The phenomenon of the civil society deserves considerable attention. Many intellectuals and participants in the political process feel that an active civil society represents the best hope for the emergence of a less-predatory, fairer, and more harmonious global order. An active civil society is essential to political communities seeking to ensure the common good, including sustainable development, social justice, and human flourishing, which depend on the ethical force of concerned individuals and citizen groups throughout the world; a dynamic promoting moral globalization. The nature and the legitimacy of the power of the various bodies perceived as composing the civil society, and their relations with national and international public institutions is the focus for discussion at this gathering. This topic includes an exchange of views on the characteristics, beliefs and values of the leaders, groups, and institutions that compose the civil society and on their political roles as agents acting to overcome deleterious world environmental, economic, cultural, social and political trends. There is pressing need to consider how civil society can be more effective nationally and globally so as to better respond to the grave challenges facing the world.

This agenda proposes the following three general questions for discussion:

• What are the contours and characteristics of the global civil society?
• What are the most salient criticisms concerning the activities and behavior of “civil society?”
• Under which conditions could the global civil society make a greater contribution to the emergence of a better world order?

Agenda Item I: What are the contours and characteristics of the global civil society?
“Civil society” is not a new political phenomenon but the serious attention given to it and its potential importance as, alternatively—depending on one’s perspective,— a “global enfant terrible” or “global savior” it is very recent. Generally understood “civil society” is a dynamic system fueled by private citizens working through various types of interest groups to pursue public causes independent of government interference or regulation. In earlier periods and for many years “civil society” in various institutional permeations functioned primarily within national boundaries countervailing trends and/or public policies deemed undesirable.

What is also comparatively new is the concept of “global civil society,” a still largely anomic cooperation of movements orchestrated primarily by associational interest groups, non governmental organizations and other interest groups with an international breadth of concerns and reach. These changes reflect an ever expanding interdependence of peoples around the globe that has accompanied the breaking down of the territorial boundaries that earlier facilitated control over international political economic activity. It is the technological revolution and industrialization of great parts of the planet that have both contributed to the global crises and facilitated world wide communications between interest groups composing the emerging “global civil society.”

Many analysts identify the fast growth of non-governmental organizations and the forging of links between them across national frontiers as a global grass roots phenomenon. Indeed, initiatives of non-governmental movements and organized interest groups with common concerns, whether they be environmental, cross cultural, social, economic, cultural and so forth, are having significant impact on international politics and even on the policies of the seemingly impervious multinational corporations. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International put heavy pressure upon governments through international as well as national media campaigns that now appear to be influencing national policy-making. In like manner NGOs translate issues of global concern into the agendas of national parties and policymakers. It is the nascent global civil society that contributed greatly to putting the problems of the environment, poverty, alienation, women, and multinational corporate activities on the agendas of the universal intergovernmental organizations. The pressure placed on public policy making by the global civil society is particularly important in our time, when many countries are returning to nationalist driven and realist driven power politics. Questions that might be considered include:

• Does the term “global civil society” signify an “idea” about the existence of common interests shared universally by citizens of the world or describe a measurable and observable object–an actual institutional establishment which manifests itself concretely as displayed in Seattle, or in assemblies such as the World Social Forum and the Forums established at the UN and at its World Conferences. Or both?
• Who and what organizations qualify as members of the global civil society? Is it composed solely of established associational (NGO’s) or institutional interest groups? What about non associational movements or anomic groups? When are these groups part of the global society?
• What about locally organized interest groups in developing countries that share global concerns but operate purely domestically? Are they part of the global civil society?
• Is the global civil society the third component of a trilogy that would include global corporations and universal intergovernmental organizations? Is it equivalent to the “Tiers Etats”? Looking at a more secure and better future, what should be the role played by a global civil society on a stage with states and intergovernmental organizations?
• Can the global society society be characterized as a countervailing force against global monopolistic business practices, as were labor unions and consumer groups in response to abuses of the big trusts at the turn of the century in the Western world?
• Is there agreement among scholars on these questions?

Agenda Item II: What are the most salient criticisms concerning the activities and behavior of “civil society?”
Acclaim for the activities of civil society is widely expressed, and many people of good will and well informed about the state of the world participate in its multi-various organizations, motivated by the hope that in so doing, they are forestalling humanity’s self destruction. But there are also worries and criticisms and it is perhaps more useful, during this short session, to address these rather than to join choruses of praise.

