The rise of civil society—a concept usually translated in Nepali as nagarik samaj, or nijamati samaj, as proposed by the late academic Saubhagya Shah—has been a highly significant phenomenon in Nepal over the last two decades. Since 1990, the country has seen an efflorescence of countless movements and organisations associated with social change at local, regional and national levels. Among these, NGOs (more than 40,000 in the country) have been at the forefront of all sectors of change and social work (samaj sewa). Similarly, the media today represents a potent counter-power to challenge political institutions. 

Shaping modern society

These non-state entities have various functions: they promote human rights and the freedom of expression; they encourage local entrepreneurs and better inclusion of women, Dalits, janajatis and so forth; they fight against corruption; and they encourage socially deprived groups to claim their rights and challenge social inequalities. Some of them monitor elections and include voter mobilisation activities. Their importance in educational undertakings and philanthropic activities is also worth noting. By and large, these associations experiment with new approaches to solving social problems, to implementing democracy and to assisting deprived sections of the population. They are one of the main pillars of modern Nepali society.

The blossoming of these non-governmental organisations has been the result of a two-tiered movement. They are directly linked on the one hand to the reestablishment of a democracy in 1990 (prajatantra). Their number at the time amounted to around 220! Suddenly, after decades of absolute royal power, individuals re-appropriated their formerly confiscated initiatives and speech. They became active agents of their future and expressed their opinion through these new channels. On the other hand, such a proliferation has been greatly prompted by the blatant inefficiency of government structures, ungovernableness and the weakness of the state since Janaandolan I. These autonomous associations have gradually taken on a prominent role and have become a key element in the functioning and reshaping of Nepali society.

Alexis de Tocqueville, the nineteenth-century French sociologist, clearly showed the positive role of civil associations in the democratic life of the United States and Western countries during his lifetime. In fact, in most countries, these groups have so far had a beneficial effect on establishing horizontal links that cut across vertical ties of kinship, caste and patronage. They enforce democratic norms—deliberative procedures for decision-making, equality, autonomy and freedom of entry and exit—and create a sense of participatory citizenship. Civil society is thus a living arena of a struggle against authoritarian tendencies and the power of the state. It is crucial for the consolidation of a democracy. The two go hand in hand. Interestingly, the mushrooming of such groups rests for the most part on the affirmation of individualism and on horizontal forms of mobilisation, in the absence of a charismatic leader. Sociologically, it exemplifies a gradual shift from the collective to the individual.

Baggage of bias

However, the overall picture is not entirely rosy. To confine ourselves to Nepal, some negative elements need to be highlighted. For instance, in many but not all cases, these groups are funded by foreign aid. Their English-speaking 

elite is mostly based in the Kathmandu Valley, although it includes a number of persons living in the hills as well as in the Tarai. This elite, which belongs to the more privileged ruling class, naturally tends to reproduce its advantages or to defend its achieved positions rather than to transfer services, goods and money to remote districts. This segment of the population is therefore not totally isolated from more global and political issues. 

More often than not, it is pervaded by Western definitions of proper governance designed by international agencies such as the United Nations or the International Monetary Fund. These external agents, ideologically charged with a liberalist economic culture, dictate their own norms that may not fit in with local realities and ethical values. Ulterior political motives (to assure control over the population, to discourage revolutionary tendencies, for instance) and other Western biases are sometimes clear. Even on the domestic front, the extreme politicisation of the country often interferes.

Sociologists usually define these very diverse groups by situating them some way between familial and state structures. They are, it is said, 'in between' and do not depend on the state apparatus. Another alleged feature of these organisations is that they are set up on a voluntary basis. They thus stand theoretically apart from customary forms of belonging. There is some truth in these assertions. NGOs, for instance, are often characterised by an anti-state connotation. Yet, from my own experience, their boundaries with the state and, more than anything else, with kin networks are much more blurred that is commonly asserted. In fact, traditional forms of identity deeply entrenched in Nepali society tend to interfere in the functioning of civil society (just as in the state structure). 

Persistent primordial bonds

These organisations do not consequently escape from what the late Ernest Gellner called in other contexts 'the tyranny of the cousins' and what in Nepali is termed natabad-kripabad, familism and favouritism. They are still hampered, to a certain degree, by clientelism, familial influences and vertical hierarchical ties. Civil society hence mirrors existing global society. It is not an independent sphere and more importantly, it does not have to be equated automatically with democracy.

It, therefore, comes as no surprise if the politics of ethnicity (and of religion) based on primordial bonds also play an all-important role in this emerging civil society. Such communal (sampradayik) ties reflect the persisting strength of the community over individual forces. They compete with the autonomous ethics of civil society and are more often than not, an obstacle to open democratic membership-participation. In brief, civil society must be regarded as an arena of conflict between internal rival forces rather than a secluded realm of peaceful interaction.

Toffin is Director of Research at the National Centre for Scientific Research, France