business process management practitioner or business analyst

©TJSGA/TLWNSI ESSAY/NEO-CAPITALIST ASSAULT (15)AUGUST01/Alvaro de Regil Castilla 1

Living Wages North and South

The Jus Semper Global Alliance

A Global Civil Society:A New Ethos

By Alvaro J. de Regil a

From time to time TJSGA will issue essays ontopics relevant to The Living Wages North andSouth Initiative (TLWNSI). This paper is theFifteenth in the series “The Neo-CapitalistAssault” –a collection in development aboutNeoliberalism.

This is the first essay proposing a solution. Itdevelops the concept of a new Global CivilSociety as the central element of a new globaldemocratic capitalist system. The objective is toargue that a truly democratic and participatoryethos is absolutely necessary to change thecurrent paradigm, and that, in order for this tooccur, a Global Civil Society must emerge. Theauthor opens explaining that the essay presentsthe concept for the emergence of a long-termsustainable economic paradigm to achieve socialjustice.

This is the first of three essays that constitute thelast part of this work. Together they present whatI believe to be a long-term solution to the currentsituation of great injustice in capitalist societies.Thus, they are devoted to outline the best possiblepath to achieve social justice, through sustainableeconomic progress, to be followed by democraticsocieties, given the historical evolution ofCapitalism and the results that have beenobtained. Obviously, the whole concept isanchored under the assumption that we arereferring to real democratic societies. I haverepeatedly discussed in previous essays the lackof a real democratic ethos in most nations. I havepointed out the rapid deterioration of democracyin previously democratically-mature societies, in

favour of a merely electoral democracy, and Ihave emphasized the importance of achieving atruly participatory bottom-up democratic processin order to achieve an equitable and sustainableeconomic system. Thus, for the remainder of thiswork I will insistently make reference to truedemocracy as the most critical element in thisconcept. In this essay I focus on the conceptualframework and ethos necessary to develop along-term sustainable economic paradigm thatwill achieve both social justice and sustain theenvironment, the sole purpose of a trulydemocratic political system. In essay Two of PartV, I address the concrete actions required to takeon the capitalist challenge of achieving socialjustice and present what I call the “EquitableWay.” This idea is anchored on the absolutenecessity of achieving a balance between socialprerogatives and market efficiencies with theneed to redistribute wealth as the mostfundamental and transcendental action. Finally,in the last essay, I focus on the implementation ofvery concrete actions required in my proposal toachieve the goal of wealth redistribution.

Social Justice Through Equitable Global ProgressCapitalism is, until now, man’s best idea for theeconomic interaction of individuals, for I believehumanity has not found a less imperfect system.This is because Capitalism fits best with humannature. If it is used with true liberty, it providesthe best possible ethos for the development anduse of man’s ingenuity in the most productiveway, allowing civil societies to achieve trueeconomic and social progress. In spite of itsmany imperfections, when all the participants of

The Neo-Capitalist Assault Essay One of Part V (In Search of Social Justice)

August 2001 GLOBAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT – A TLWNSI ISSUE ESSAY SERIES

Summary

Social Justice Through EquitableGlobal Progress

A High Moral Ground

The New Ethos

2 ©TJSGA/TLWNSI ESSAY/NEO-CAPITALIST ASSAULT (15)/ AUGUST01/Alvaro de Regil Castilla

Living Wages North and South A Global Civil Society: A New Ethos

The Neo-Capitalist Assault

the system enjoy true liberty, there are manywinners and few losers. But when it is used in anauthoritarian manner, when the structures ofdemocracy are corrupted by the ambition of veryprivate interests, Capitalism becomes aneconomic system of oppression, where most arelosers for the benefit of a few winners.Unfortunately, for the most part, the history ofCapitalism has shown that the private interests ofthose in power have dominated the scene andthus, except for very few brief periods, inequalityhas been the dominant situation for mostsocieties. However, it is clear that equality hasbeen more prevalent in those societies wheredemocracy has achieved its greatest degree ofdevelopment. Thus, it should be clear that thosesocieties that have achieved the greatest and mostequitable degree of economic and socialdevelopment have first achieved a reasonabledegree of democratic development. Theconsolidation of a truly democratic ethos isindeed a precondition for equitable economicand social development. But, achieving truedemocratic, economic and social developmentdoes not imply an assured future with permanentequitable progress and the achievement of socialjustice in all realms of human activity. There arenatural instincts always at play that tend toincrease inequity as they struggle to fulfilindividual ambitions. To be sure, since the natureof Capitalism is based on the permanentcompetition of individuals for greater materialgain, it is natural to have winners and losers.What is not only morally but also democraticallyunacceptable is that some compete with all theadvantages, whilst many do not even have accessto the opportunities to compete. Millions areborn completely deprived of the most essentialtools to successfully participate in a capitalistsociety. And yet, some of those that are bornwith access to all the opportunities, not contentwith this situation, bend the most basic rules withthe sole interest of further increasing the materialfulfilment of their individual and very privateinterests. And so, they profit over people’smisery.