In addressing the darker sides of the global civil society, it is to be stressed that the non-governmental organizations forming the core of this society are not assumed to be monolithic whether it be in their forms of manifestation, concerns and attitudes, methods of operation, or size and resources. Therefore it is necessary to be somewhat specific when addressing moral and ethical problems or problems in their modus operandi. It is too easy to talk about the global civil society as if it were an objective unity. This approach would over simplify the issues and render most suggestions for improvement irrelevant as missing the target.

Among the critics there are governments that do not appreciate the actions of some of the movements and activities of the more politically engaged and/or revolutionary groups or even the idea that a civil society should exist. These governments are not necessarily authoritarian and corrupt, nor do they challenge the activities of their members for the same reasons. Numerous informed citizens disagree with many non governmental organizations’ orientations, seeing them as meddling, trouble making, or unnecessary, and that the problems of the day are best addressed by legitimate governments, intergovernmental organizations and established members of the private sector—businesses, academic institutions, and religious establishments.

In this light and given the limited time available for this discussion. The three following salient criticisms are put forward for discussion:

The first type of criticism – civil society and its movements are a source of disorder. This view comes from conservative or reactionary milieus and from those who tend to privilege stability over change, even when stability means the continuation of injustices. It is perhaps enough to note, in the context of this discussion, that times of violence and uncertainty exacerbate resentment for those who criticized the dominant order.

The second area of criticism is that civil society is a substitute for the decline of political parties and representative democracy and a manifestation of the rise of a form of liberalism that is destroying the notions of general interest and society. This view is held especially by the traditional left of Western Europe. It contends that civil society is an expression and cause of the atomization of society and raises at least the following questions:

• What type of democratic system is implied by the rise of the civil society, nationally and globally?
• Is the emergence of civil society part of the normal evolution of societies composed of informed citizens with different and competing interests?
• Or is it , as argued by Marx, a sign of growing selfishness and an expression of various forms of corporatism?

The third major theme of criticism, and perhaps the most troubling expresses concerns in the South and among some intellectuals in the North that NGOs, most of which are based in the North, are essentially propagating the ideas, concepts, interests and prejudices of the Western civilization that has attempted since centuries to dominate the world de facto or as the paradigm of modernity to be emulated. NGOs are sometimes seen as heirs of the missionaries whose good words and deeds were not unsupportive of the commercial and imperial interests of the Western powers. From this perspective NGO’s are often found to be disrespectful of local culture. Moreover, on behalf of development they can upset or destroy many long established social and natural equilibriums.

Continuing along this vein, weighty global activities of many non governmental organizations are perceived to be skewed to satisfy Western world views and mindsets, in particular regarding development, education, and protection of the environment to the exclusion, derision, or neglect of the views of the people of the South—who must live with the changes imposed by the stronger and more organized NGO’s of the North. For example, global warming, biodiversity, acid rain, and so forth which dominate the agendas of the environmental movement in the North may indeed be problems of the global commons. But it remains that little attention is given to the “environmental crises” as perceived in the South, which seeks the technology and know how to develop sustainably, while overcoming abject economic poverty, lack of water resources and desertification, the most salient problems of the South. Population growth is a major concern of the North as is the issue of the right to abortion. These issues are less preoccupying in the South where staying alive, getting a decent meal, and overcoming disease dominate their agenda. This third general criticism raises many questions including:

• How is one to avoid or overcome arrogance in working with the Other – individuals, governments, or even an entire continent? This arrogance is seen in the treatment of the financial and economically disadvantaged partner as a subject for teaching and apprenticeship. Can paternalistic attitudes and behaviors be identified and abandoned when working for the betterment of society is a common goal? Should not learning come from listening to the Other in a mutual exchange between human beings equally endowed with intelligence but differentiated by material means and technology?
• What moral behaviors and values should be promoted to facilitate mutual respect for people even when the parties are unequal in terms of objective power? E.g. Humility and simplicity? A sense of spiritual communion with brothers and sisters in humanity that happen to be in need of support? Commercial relations based on equality and reciprocity?
• Are there universal values immune to the label of Western imperialism, even if they are currently tainted by history? Is the respect for civil and political rights such a value? What place have the economic, social, and cultural rights favored in the South?

