrote essays on the origins ofcivil society which later provided substance for his book Conditions

of Liberty which synthesised and extended the thought of alifetime. In the wake of judicial crisis in the country, a large scalemobilisation of diverse groups across society have taken place,providing a renewed currency and valency to the term 'civil society'in Pakistan. Gellner's works can help initiate the debate on the roleof civil society in the country.Civil society is understood as a set of diverse, non-governmentalinstitutions which are strong enough to counterbalance the state.Without preventing the state from fulfilling its role of peace-keeping

and arbitration between major interests, the civil society can,nevertheless, prevent it from dominating and atomising the rest ofthe society. Underlying the concept of civil society is the notion ofinstitutional and ideological pluralism that prevents the monopoly ofpower and counterbalances those central institutions which,through necessity might, otherwise acquire such monopoly.The phrase civil society was used in the philosophies of Locke andHegel that kept the philosophers busy for some time to come. Butthe recent emergence of the idea of civil society as a shining

emblem for a democratic society, is linked with the developments inthe recent political history of the world. The political developments


2/5

in Eastern Europe, as a result of disintegration of the former USSR,led to an upsurge in the idea of civil society which was foundlacking in those societies. It can also be seen, as philosopher-sociologist Ernst Gellner argues, as a backlash to the suppression ofideal and practices of civil society by Marxist regimes in USSR and

elsewhere. They firmly declared their central intuition that civilsociety is a fraud: being handmaiden to the dominating state, it is afacade to hide its oppression. The support for civil society is a bid tohide the complicity of civil society with state, which should go. Thewithering away of state will pave the way, it was argued, for a justsocial and moral order, that can take care of itself, withoutrequiring a state or additional institutions to counter balance thecentral agency. Therefore, the active suppression of the idea of civilsociety by Marxist regimes and their consequent failure to live up totheir own socialist vision, led to the renewed interests in the ideaand the yearning for the creation of civil society.The growing expectation of the people to build up a civil society isnot restricted to communist failure alone. In South Asia, it has itsown independent roots. Among others, the most important is thehegemonic, over expanded state structures, that has started tocrumble under its own weight, creating massive corruption andcausing severe problems in the governance of the South Asian

countries. The yearning for civil society in former Marxist countriesand elsewhere in Asia makes one significant point. That is to say,civil society is not something that is given, it has to be groomed.It's not something that can be cherished as an idea and thenimposed on a society by legal frameworks or governmentalregulations. It is beyond the reach of an individual efforts or thewell wishes of a group. Ernest Gellner outlines the institutionalpreconditions for the growth of civil society through a historicalstudy of three societies namely Muslim, Marxist and Capitalist west.

Gellner analyses the emergence of distinct cultural forms, over thecenturies in the aforementioned diverse societies. He is careful todistinguish between the forms of liberties. He doesn't generalise theconditions of civil society as a token of universal human condition.Marxism was the first secular belief system to become a worldreligion, as well as a state ideology. It instituted a social and moralorder with its own socio-metaphysics. It was not only moral, butalso promised freedom from economic inequality and politicaloppression. Marxism promised a total salvation, not for an

individual but to the total humanity which is reflected in its failureto create life cycles rituals in USSR. Gellner argues: "the great


3/5

weakness of Marxism may not be so much its formal elimination ofthe transcendent from religion, but its over-sacralization of theimmanent."The sacralization of social and economic life leaves out the option ofretreating into profanity in the times of diminished zeal. With the

sacralization of work, the failure in economy is likely to diminish thefaith on the sacred. By a strong contrast, the success or the failureof economic activity (since its neutral), doesn't contaminate oreffect the faith in Islam. The religious Umma or community ofbelievers, was able to retain its control over its followers, bykeeping up the distinction between sacred and profane andthereby, separating economic from religious. Whereas in Marxistsocieties, with the sacralization of economy and society, thedistinction between sacred and profane was collapsed. As a resultpolitical economic and ideological hierarchies were united into asingle pyramid of bureaucracy. This not only effected the economicperformance, but also proved catastrophic for the social soul."When the nomenklatura killed each other and accompanied themurderous rampage with blatantly mendacious political theatre,belief survived; but when the nomenklatura switched from shootingto bribing each other, faith evaporated." This observation hasserious implication for the civil society. Gellner seems to be

asserting that for Marxist regimes, civil society was considered afraud, not only because of its assumed complicity with state butalso due to sacralization of social and economic life. As a result nopopular will, expressed through civil society, could be consideredlegitimate. In the same vein, but due to opposite reasons, inIslamic societies, state was considered as the implementer but notthe creator of divine law. As long as it doesn't violate it, the needfor an additional institution, expressing the popular will, andholding state accountable for other than divine will, was not

considered legitimate. In both cases, there are no grounds for theexistence of civil society.According to Gellner, civil society cannot be imposed from above.Rather, it takes its roots with the gradual evolution of institutionalpreconditions like the centralisation of authority for maintainingpolitical order and decentralised economic and ideological control.For instance, in Europe, the French centralising monarchy, with itsrespect for property, prepared grounds for the civil society whichmodern democracy completed.

Economic decentralism is also considered essential precondition ofcivil society mainly because of two reasons. In an industrial society,


4/5

it is not possible for sub units (like a county) to claim the loyaltiesof all of its members. The possibility of pluralism of politicallyautonomous, coercive units is rather too remote [unlike in asegmentary society composed of clans, baradaris]. Liberty, on theother hand, as a condition of balance of power of autonomous

units, demands such pluralist arrangement. Since the pluralisticstructure can not be political, therefore, it has to be economic.Secondly, the existence of genuinely independent productive andproperty controlling units is also necessary for the economicefficiency and growth.In this economic pluralist arrangement, however, Gellner doesn'tdiscard the role of state. In contrast, he argues that moderntechnological innovations and the welfare system can not bemanaged alone by market, through the enlightened self interests ofthe individuals. It requires a loose state control. The assigned roleof state becomes all the more necessary, when the "pure-market-cum-minimalist-state" model cannot be relied upon. Viewing largescale and irreversible consequences of modern technologicalinnovations on social order, the production process cannot be left inthe 'invisible hand' of forces of market. There must be a regulatorybody that monitors and effectively checks the productive unitswithout depriving them of their autonomy. In this loose state-

economy arrangements, it will be economic growth and ideologicalpluralism that balances the centralising trends of state. Ideologicalpluralism or "double think" is also necessary, because these are thecognitive mechanism underlying the technological-economic growthof societies.One of the adverse consequence of ideological and economiccentralism, observable in Marxist societies, is the sacralization ofsocial order. Communist system was a moral order where faith andsocial order was fused, but in a civil society it is reversed. The circle

between faith, power and society is broken up. In a civil society,social order is not sacralized. With the desacralization of socialorder, the social cooperation, loyalty and solidarity do not require ashared faith, instead they require a shared doubt. In contrast toDurkhemian sociology, where man has a organic relationship withsociety marked by religion and ritual, Gellner makes a strong casefor social modularity of modern man, as a essential precondition forcivil society. Social modularity makes people capable of combingeffective innovations and institutions without these being stranded.

The formation of specific purpose, ad-hoc and limited organisationsignifies a shift from status to contract form of social relationships.


5/5

The transition from a moral order to a functional, pragmaticcompromise is aided by economic prosperity and growth. Increasein economic growth facilities this delicate balance of power betweendesacralized, autonomous, economic units, under lose politicalcontrol and keeps this strategic balance of forces in play, ensuring

civil liberties in modern societies.

book review- civil society and its rivals

Documents