Many supporters of Neoliberalism argue thatCapitalism is amoral and that, hence, it shouldnot bear any social responsibilities. But regardlessof whether it is amoral or immoral, Capitalism hasto be shaped to serve all individuals in anequitable manner. This is because the first

natural right of humanity is the freedom ofindividuals to live a dignified life through theirown work and talent. This is what givessubstance to the concept of social justice. And,although we can never expect perfect equality,since each individual is different, we need toachieve a reasonable degree of equality inopportunity. Otherwise, if we insist on upholdinga Darwinian ethos of the survival of the fittest or,better defined, of the ones who received the mostopportunities, we would then resort to permanenthuman conflict, misery, destitution and violence.Since we are social animals, we must then ensurethat all members of our communities receive afair chance to earn a dignified life. For we eitherestablish social justice or we will have to resignourselves to live in the midst of violence.Therefore, Capitalism must be subject, at alltimes, to the moral structure of true democracy, inorder to secure a sustainable equitable economicsystem. Mexican historian Enrique Krauze namedhis book about the struggle for democracy: “For aDemocracy Without Adjectives”, which contendsthat real democracy is a democracy withoutlimitations. Well, in the case of Capitalism whatwe need is Capitalism with one adjective. For inorder to establish and consolidate, on apermanent basis, equitable economicdevelopment, with the sole objective of achievingsocial justice, the only acceptable Capitalism isdemocratic Capitalism.

It is under this context that Capitalism must be putto work to achieve social justice; for the ultimategoal of democracy is not to provide theconditions for some to achieve enormous wealthat the expense of many that are forced to enduremisery. On the contrary, true democracy mustgive every member of society the opportunity tohave a say not just relative to who will govern,but also relative to what the concrete paradigm tobe applied in the governance of a nation must be,so that everyone benefits in a reasonablyequitable manner. As a consequence, thewealthy will have to accept that many of theeconomic prerogatives that they enjoy, onlybecause the great mass of poor endure their costin their daily lives, will have to be cancelled. Thisis especially true in developing economies whereI have abundantly discussed the very unjustdistribution of wealth.


Living Wages North and SouthA Global Civil Society: A New EthosThe Neo-Capitalist Assault

Since the centres of power have alreadyembarked much of the capitalist world on aglobalization process, where many of thestructures that previously isolated the economiesof many nations have been destroyed, the way tobegin to achieve social justice with a long-termscope is by building an equitable globaleconomic ethos. Indeed, I believe that it wouldbe unrealistic to try to reverse the situation to theprevious stage of protectionism. The naturalexpansion of Capitalism, from the centre to theperiphery, has destroyed the previous barriers,albeit for the wrong reasons. Now, what must bedone is to focus on the achievement of socialjustice and a sustainable environment in a globalcapitalist system. To this aim, the vehicle toachieve it is through the establishment of aparadigm designed to generate equitable globalprogress in the centre, the periphery and beyond.

On the economic side, I must stress thatmitigation of poverty is far short of what isrequired. The mitigation of poverty alone impliesthe acceptance of the current ethos that generatesa very unjust order. Therefore, the currentstructures must be collapsed and the constructionof a new capitalist system, governed by truedemocracy, must come about. At the very least,absolute poverty must be eliminated and lesserdegrees of misery must be drastically reduced. Onthe environmental side, the same democraticprinciples must be applied and, in some cases,specific economic activities in concrete habitatsmust be stopped altogether, in order toreinvigorate or reinstate the previous ecosystemthat existed, whenever salvageable. Most of thedestruction of the environment is a result of boththe irrational exploitation performed bycompanies for mere greed or the result of themass migrations of destitute poor, stripped fromtheir original settlements due to the lack ofopportunities. Good examples of the latter are theSem Terra –the landless– of Brazil and those inother parts of Iberian America and in manyregions in Africa. In sum, in the context of aglobal economic ethos, in order to achieve socialjustice with a long-term scope, we need toachieve both human as well as nature’ssustainability in a balanced way. The mitigationof poverty alone is no real solution, but rather theavoidance of the problem. Preservation of thecurrent habitat is not enough and it must bereversed, whenever possible, to stop the irrational

exploitation of the earth for profit. Globalequitable economic progress and a rationalmanagement of the earth’s resources, under a truedemocratic context, are the vehicles to socialjustice and the recovery and preservation of theenvironment in a sustainable manner.Furthermore, the eradication of abject misery andthe reduction of less dramatic poverty will onlycontribute to sustain the environment. This is thenew ethos that mankind must build in order tosecure its future for many generations to come.

A High Moral GroundThe overwhelming power of the promise ofinstant satisfaction implies that it is more thanstupid to be frugal. The daily bombardment bycorporations, selling the values of sheer pseudo-individualism, of hedonistic pleasure, of thesystematic pampering of our superego and of thedespise for the idea of community and of theoverall welfare of all ranks of society in our local,national and global communities, hasexacerbated the meaningless competition for thepossession of material things, at all cost, in oursearch for preposterous bliss. The belied value ofpeople who seek material satisfaction, instead ofbeing true valuable individuals who participate,give and benefit from the overall welfare, hasalienated us from the idea of fairness and sharing,and it has exacerbated the selfishness in ourspirits. Money is the only true measure of ourworth. If we possess money, we possess power;and if this is possible only at the expense of manywho were born with no opportunity to live adignified life, we tend to look the other way andignore the facts. From a cultural angle, thisexplains why Capitalism has made societies,since the last two decades, more unjust as timeprogresses. The natural need of Capitalism, like ashark, to constantly move forward or die, haspushed corporations to impose consumerism perse and has made of us alienated animals thatcannot feel at ease if we don’t have what we aretold that we need. The dazing caused by the dailyrattling of both subliminal and overt bundles ofmessages that impacts us in many fashions anddirects us to buy, promising that this will take usto a state of bliss, has made us lose our trueindividual nature and our capacity to behaveaccordingly. Instead, we have adopted a herd-like mentality and, thus, we just mindlessly followthe path that we are shown, which will take us tooblivion.




