The meaning and role of civil society

My hope is that the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) can bring awareness to the people that back in the 1800s the Europeans too thought that just by kicking out the crown and/or church and replacing it with a new government all their problems would be solved. This proved to be a fallacy. By the 1900s, they discovered that life could be as bad, or worse, under a democratically elected government. And this is the mistake we must avoid.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Joceline Tan’s article in The Star today (READ HERE) gives an impression that most Malaysians -- even educated Malaysians like Joceline Tan -- still do not grasp the meaning of civil society and the third estate (or third force if you wish).

I already wrote about the third estate earlier (READ HERE). Maybe today I should explain the meaning and role of civil society.

Until the end of the American Revolution in 1781, and the signing of the Treaty of Paris between the British and the Americans in 1783, two groups governed the world -- the crown and/or the church. For the first time in thousands of years, the people successfully kicked out the crown and ruled themselves. And, to ensure that the church did not merely fill the vacuum created by the crown, the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution modelled America along the lines of a Secular State cum Republic.

Many Frenchmen fought on the side of the Americans during the five-year American Revolution so invariably, when they went back to France, they sparked the fires of a revolution. This eventually saw the Tsunami of civil society action that resulted in the French Revolution six years later in 1789.

Over 50 years, Europe was swept by a revolution Tsunami. England (there were riots in Manchester and London), Spain, Portugal, France (that saw a second revolution after the Napoleonic Wars), the Papal States (Italy did not exist yet), The Hapsburg Empire (there was no German Republic yet), the Russian Empire, etc., all saw the people (civil society movements) rise up to overthrow the crown and the church and rule themselves through elections and an elected government. Those that still retained the monarchy reduced it to a Constitutional Monarchy.

It must be noted that elections were either not held or only the nobles and clergy could vote in places where elections were held. Women and the common folks (workers, farmers, etc.) were not allowed to vote. Only the rich and the landowners could vote. So elections were basically very controlled affairs and mere thousands of the privileged class decided who got to rule over the millions of subjects.

By the mid-1800s, changes began to emerge and power shifted into the hands of the people. The powers of the church were reduced. Most of the land was owned by the church and the nobles -- while the people became slave labour on the land they worked. The people did not own the land but they had to pay taxes on the land they worked while the rich landowners (the church and the nobles) were exempted from paying tax.

In short, it was slavery without it being called slavery.

The role of civil society (a concept that emerged in the 1800s) was one factor that brought about changes in 19th century Europe. Poverty was another.

Europe saw a population explosion in the 1800s mainly because for about 100 years there were no real wars as such (they called this the period of 100 years peace). So less people died. The 1800s was also the era when research improved the health system so less people died from diseases as well.

Food production did not improve. Many farmers faced famine so they had to abandon the fields and migrate to the cities to work in the factories that were mushrooming because of the Industrial Revolution. However, machinery replaced manpower so there was not much work for the migrating farmers. That was why in many cities (Manchester included) the people burned down the factories and destroyed the machinery that was denying them work and hence keeping them in poverty.

Basically, the Industrial Revolution brought prosperity to the capitalists but not to the common folks. They may have seen the beginning of political change but this did not mean there was any improvement to their economic wellbeing. They merely exchanged a life of poverty as farmers to poverty as factory workers.

And that was why socialism became popular. The people realised that mere political change (from a monarchy to a democracy where governments are elected into office) is not enough. The oppression and exploitation of the workers also needs to be addressed.

Today, Communism is a dirty word. But then we are looking at it from today’s standards where the workers are guaranteed a minimum wage (except in Malaysia), health care, education, housing, can form unions, etc. But in the days of the so-called Industrial Revolution when the workers were treated no better than serfs or slaves, Communism was the only guarantee for the much oppressed and exploited workers (and farmers) who paid taxes but were denied the right to vote.

Maybe you can argue that that was in the 1800s, 200 years ago, and today there is no longer any need for civil society as conditions have much improved since 200 years ago. Maybe that would be true in some aspects. But the oppression and exploitation continues. The only thing is the oppression and exploitation today may be different from that of 200 years ago. Nevertheless, the ruling elite still oppresses and exploits the ruled and the capitalists still call the shots, as they did 200 years ago.

So there is still a need for civil society. Civil society still has a role to play. And as long as the people still understand that they are the third estate (or third force if you would like to call it that) then the rulers will be conscious of the needs of the ruled.

In the past, the two ruling cliques were the crown and the church. Today, those two cliques are the ruling party and the opposition. And since the 1800s it has been proven that by just removing one ruling clique and replacing it with another does not always work. As the Americans said in the 1700s: it is merely removing one dictator 10,000 miles away with 10,000 dictators one mile away.

My hope is that the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) can bring awareness to the people that back in the 1800s the Europeans too thought that just by kicking out the crown and/or church and replacing it with a new government all their problems would be solved. This proved to be a fallacy. By the 1900s, they discovered that life could be as bad, or worse, under a democratically elected government. And this is the mistake we must avoid.

I know that some readers are now going to comment: why are we talking about something that happened 200 years ago in some distant place called Europe? Well, those who are ignorant about history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. And if Hitler had learned from Napoleon’s mistake, then, today, I would be writing this piece in German instead of English.