Agenda Item III: Under which conditions could the global civil society make a greater contribution to the emergence of a better world order?
Following from the above discussion, it could be assumed that a “better” world order would mean more justice, more solidarity, less conflicts and violence, cooperation rather than competition (except for excellence and wisdom), respect for the rights and dignity of each member of the human family and exercise of individual freedom and creativity for the common good, including the nurturing of our planet. These ideals could be summarized as the restoration and development of the concept of humanity [See Annex 2 by Richard Falk]

Many organizations of the civil society are motivated by such ideals and their members work hard for their realization, sometimes at great personal risk. What avenues are there for strengthening their role and efficacy?

In most affluent societies, “progress” – towards more freedom, more equality and more solidarity – has been realized in the past through social upheavals, revolutions and various manifestations of class struggle, and in the wake of great catastrophes, notably the two world wars. Leaving such catastrophes aside, is organized and violent protest – of the type initiated in Seattle and in Genoa – a legitimate role for organizations of the global civil society? What is the future of relatively “soft” forms of protest such as boycotts?

Traditionally again, representative democracy and various forms of expressions of views and interests through institutions and processes in charge of the general interest, have been considered as viable and preferable alternatives to violence. Could such institutions be built at the world or global level? Is the United Nations an embryo of such an institution? What is the current thinking with regard to a “world assembly of people”?

Protest has more chance to lead to positive results if guided, by a shared set of beliefs, values, and vision of a better world and a strategy for building this better world. A World Assembly of the People, or equivalent institution, would degenerate into a mere tower of Babel if not inspired by some shared ambition to achieve a viable and equitable world community that permits human flourishing and has space for individual’s self expression. Have the organizations of the present global civil society such common aspirations, at least in the making?

What should be the inspiration for social and global progress at the beginning of this 21st century, an ethic of morality, or an ethic of fear in our world which is so replete with threats and regressions towards barbarian times and environmental disaster.?

The phenomenon of the civil society deserves considerable attention. Many intellectuals and participants in the political process feel that an active civil society represents the best hope for the emergence of a less-predatory, fairer, and more harmonious global order. An active civil society is essential to political communities seeking to ensure the common good, including sustainable development, social justice, and human flourishing, which depend on the ethical force of concerned individuals and citizen groups throughout the world; a dynamic promoting moral globalization. The nature and the legitimacy of the power of the various bodies perceived as composing the civil society, and their relations with national and international public institutions is the focus for discussion at this gathering. This topic includes an exchange of views on the characteristics, beliefs and values of the leaders, groups, and institutions that compose the civil society and on their political roles as agents acting to overcome deleterious world environmental, economic, cultural, social and political trends. There is pressing need to consider how civil society can be more effective nationally and globally so as to better respond to the grave challenges facing the world.

This agenda proposes the following three general questions for discussion:

• What are the contours and characteristics of the global civil society?
• What are the most salient criticisms concerning the activities and behavior of “civil society?”
• Under which conditions could the global civil society make a greater contribution to the emergence of a better world order?

Agenda Item I: What are the contours and characteristics of the global civil society?
“Civil society” is not a new political phenomenon but the serious attention given to it and its potential importance as, alternatively—depending on one’s perspective,— a “global enfant terrible” or “global savior” it is very recent. Generally understood “civil society” is a dynamic system fueled by private citizens working through various types of interest groups to pursue public causes independent of government interference or regulation. In earlier periods and for many years “civil society” in various institutional permeations functioned primarily within national boundaries countervailing trends and/or public policies deemed undesirable.

What is also comparatively new is the concept of “global civil society,” a still largely anomic cooperation of movements orchestrated primarily by associational interest groups, non governmental organizations and other interest groups with an international breadth of concerns and reach. These changes reflect an ever expanding interdependence of peoples around the globe that has accompanied the breaking down of the territorial boundaries that earlier facilitated control over international political economic activity. It is the technological revolution and industrialization of great parts of the planet that have both contributed to the global crises and facilitated world wide communications between interest groups composing the emerging “global civil society.”