As a result, there is little morality left. From themost basic common sense principles of respectfor our fellow human beings, to the values of theworld’s religions, these rules for humancoexistence seem hollow, since we provide lipservice to them whilst we increasingly ignorethem. The right to own a weapon in the U.S., orthe culture of aggression, sex and violence ofwhich we receive daily doses, clearly explainswhy children and teenagers feel increasinglyalienated and resort to violence when they findno meaning to their lives. In their own smallschool community, the culture of narcissism andhedonism impairs many to experience a feeling ofbelonging and a meaning for life. For there isreally no communal spirit when the concept ofthe survival of the fittest is inherent to ourcapitalist society from the very root of ourlearning process at home and in school. And yet,we think that we are real individuals, wheninstead we are coerced by an alienating andhedonistic culture to conform and behave like aherd; albeit, to be sure, the marketing to imposethis culture promotes a belied concept ofindividual freedom that consciously promotesselfishness and alienation from our socialresponsibilities. This culture disregards the needfor human solidarity and claims that the right wayis for individuals to be responsible and each onelook out, individually, for his or her own sake. Ofcourse, it ignores the fact that billions of peoplewere born already handicapped to pursue theirown destiny because they have no access to anyopportunity to live a dignified life.

The exacerbation of pseudo-individualism,violence and alienation nonetheless, there is clearhope of a change in direction. For despite theconstant bombardment by mass media that pullsus in the opposite direction, there is a resilientspirit in many people of positive peacefulcoexistence, where the interest for the well beingof our fellow human beings is genuine. In thefirst essay of this work, I elaborated extensively onthe fact that we are inextricably dependent on ourfellow peers with whom we interact everyday asmembers of our community. Thus, we shouldremember that we cannot ignore our role asmembers of human society, let alone as membersof more concrete groups, as members of ournation, of our province or state and of our localcommunity. This is the central principle of thisnew ethos: that all members of society must

aspire to social justice, meaning that all can havethe possibility of securing the access to theopportunities that provide the means for areasonably decent quality of life, because humansolidarity is the only path to human co-existence.And, thus, human solidarity must be above allother values.

Let us imagine what the world would be like ifinstead of the endorsement of violence and apreposterous narcissism, our vehicles of culturalpromotion would be endorsing respect for theindividual and the environment as the best way tofeel fulfilled, complete, integrated and evenmaterially comfortable. This would still be amarket economy in a capitalist society, butwithout the excesses in our coerced behaviour,which are the direct culprits in the gap betweenrich and poor and in the deterioration of theenvironment. For these excesses make us careonly for our own material satisfaction. Instead,what we would have would be a global capitalistsociety that puts the welfare of all ranks of societybefore the welfare of the individual. To be sure,the individual would be free to pursue his ownfuture, but he would be clearly aware that hisfuture depends, in a very meaningful way, on thewell being of all. Simply said, we would allbecome socially conscious, and we would abideby a set of rules designed to establish a balancebetween the competitive nature of Capitalism andour responsibility for achieving social justice. Afact that, instead of inhibiting Capitalism, wouldonly strengthen its prospectus for sustainable andconsistent growth. For a more equitabledistribution of wealth would imbue the formationof widespread aggregate demand while it wouldcurve the power of an elite of too powerfulplayers.

There is a reason, after the demise of thecentrally-planned economies, for theoverwhelming denunciation of the neoliberalglobalization in former communist countries, indeveloping countries and at the heart of thecapitalist centres of power alike. And that is thegrowing sense of despair when people feel thatthe world is becoming more and moreinhospitable due to the current culture thatprevails. The sense of exclusion is depressing,but the sense that despair reigns, even amongthose who are included in the new global society,is providing many individuals with the will to



force change. And so, the by-now, systematicdemonstrations and activism in Seattle, Prague,Washington, Berlin, Cancun, Santiago de Chile,Porto Alegre and other cities and the less overtwork of millions of people in thousands of non-profit organizations that work from many anglesto reshape the face of Capitalism, is a clear signthat Civil Society is organizing and is imbued in atruly democratic spirit. Thanks to this growingactivism, there is now clear hope thatNeoliberalism will cease to exist, and a newculture of equitable economic progress will bedemocratically established.

It would be complete utopism and idealism toexpect that those who control popular culturethrough mass media would change their views.For their only interest is monetary, and, for this,they need alienated consumers and not realindividuals. Thus, it is only Civil Society that canmake a change of culture come about. Indeed,what the world needs is a change of culture thatmoves from exacerbated individualism to acommunity of individuals who are sociallyconscious; and, to achieve this, we need toreestablish a minimum platform of moralprinciples, with democracy and Civil Societyabove all other interests. Mexican economistJulio Boltvinik calls it “the moral economy” andwrites to this respect: “the moral economy iscalled for to exist as a resistance to the “freemarket economy,” for “the increase in the price ofbread may balance the supply and demand ofbread, but it does not resolve the hunger ofpeople.” This idea still envisions a marketeconomy, but not a free market economy in thecurrent practical sense. What we need is a moraleconomy, indeed, an economy with a humanspirit, centred on the welfare of all ranks ofsociety and not on the individual. I must remark,that each member of Civil Society would still befree to pursue its own destiny and still benefitindividually. Nonetheless, Civil Society, througha real democratic participatory process, wouldensure that the pursuit of individual welfare bebalanced with the democratic responsibility forthe pursuit of the welfare of all ranks of society,so to achieve equitable and dynamic economicprogress. Neoliberals would argue that themarket could regulate itself. But we already havetwo centuries of experience to know that themarket’s regulation does not deal whatsoeverwith social justice. And thus, Civil Society must

