[WSIS CS-Plenary] How legitimate is Civil Society (was : meetings with Kummer...)

[Hervé Le Crosnier]

jeanette at wz-berlin.de wrote:

> 
> I find it difficult to form a clear opinion on these issues. On the one
> hand, you are right. While we do accuse governments of lack of
> transparency and accountability we have problems with these standards
> ourselves. On the other hand we shouldn't forget that civil society is
> clearly a different entity than governments. 

	Hello Jeannette,

	Though i rarely write on this too much noisy list,
	i want to tell you that you really hit the good point
	in your tentative to define "civil society".

	Public space is complex, and democracy need to have
	simultaneoulsy in the public sphere :
	- representation
	- argumentation

	CS is on the argumentation side, even if it's not that easy
	as you expirienced in Hammamet. What worry the most actors of
	CS is not to be in position to argue.

	But society is not always ready to arguments and
	conter-arguments. The "Tribunal de la raison" of the
	Enlightments is a perspective, not an actual reality.

	That's the objective of CS to defend this very special
	space for agumentation, reasonning, accountability (of choice,
	not only of ideas)...

	It's a great job by itself. Though really different from the
	one of governments and even of private sector.

	Thank you for your intervention.

Hervé Le Crosnier

-----------------------

	Bonjour Jeannette,

	Bien que je n'écrive que rarement sur cette liste
	bruyante, je voulais vous dire que vous posez très
	précisément le bon problème dans votre tentative
	de définir la socité civile.

	L'espace public est complexe, et la démocratie a besoin
	de deux modes d'expression dans la sphère publique :
	- la représentation
	- et l'argumentation

	La Société civile est dans l'ordre de l'argumentation,
	même si ce n'est pas toujours facile, comme vous avez
	pu l'expérimenter à Hammamet. Ce qui est le plus
	difficile à supporter pour les acteurs de la CS c'est
	de ne plus être en position pour pouvoir argumenter.

	Mais la société n'est pas toujours prête pour les
	arguments et les contre-arguments. Le "Tribunal
	de la Raison" des Lumières est une perspective
	pas une réalité présente.

	C'est la rôle de la société civile de défendre cttte
	espace très particulier nécessaire au débat, à l'argumentation
	au raisonnement, et à l'évaluation (sur les faits et non sur
*	les idées)

	C'est un très beau travail en soi, quoique différent de
	celui des gouvernements ou même du secteur privé. Et qui
	mérite toute notre attention.

	Merci pour votre intervention

Hervé Le Crosnier

----------------------

suite du texte de Jeannette Hoffmann
-----------------------------

>Governments are formally
> elected bodies which act within the framework of constitutions and laws.
> Civil society is a much more amorphous and ephemeral, issue oriented
> network of people. We shouldn't make the mistake to judge civil society
> attitudes on the basis of comparisons with governments. We cannot be
> representative in the same way as governments are to their citizens, and
> we are not subject to the same forms of accountability as governments are.
> The big challenge as I see it is how civil society networks can create
> legitimacy despite the fact that they lack almost everything that makes
> governments legitimate in the context of their nationally specific version
> of democracy.
> 
> A year ago or so I searched more or less systematically for definitions of
> civil society. The ones I found most plausible defined civil society as
> communicative space situated between governments/public sector and
> industry. It is the space where the people argue about public issues of
> general concern. It goes without saying that a space cannot be
> representative or accountable but can it at least bring forth legitimate
> means of communication and consensus building?
> 
> In order to apply legitimacy to civil society it needs to be adjusted to
> its characteristics. What I find an important rule is to avoid
> reifications. It is necessary to keep in mind that "we" is usually a body
> without clear demarcation or membership (unless we equate it with members
> of this mailing list). The only way to cope constructively with this
> situation seems to me to worship and defend openness, inclusiveness and
> transparency - even though this seemed to be somewhat self distructive in
> the face of all these government friendly NGO folks in Hammamet.