Civic society in the Global North and Global South: Organic and Institutionalised civic society

Geography and the degree of institutionalisation of CS are the other classification criteria: more sensitive in terms of diversity and dynamics of the global CS and more useful in terms of explanation. First of all, there are quite useful differences in the types of CS between the territories of advanced Western democracies on the one hand, and the Global South, that is the poor and developing countries of Asia, South America and Africa, on the other hand. I shall now attempt to describe the differences between organic and institutionalised CS in terms of the latter division.

Organic Civil Society
The term ‘organic civil society’ stands for such collectives that grow inside communities, are organised freely and horizontally, and are characterised by a low degree of bureaucracy and institutionalisation. They grow from below (community) upward (organised group). The English word ‘grassroots’ has been used for this type of civil society, using metaphor to describe its form, origin and functioning. It should be noted that such forms of CS may develop into large and organised groups, therefore grassroots can be considered more of an analytical type or a stage in CS evolution.

This type of organising CS is often found in developing and poor countries, although it is by far not limited to them. Rural collectives, women’s groups easing the life in hard conditions by sharing technologies and information, micro-banking in the poor regions, organised opposition of communities to impacts of economic globalisation (construction of dams, factories, landfills, privatisation of public services), and various forms of self-help, so often found in the developing countries, are examples of how a self-organised community forms to create civil society. The so-called Grameen Bank, providing micro-banking services in Bangladesh, is one of the best-known and most successful projects which has become a model for development in the poorest regions. The advantage of these forms is in their perceptiveness to the needs of communities and horizontal democracy.

Institutionalised CS
Even though organic CS is the crucial democratic stage of the CS existence, the defeat of the MAI, the successful blockade of the WTO AGM in Seattle, the status of observers and advisors at international organisations, partnership with private entities, the success of Make Poverty History, and the thousands of millions of dollars that flow through NGOs annually in the form of development aid, speak for the fact that CS has achieved a high degree of organisation, professional conduct and bureaucracy. The great and well-established NGOs mainly in the developed countries of the Global North have achieved leverage competing successfully with that of politics and business interests of private firms.

One can hardly believe that freely connected and organised collectives are capable of achieving such leverage without accepting some of their opponents’ features: bureaucracy, centralised planning and budgeting, and a high degree of organisation. Groups like OXFAM, Greenpeace, ActionAid and others are extensive multinational networks with global centres, dozens of departments, hundreds or thousands employees, marketing and fundraising consultants, and accountants. Decisions are made within boards of directors and passed top-down to the international branches. The capacity of these organisations to define priorities, budgets and schedules for large international projects has been fruitful. These organisations are capable of co-ordinating international campaigns and get resources and international support quickly and effectively. The speed and efficiency with which NGOs responded to the tsunami in South Asia, and the sum of money that development agencies and NGOs collected from the public, was surprising to the organisations themselves. On the contrary, however, their form is nearly identical to that of the great multinational corporations, and they are often justly criticised for lack of transparency and democratic procedures.

The critics blame these large development agencies of practices similar to international organisations: development imperialism, arrogance and lack of perceptiveness to local contexts.

The above two type represent the two extremes of the imaginary scale, while there is a number of transitional forms in between them. Numerous organisations operate in the field as mediators between the large development organisations and local collectives, and many large NGOs pay meticulous attention to observing democratic principles in their decision-making.