enforce the regulation of the economy regardlessof the dogmas of Neoliberalism to the contrary.French writer Jean Maillard brings up animportant moral question about the right toregulate by asking if it is right to make somegoods and services and market them, for althoughthe market entails some degree of self regulation,it does not imply that Civil Society has no right tochoose what may and may not be traded.Otherwise, the only ethos that would exist wouldbe that of the law of the jungle, where evenmankind is tradable.1 To be sure, each day weare getting closer to an ethos characterized by thedisguised and sophisticated practice of massiveslavery: the Third World’s peons or labourcommodities consumed by the MNCs.

As a consequence, what we need is a very well-balanced capitalist economy, and, in order toachieve balance, we must regulate. Certainly, noone holds the ultimate truth about which way isthe right way. Thus, we cannot resort to thedogmatic extremisms of Darwinian Capitalism orof a mixed capitalist economy with thegovernment as a big impresario. We havealready travelled both paths and haveexperienced their great shortcomings. Therefore,what we need is not the market to be theregulator of everything or the government totightly control every move. What I propose is thatCivil Society be the centre of the paradigm; and,this, through its various agents of change, wouldpermanently and systematically work to achievethe best possible balance. To be sure, to achievethis, the first and critical step to take is to establisha truly participatory democracy from the bottom-up, locally, nationally and globally. Thus, wewould have a capitalist economy run by theconsensus of all ranks of society. This is how thebottom-up democracy would work. Theinitiatives would constantly come from manydifferent ranks of Civil Society and be approvedor rejected by consensus. The governments intheir various branches would certainly play amajor role as agents of regulation, following themandate of Civil Society, but they would notmonopolize at all the initiatives or the resolutions.The practical goal would be to establish a faireconomic path, a balanced economy: “TheEquitable Way”.




Lastly, let me define what I mean by a balancedeconomy. Since our unavoidable imperfectthinking impairs us to find the ultimate truth, weneed to be humble and have the political will toaccept our shortcomings. Therefore, instead ofarrogantly claiming to hold the truth, we shouldconcentrate on defining the positive elements ofour collective knowledge in the social disciplinesand apply them in a rational and constructiveway to achieve sustained economic and socialdevelopment. These positive elements of ourcollective thinking would be structured in waysthat generate the most benefit to society at large.As I have mentioned in the first essay, one of theconstant flaws in the history of societies is that wetend, all too easily, to claim to hold the ultimatetruth. And in that process we have been veryprone to move to the extremes with fatalconsequences. Thus, despite the manyimperfections of capitalist economic theory andour collective thinking on the ideas of socialdevelopment, we should recognize that taking thebest ideas of both would provide us with abalanced conception of the right path to socialdevelopment. Neither extreme Capitalism norextreme Socialism bring real equitable progressfor the majority of society, but I believe thatCapitalism is the least imperfect idea to bringabout human development. Nonetheless, thismust be complemented by an array of socialdevelopment ideas that are perfectly congenialwith the intrinsic capitalist goal of wealthcreation. This is the balance that we mustestablish.

The achievement of this balance depends on ourpolitical will to be supportive of our fellowhuman beings. If we have the character, as realindividuals, to become socially conscious, wewill achieve social justice and will greatly benefitfrom it. On the other hand, if we insist in ourhedonistic narcissism and continue to act withherd-like behaviour, we will have to deal withoverwhelming conflict and violence. It is up tous, as individuals, and up to the centres of powerto choose. For, regardless of how different the setof values of all societies in the world may be, weall need to coexist. If we reject this idea, then weare embracing the idea of the annihilation of ourspecies. In a recent internet opinion survey in theMexico City newspaper Reforma, one readerexpressed an unusually candid opinion aboutwhat most readers regarded as a meagre increase

of 6.99% to the minimum wage. He succinctlywrote: “If it were up to me, all the poor shoulddie, I despise the poor, I hate the poor”.2 Thismirrors the attitude of the centres of power and ofmany selfish individuals. It is this kind of attitudethat must be changed; for, realistically, thegrowing conflict and violence in both developedand developing economies is rapidly decreasingthe quality of life of those who possess. As manycontinue to turn the other way, the chance ofbeing assaulted by people who are literallystarving is rapidly increasing everyday. It is theeternal struggle of good and evil. But, as ancientand unavoidable as this problem may seem, theestablishment of democracy, despite its currentlyincomplete form, as the standard for nationalgovernance and for international interactionbetween nations, provides us with the bestpossibility to change the current trend ofdeterioration of the world’s human development.

The New EthosHaving explained the conceptual framework andethos necessary to develop a long-termsustainable economic paradigm, I will explain, inthis last part, the structure of the new ethos andthe interaction between its critical elements andplayers. The idea of a new equitable way requiresthree critical elements to give form to the newethos, and it also requires three players thatencompass all individuals, groups, agents ofchange and regulation, as well as both public andprivate interests.