Many analysts identify the fast growth of non-governmental organizations and the forging of links between them across national frontiers as a global grass roots phenomenon. Indeed, initiatives of non-governmental movements and organized interest groups with common concerns, whether they be environmental, cross cultural, social, economic, cultural and so forth, are having significant impact on international politics and even on the policies of the seemingly impervious multinational corporations. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International put heavy pressure upon governments through international as well as national media campaigns that now appear to be influencing national policy-making. In like manner NGOs translate issues of global concern into the agendas of national parties and policymakers. It is the nascent global civil society that contributed greatly to putting the problems of the environment, poverty, alienation, women, and multinational corporate activities on the agendas of the universal intergovernmental organizations. The pressure placed on public policy making by the global civil society is particularly important in our time, when many countries are returning to nationalist driven and realist driven power politics. Questions that might be considered include:

• Does the term “global civil society” signify an “idea” about the existence of common interests shared universally by citizens of the world or describe a measurable and observable object–an actual institutional establishment which manifests itself concretely as displayed in Seattle, or in assemblies such as the World Social Forum and the Forums established at the UN and at its World Conferences. Or both?
• Who and what organizations qualify as members of the global civil society? Is it composed solely of established associational (NGO’s) or institutional interest groups? What about non associational movements or anomic groups? When are these groups part of the global society?
• What about locally organized interest groups in developing countries that share global concerns but operate purely domestically? Are they part of the global civil society?
• Is the global civil society the third component of a trilogy that would include global corporations and universal intergovernmental organizations? Is it equivalent to the “Tiers Etats”? Looking at a more secure and better future, what should be the role played by a global civil society on a stage with states and intergovernmental organizations?
• Can the global society society be characterized as a countervailing force against global monopolistic business practices, as were labor unions and consumer groups in response to abuses of the big trusts at the turn of the century in the Western world?
• Is there agreement among scholars on these questions?

Agenda Item II: What are the most salient criticisms concerning the activities and behavior of “civil society?”
Acclaim for the activities of civil society is widely expressed, and many people of good will and well informed about the state of the world participate in its multi-various organizations, motivated by the hope that in so doing, they are forestalling humanity’s self destruction. But there are also worries and criticisms and it is perhaps more useful, during this short session, to address these rather than to join choruses of praise.

In addressing the darker sides of the global civil society, it is to be stressed that the non-governmental organizations forming the core of this society are not assumed to be monolithic whether it be in their forms of manifestation, concerns and attitudes, methods of operation, or size and resources. Therefore it is necessary to be somewhat specific when addressing moral and ethical problems or problems in their modus operandi. It is too easy to talk about the global civil society as if it were an objective unity. This approach would over simplify the issues and render most suggestions for improvement irrelevant as missing the target.

Among the critics there are governments that do not appreciate the actions of some of the movements and activities of the more politically engaged and/or revolutionary groups or even the idea that a civil society should exist. These governments are not necessarily authoritarian and corrupt, nor do they challenge the activities of their members for the same reasons. Numerous informed citizens disagree with many non governmental organizations’ orientations, seeing them as meddling, trouble making, or unnecessary, and that the problems of the day are best addressed by legitimate governments, intergovernmental organizations and established members of the private sector—businesses, academic institutions, and religious establishments.

In this light and given the limited time available for this discussion. The three following salient criticisms are put forward for discussion:

The first type of criticism – civil society and its movements are a source of disorder. This view comes from conservative or reactionary milieus and from those who tend to privilege stability over change, even when stability means the continuation of injustices. It is perhaps enough to note, in the context of this discussion, that times of violence and uncertainty exacerbate resentment for those who criticized the dominant order.

The second area of criticism is that civil society is a substitute for the decline of political parties and representative democracy and a manifestation of the rise of a form of liberalism that is destroying the notions of general interest and society. This view is held especially by the traditional left of Western Europe. It contends that civil society is an expression and cause of the atomization of society and raises at least the following questions:

• What type of democratic system is implied by the rise of the civil society, nationally and globally?
• Is the emergence of civil society part of the normal evolution of societies composed of informed citizens with different and competing interests?
• Or is it , as argued by Marx, a sign of growing selfishness and an expression of various forms of corporatism?