• Three Critical Elements. The new ethosrequires the permanent existence of the criticalelements of democracy, social justice and asustainable habitat for all species. These areinextricably linked to each other, albeit not at thesame level. Furthermore, these central featuresare concurrently three key objectives that must beachieved, for they do not exist today except in avery incomplete form.

The starting point is democracy. Withoutdemocracy we cannot aspire to establish socialjustice. The countries that have reached thehighest level of social equality have first reachedrelatively meaningful levels of democracy. By thesame token, the deterioration of democracy hasgenerally come about when its structures werecorrupted by the economic power of corporationsand by the lack of involvement of individuals in



their political process when they are alienated bytheir consumerist behaviour. The case of the U.S.is typical but not at all the only one. The currentpolitical struggle for campaign finance reform isthe clearest example of the influence of verypowerful private interests on the politicians whoget elected and the policies that they pursue.Concurrently, the sense in U.S. citizens that thereare too many private interests controlling thepolitical process, that there are only twomainstream political parties, that the priorities inthe political agenda are fed down from the top, inclassic top-down democracy, and their ownalienation, or evasion, in consumerist behaviour,impairs many to think collectively. The low ratesof voting in local as well as federal elections attestto the apathy that reigns in many voters. And,yet, as we have seen, this is not because thingsare good for the majority. The gap between richand poor is increasing, most households areworking more hours in order to maintain theirliving standards, poverty is increasing and theoverall quality of life is deteriorating.

In Mexico, the new government is in the middleof the negotiation to pass a full fiscal reform, thegreatest in more than fifty years. But the fiscalreform of the Fox Administration intends toincrease value-added taxes to basic staples andmedicines that represent the greatest portion ofthe monthly budget for the poor, while it pretendsto reduce the maximum income tax rate from40% to 32%. It also rejects the demands thatcapital gains and other stock market investmentsbe taxed. This is clearly a regressive reform, alsoin a classic top-down democracy. And yet, theyclaim that it is precisely designed to reducepoverty because it intends to increase socialspending. However, they refuse to look at otherproposals, they intend to negotiate to concede theminimum, claim that this is the only way, andthreaten that otherwise the country will fall intomediocrity and will remain indebted. In a classicattitude where they insist that this is the only way,they are now trying to bribe Congressmen andwomen with additional budgets for their statesthat could be used with no restrictions in theirapplication. Instead of allowing all the sectors ofsociety to select the priorities by consensus,working with Congress, and then allowing thegovernment to propose a final fiscal reform tocongress, the executive branch insists in imposingits top down vision. One thing is certain: this

reform will not put in place the structure to beginto create social justice. It will instead increasethe benefits for the owners of the market, and itwill be negotiated in Congress with minimumparticipation from most members of Civil Society.The cohesiveness between the members of thelower and upper chambers with Civil Society isalmost non-existent. The access of Civil Societyto the document containing the initiative prior toits approval is also very limited. Its opportunity toreject or propose does not exist. The MexicanCivil Society, like many more in the world, iscurrently limited to electing its representatives.

These two examples illustrate the absolute needto advance in the democratic process from top-down to bottom-up. For the only way to forcegovernments to work for all ranks of society is tosystematically set the agenda from the bottom-up.Without this, equality in opportunity and,ultimately, social justice will never come about.By the same token, without a full consensus onthe protection of the environment, a sustainableeconomic paradigm will never occur. Thus,democracy has to be completely revamped inorder to become inclusive and not limited to theelectoral process. Of course there are variousdegrees of democracy in the world. In the mostmature democracies, the level of participation ofthe common citizen is much stronger than infledgling and incipient democracies such as thecase of Mexico. But, generally, the idea of abottom-up democratic process is still in its infantdays everywhere. And, without the achievementof this major objective, the achievement of socialjustice and an environmentally-sustainableeconomy will not come about. The achievementof these two objectives, as permanent elements inthe new equitable ethos, is subservient to theachievement of participatory democracy as thecentral element. Without a fully participatorydemocracy, human and nature sustainability areunattainable. Furthermore, we need a globaldemocracy with global sovereignty in itsapplication. The same way that Neoliberalism isattempting to establish the same market standardsand international agreements to all participants,we must establish the same standards andregulations for a fully participatory democracy.Some incipient steps have been taken in theprosecution of very famous human rightsviolators, and the European Union has imposed alukewarm democratic clause on all its trade




agreements, but we need to fully establish aglobal bottom-up democratic framework. Thismay take a generation, but we need to start now.

• The Players. In the new global society,composed of fully-democratic nations, there arethree key players encompassing the entirespectrum. These are: the representatives of thepublic interest embodied in the Civil Society; thevarious representatives of the private interests: theindividuals, labour unions, corporations andprivate organizations; and the national andsupranational governments that directly emanateand are mandated by Civil Society.

Civil Society is the engine of change and the soulof the international and national communities.Civil Society represents the public interests, andthis specific fact is central to the concept. Anegalitarian capitalist economic system is thatwhich balances the social prerogatives with thedemands for market efficiencies. That is, itestablishes a balance between our responsibilityfor achieving social justice and the competitivenature of capitalism; or we might simply say thatit balances public and private interests. However,Civil Society must be the key player. That is,Civil Society, which represents the public interest,can potentially encompass each individualmember of the community. I say potentiallybecause it may not represent someone that rejectsthe idea of Civil Society and refuses to participate.But, in principle, Civil Society is an umbrellawhere potentially every citizen has a vestedinterest. On the other hand, when we refer toeach individual person or private group ofpersons, they represent their private interestsindividually or in a group, but by no means dothey potentially represent the interest of allcitizens. For this reason, Civil Society should beplaced on top of the other two players for it is theonly figure that can genuinely protect the generalinterest and enforce the common good.Furthermore, since each individual member ofCivil Society also has his or her private interest,individually and as a member of one or moregroups, when the individual participates as amember of Civil Society, he or she would alsolook out for the protection of his or her privateinterest. However, the individual member knowsthat he or she cannot place his or her privateinterests against the general interest and, thus, itmust seek a balance. For if we were to leave

everything to the individual, without aresponsibility to the community, only the privateinterests would prevail. And, if only privateinterests prevail, the public interests would beabandoned, and social justice and an equitablesociety would not be achieved. Thus, thisparticipation provides a balance between publicand private prerogatives when individuals makeuse of their common sense judgment in theirparticipation in the public matter. This commonsense is that the public interest cannot impair ourindividual freedom to seek our own welfare, butthis welfare cannot be achieved at the expense ofthe welfare of all ranks of society. Thus, CivilSociety must be above all other players. For bothpublic and private interests can be reconciledwith Civil Society in command, whilst publicinterest would never come about if individualsare left free to seek their own interest. In thatscenario we would all be living in an ethosimmersed in exacerbated individualism, wherethe interests of the most powerful would prevailand, thus, they would be imposed on the rest.The present situation is not too far from thisscenario.

Some may criticize that this is a direct attackagainst individual freedom, but it is notwhatsoever. It is only a concept that does notallow individuals to abandon their socialresponsibilities. In the higher moral ground of thenew ethos, individuals have a civic duty to getinvolved in the civic matter, the public matter.Hume, the famous philosopher of individualismsaid that there seems a necessity for confessingthat happiness and misery of others are notspectacles altogether indifferent to us, but that theview of the former… communicates a secret joy;the appearance of the latter…throws amelancholy damp over the imagination.3 Hume’sremarks simply illustrate that human naturemakes us tend to move away from those who arein misery and thus, we tend to ignore them,unless we are constantly reminded that we mustwork to end their misery. We have no right toreject this responsibility unless we also renouncethe benefits that we extract, as members, from thecommunity. And we have no right to enrichourselves at the expense of others because wepurposely cause their demise or because we haveaccess to the opportunities that our own societydenied them. If we want to take, we must alsocontribute to achieve an equitable ethos.



At this point it is necessary to define withprecision the concept of Civil Society. Everynational community has a social structurecomposed of various strata. This constitutes theentire society of a nation. However, Civil Societyrepresents only those citizens who are sociallyconscious and mobilize to oversee the protectionand respect of a public interest. Thus, in itscurrent meaning, Civil Society constitutes thecitizens who mobilize to oversee the functioningof the government and of the market, whoactually get involved in the public matter andwho mobilize public opinion to ensure that bothgovernment and the market abide by the law, aswell as to ensure the protection of the welfare ofall ranks of society. The term Civil Society datesback to the classical Greek philosophers. InAristotle's Koinonia politike and in Cicero'ssocietas civilis, Civil Society embodies the growthof civilization as expressed in the Athenian polisor the Roman republic. In that sense, Civil Societyrepresented a social order where the citizenryregulated its relationships and settled its disputesaccording to laws, in an ethos dominated bycivility and by the active participation of thecommon people in the public matter.4 At the timeof classical liberalism, Civil Society was generallyassociated with the state and political life. Locke,Rousseau, Tocqueville, Stuart Mill, Kant, Hegeland others regarded Civil Society with PoliticalSociety. Tocqueville described three aspects inthe realm of society: the state and its system offormal political representation; civil society,which represents the private and economicinterests; and political, all the forms of socialorganization that are politically active, such asthe political associations, the local governments,juries, and parties including its civil associationssuch as churches, schools, scientific societies,and commercial organizations. In this way, forTocqueville, the political society supplies theindependent eye of society that oversees thebehaviour of the state in order to control thepursuit of private self-interest of the publicservants at all levels of government.5

In the post-modern world, the apologists ofmarket democracy, especially in the U.S.,proclaimed, with the collapse of Communism, theend of history and the triumph of U.S. styleCapitalism. And, thus, they tend to regard therole of Civil Society as one that is limited toelectoral democracy that chooses from the top-

down choices that are presented to them by thosein power. But they forgot that eternal vigilance isthe price of liberty. Indeed, they ignore thatmarket democracy, or the rule of the market,generates many losers and a few winners and hasreally nothing to do with democracy. LorenzoMeyer comments to this respect that although theglobal market does not build concentrationcamps in Fascist or Stalinist fashion, its victims–the poor and extreme poor that constitute morethan half of the people in the globe– are as real asthe totalitarianisms of the past.6