The third major theme of criticism, and perhaps the most troubling expresses concerns in the South and among some intellectuals in the North that NGOs, most of which are based in the North, are essentially propagating the ideas, concepts, interests and prejudices of the Western civilization that has attempted since centuries to dominate the world de facto or as the paradigm of modernity to be emulated. NGOs are sometimes seen as heirs of the missionaries whose good words and deeds were not unsupportive of the commercial and imperial interests of the Western powers. From this perspective NGO’s are often found to be disrespectful of local culture. Moreover, on behalf of development they can upset or destroy many long established social and natural equilibriums.

Continuing along this vein, weighty global activities of many non governmental organizations are perceived to be skewed to satisfy Western world views and mindsets, in particular regarding development, education, and protection of the environment to the exclusion, derision, or neglect of the views of the people of the South—who must live with the changes imposed by the stronger and more organized NGO’s of the North. For example, global warming, biodiversity, acid rain, and so forth which dominate the agendas of the environmental movement in the North may indeed be problems of the global commons. But it remains that little attention is given to the “environmental crises” as perceived in the South, which seeks the technology and know how to develop sustainably, while overcoming abject economic poverty, lack of water resources and desertification, the most salient problems of the South. Population growth is a major concern of the North as is the issue of the right to abortion. These issues are less preoccupying in the South where staying alive, getting a decent meal, and overcoming disease dominate their agenda. This third general criticism raises many questions including:

• How is one to avoid or overcome arrogance in working with the Other – individuals, governments, or even an entire continent? This arrogance is seen in the treatment of the financial and economically disadvantaged partner as a subject for teaching and apprenticeship. Can paternalistic attitudes and behaviors be identified and abandoned when working for the betterment of society is a common goal? Should not learning come from listening to the Other in a mutual exchange between human beings equally endowed with intelligence but differentiated by material means and technology?
• What moral behaviors and values should be promoted to facilitate mutual respect for people even when the parties are unequal in terms of objective power? E.g. Humility and simplicity? A sense of spiritual communion with brothers and sisters in humanity that happen to be in need of support? Commercial relations based on equality and reciprocity?
• Are there universal values immune to the label of Western imperialism, even if they are currently tainted by history? Is the respect for civil and political rights such a value? What place have the economic, social, and cultural rights favored in the South?

Agenda Item III: Under which conditions could the global civil society make a greater contribution to the emergence of a better world order?
Following from the above discussion, it could be assumed that a “better” world order would mean more justice, more solidarity, less conflicts and violence, cooperation rather than competition (except for excellence and wisdom), respect for the rights and dignity of each member of the human family and exercise of individual freedom and creativity for the common good, including the nurturing of our planet. These ideals could be summarized as the restoration and development of the concept of humanity [See Annex 2 by Richard Falk]

Many organizations of the civil society are motivated by such ideals and their members work hard for their realization, sometimes at great personal risk. What avenues are there for strengthening their role and efficacy?

In most affluent societies, “progress” – towards more freedom, more equality and more solidarity – has been realized in the past through social upheavals, revolutions and various manifestations of class struggle, and in the wake of great catastrophes, notably the two world wars. Leaving such catastrophes aside, is organized and violent protest – of the type initiated in Seattle and in Genoa – a legitimate role for organizations of the global civil society? What is the future of relatively “soft” forms of protest such as boycotts?

Traditionally again, representative democracy and various forms of expressions of views and interests through institutions and processes in charge of the general interest, have been considered as viable and preferable alternatives to violence. Could such institutions be built at the world or global level? Is the United Nations an embryo of such an institution? What is the current thinking with regard to a “world assembly of people”?

Protest has more chance to lead to positive results if guided, by a shared set of beliefs, values, and vision of a better world and a strategy for building this better world. A World Assembly of the People, or equivalent institution, would degenerate into a mere tower of Babel if not inspired by some shared ambition to achieve a viable and equitable world community that permits human flourishing and has space for individual’s self expression. Have the organizations of the present global civil society such common aspirations, at least in the making?

What should be the inspiration for social and global progress at the beginning of this 21st century, an ethic of morality, or an ethic of fear in our world which is so replete with threats and regressions towards barbarian times and environmental disaster.?