For these reasons, at the threshold of the ThirdMillennium, the post-modern Civil Society is onethat mobilizes to curb the forces of the marketand fills the voids created by governments whenthey fail to fulfil their social responsibilities.Modern Civil Society is both a political andgovernmental body of citizens. It is formed bygroups organized in various forms to get involvein the civil matters and protect the public interestson specific issues. They get involve in thepolitical process as well as in activities thattraditionally fall in the realm of governments thatdeal with the welfare of local, national and globalcommunities. They fill the vacuums that are leftdue to the corruption of governments that havegrown accustomed to responding more to privateinterests than to their individual constituents.Civil Society is an amorphous body and iscompletely autonomous from governments. Theagendas and objectives of its individualorganizations deal with specific public interestscovering together the entire realm of civil matterissues that affect the welfare of specificcommunities (local, national and global). Inmany ways, it seeks to parallel government in themost pressing issues of the public matter.However, because Civil Society is dynamic andamorphous, it is not a clearly structured anddefined body of groups of citizens. It is a socialforce of citizens with a social conscious, alwayschanging as it sees fit, that feels the need toparticipate in the political and governmentalprocess because of the lack of bottom-updemocracy in the traditional political structures.The Non-Governmental Organization or NGO isthe archetype of organization of citizens in thepost-modern sense of Civil Society. They choosethe name of NGO to convey their independencefrom government whilst they devote their work tofunctions traditionally associated with




government. There are NGOs with macro andmicro-economic agendas, in famine eradicationprograms; they get involved in education, health,and the environment, both at the political as wellas the operational levels. They cover everyaspect of the social agenda, albeit, as could beexpected, there are far more NGOs addressingthe most critical problems, locally, nationally andglobally, than in less pressing issues of the publicinterest. Civil Society is, thus, formed byorganizations put together by citizens interestedin the public interest and conscious of the greatshortcoming of the government and of the greatlyunjust ethos that we are presently living in. Thereare now hundreds of thousands of NGOs withmillions of people in the world working insidethem both voluntarily and professionally. Someof these NGOs manage rather large budgets, suchas Oxfam, a famine eradication internationalNGO, which manages several hundred milliondollars a year in aid, and devotes itself to savingthe poorest of the poor. More than anything,Civil Society is the most important player of thenew ethos because is the only player capable ofmaking bottom-up democracy come about. Thecreation of the new democratic building, from itsvery structure to the daily exercise of participationin the public matter, is the major contribution ofCivil Society.

Lastly, we have the citizens who are not part ofthe Civil Society. First we have the victims of thesystem who belong to the great portion ofdispossessed, who have no access to any kind ofopportunity, much less access to education andinformation about Civil Society, and who arebarely surviving in this unjust ethos. They cannotat all be criticized for their lack of involvement.However, there are the other citizens of the local,national and international communities who donot belong to the Civil Society, in this sense, forthey lack a social conscious and, thus, do not getinvolved in the activities of Civil Society. Theyare certainly part of society, but they arealienated, are fiercely individualistic and do notperform their civic duty in this sense. Theygenerally lack a concept of civic duty with theircommunities or are simply opposed to it. In thetraditional term, these people may very well bemaking a clear use of their citizens’ rights andmay certainly freely choose not to get involved,except in those civic duties mandated by law, andto keep to themselves. They may choose to limit

their rights to participate in the electoral process,or not even that. But, as long as they do not getinvolved in the political or governmental agendasthat constitute Civil Society’s public matter, tooversee and curb the actions of governments andof the market, they are not participating asmembers of the post-modern Civil Society. Theyare only citizens in the traditional sense, which isnow being challenged by the current ethos, andthis puts them in danger of falling into oblivion.The philosophical concept of a free society isbased on the idea that it is formed by a socialfabric of mature and self-governing individualswho are capable and responsible for selecting thepolitical, economic and moral values that willshape their society and will determine the fate ofall its members as an active society in the concertof nations of the world. This is supposed to bepassed on to each subsequent generation ofcitizens for the exercise of a true involvement ofindividual citizens in the public matter.However, to be sure, in the current ethos ofneoliberal market globalization, which is beingimposed by U.S. imperialism, this concept is notonly challenged but is being aggressivelydestroyed by the economic forces that control theformal political structure of states and that want torelegate individuals to either alienated andapolitical helpless units of consumption, to labourcommodities to be exploited or to outrightoutcasts of the new capitalist system ofoverwhelming exclusion.7 The current ethos,characterized by the manipulation of publicopinion through the incessant bombardment ofsubliminal and overt messaging, and the alreadywell-entrenched culture of consumerism thatinvites conformity, constitute the forces that haveplaced the majority of these citizens in adefenceless situation of alienation.

The new emerging concept of Civil Society is stillin its infant stage globally. Naturally, in the mostadvanced democratic societies, we find a moremature citizenry and greater awareness about theneed for an organized community of individualcitizens involved in civil matters, and about thebenefits that a Civil Society can bring collectivelyand individually. However, the increasing decayin the moral quality of governments and theirgreat shortcomings in providing an ethos thatgenerates equitable progress and social justice, ismobilizing many people, not just in the FirstWorld but also in the Third World. Moreover,



with the benefits of today’s communication, andgiven the globalization of the world, theemergence of this concept of Civil Society isoccurring in the form of an international networkof NGOs that established alliances to work onbehalf of the common good on specific issuesglobally.

The second player in the new ethos represents theprivate interests of individual citizens,corporations, labour unions and any otherorganization with a private agenda of interests. Ina truly democratic society, these groups enjoy fullfreedom to advance and protect their individualand private interests, as long as they abide by thelaw and do not try to advance their privateinterests at the expense of the majority of thepopulation. Respect for the law and an equalplaying field are the guiding principles. If the lawdoes not equally protect all parties, by providingan equal playing field, then some of the playerswould be barred from effectively defending theirprivate interests. Or, if corruption allows someplayers to override the law, then the equal termsprovided by the law become a moot point. CivilSociety would seek to change the situation.

A typical case is the negotiation between a labourunion and a corporation. First, it is the issue ofwhether the union is a truly independent anddemocratically elected union or some form ofcorporatist union, whose bosses respond to otherinterests and their own personal interests ratherthan those of its represented workers. If that is thecase, then we may already be dealing with a caseof corruption. Or, if law sanctions this type ofcorporatist unionization, then the law does notprovide an equal playing field. Another case iswhen the law provides a balanced field foremployers and unions to enter into a freenegotiation but the government intervenes andmakes use of several instances to force anegotiation for its own benefit but not for thebenefit of all of the interested parties. Forexample, when the government has set out toreduce inflation and needs wages to be keptbelow a specific benchmark, it tries to force theunion to reduce its demands regardless of the pasthistory that the union and the employer have hadrelative to the share of the labour endowments.In another situation, the government may pressurethe employer to accept the demands of a unionbecause an election campaign is approaching and

the government is seeking the support of labour.In democratically-elected and law-abidingsocieties, the negotiations between private partiesmust be left free from other interests and allowthe parties to reach a free agreement based ontheir leverage to concede or reject the otherparty’s demands. But, frequently governmentstend to act beyond the appropriate legal channelsand force the negotiation in the direction that bestserves its vested interests. And, as we all know,under the present neoliberal ethos, that directionhas been, increasingly, that which benefits thecorporations that wield their economic power insupport of or against the governments. This isone of the main reasons why Civil Society mustbe above the other two players. For the only waythat private players and the government wouldrefrain from pursuing their own private interestsabove the law and the common good, is througha body of citizens overseeing the respect of thelaw and the proper behaviour of government. Asa consequence, in the case of a negotiationbetween a union and a corporation, all otherplayers must not intervene except to ensure thatthe negotiation is conducted legally. Thus, CivilSociety must not get involved in a private issue.Nonetheless, Civil Society must intervene when itsees that the government is unduly interfering orthe corporation is corrupting the union’s bossesand the government is allowing it despite thedenunciation from the workers. This is of keyimportance because Civil Society’s vested interestis that the private interests of some of the playersdo not violate the ethos of democracy andlegality. Without an active Civil Society, ashappens frequently, the most powerful players gettheir way regardless of the rights and the laws thatprotect all individuals.

The third player is formed by the local, nationaland supranational governments that directlyemanate and are mandated by Civil Society.There is no need to elaborate much furtherregarding the role of governments. The main roleof all levels of government in the executive,legislative and judicial branches is to obey thepublic mandate and work for the welfare of allranks of society. Therefore, in following thismandate, governments must work as fair agents ofregulation to balance the demands of public andprivate interests in order to achieve the commongood. In this sense, the legislative branch has amandate for establishing the legal framework that




would provide a fair playing ground for allindividuals. The judicial branch must ensure thatthe respect of the law and its administration of thelaw are done in such a way that an equitableenvironment is preserved. The executive branchmust follow the agenda of policies that willimplement the mandate that Civil Society gave tothe government. In the practical sense, allelectable officials will have to be far moreresponsive in their campaigns to the demands ofCivil Society and, if elected, will have to deliveron their commitments, for Civil Society will bewatching very closely on their performance.Indeed, in post-modern Civil Society, all branchesof government will be closely watched to ensurethat they abide by their mandate. Furthermore,the NGOs will increasingly be working closelywith governments in the most pressing areas,even if governments are not abandoning theirmandate in order to pursue the common good.

In the democratic ethos of the global society ofthe XXI century, much of the political power willbe transferred from governments to Civil Society.In a higher moral ground ethos that pursuesequitable economic and social progress,substantial political power will be increasinglyshared between governments and the citizens’organizations in the management of the publicmatter. For the less power that is concentrated,the better the general welfare will be protected.As a consequence, bottom-down democracy willbe gradually changing to a participatorydemocracy where most issues will flow from thebottom-up. In this way, we will really achieve ademocracy with no adjectives other thanparticipatory or “democratic democracy”. Howthe power will be shared between governmentand Civil Society is not possible to say withprecision, for this is still uncharted territory. But,in this new ethos of participatory democracy, allthe imperfections of the human spirit, our lowestpassions and worst obsessions, can be bestcontrolled and subjected to the pursuit of thecommon good, in stark contrast with thetraditional structure where society relinquishespower in favour of a tiny elite that claims to ownthe ultimate truth. We have not arrived at all atthe end of history. The emerging global CivilSociety is now embarked on the pursuit of the“equitable way”.

a Alvaro J. de Regil is Executive Director of The Jus Semper

Global Alliance

1 Jean De Maillard, “CRIME, THE WORLD'S BIGGEST FREE

ENTERPRISE. The dark side of globalisation,” Le Monde

Diplomatique April 10, 2000: Internet.

2 Open-ended question survey of December 24, 2000 about

the hike of the minimum wage. Reforma News paper internet

site.

3 David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principlesof Morals, 1751, p 132

4 Charles Kershaw Rowley (Editor), Classical Liberalism and

Civil Society (New York: Edward Elgar Publishing, 1998) 2.

5 ibid.

6 Lorenzo Meyer, “La democracia no está segura sin una

sociedad organizada,” Reforma 26 de septiembre de 1999,

Internet ed., sec. Editoriales:.

7 Charles Kershaw Rowley (Editor), Classical Liberalism and

Civil Society (New York: Edward Elgar Publishing, 1998) 24.

business process management practitioner or business analyst

Documents