introduction: civil society in central asia and the caucasus
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 11 October 2014, At: 02:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Central Asian SurveyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccas20
Introduction: Civil society in CentralAsia and the CaucasusBabken Babajanian Phd Candidate a , Sabine Freizer b & DanielStevens ca Department of Social Policy , London School of Economics andPolitical Science , UKb Department of Social Policy , London School of Economics andPolitical Science , UKc Westminster International University , Tashkent, UzbekistanPublished online: 11 Feb 2011.
To cite this article: Babken Babajanian Phd Candidate , Sabine Freizer & Daniel Stevens (2005)Introduction: Civil society in Central Asia and the Caucasus, Central Asian Survey, 24:3, 209-224,DOI: 10.1080/02634930500310287
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02634930500310287
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:54
11
Oct
ober
201
4
Introduction: Civil society in CentralAsia and the CaucasusBABKEN BABAJANIAN, SABINE FREIZER ANDDANIEL STEVENS
This volume of Central Asian Survey focuses on the specific theme of civil societyand analyses how it applies in Central Asia and the South Caucasus (CASC). Civilsociety is a concept that has travelled across the globe but which has been rarelystudied comprehensively and comparatively in the region. This volume is anattempt to fill that gap with contributions from theorists as well as practitionerson civil society development in five states of the area.
Central Asian Survey has prided itself since 1982 in being the primary academicjournal dedicated to the study of social sciences in the broader Central Asia andCaucasus. In 1991 the collapse of the Soviet Union ignited a flurry of interest inthe area. Yet ten years later, after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on theUnited States (US), and the start of US led military operations in Afghanistan,western observers were left wondering whether they had invested sufficient ener-gies over the past decade to understand the CASC’s states and societies. Today,though research and literature is growing, enormous gaps in our understandingof the region’s formal and informal institutions clearly remain.
Considered as being part of Eurasia or the Southern Tier, the seven countries ofthe CASC share much as they can be characterised as both ‘post-communist’ andeconomically ‘developing’.1 Along a sliding scale from Georgia to Turkmenistan,parliaments, political parties, independent judiciaries and media remain weak;corruption, poverty and inequality, and the lack of foreign investment and tradeare obstacles to sustainable economic development. In all countries of CentralAsia authoritarian and semi-authoritarian regimes are well entrenched. Politicalviolence remains a concern in Azerbaijan and Armenia where presidential elec-tions in 2003 are considered to have failed to meet international standards. TheRose Revolution in Georgia was interpreted optimistically as a move towardsdemocratisation, but the country has yet to witness a constitutional transfer ofpower through the ballot box. Though opposition parties have begun to assertthemselves as a political force, especially in Armenia, and to a lesser degree inGeorgia, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, the political scene is dominated by strongPresidents in all the countries of the CASC. Beyond the borders of Armenia andGeorgia political rights and civil liberties are tightly restricted. In the past twoyears all countries of the CASC have officially registered improved levels of
Central Asian Survey (September 2005) 24(3), 209–224
Correspondence should be addressed to Daniel Stevens (Email: [email protected]).
0263-4937 print=1465-3354 online=05=03=0209-16 # 2005 Central Asian SurveyDOI: 10.1080=02634930500310287
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:54
11
Oct
ober
201
4
economic growth, yet they are still overcoming challenges posed by a halving oftheir GDP in the early 1990s, high unemployment, sharply rising income differen-tials, and crumbling welfare systems. Access to valuable natural resources maypromise Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan a wealthier future than theirneighbours. But they like the other CASC states are still struggling to establishmarket economies, privatise state firms, combat corruption, slash poverty andencourage foreign investment and trade.
The communist and post-communist years saddled CASC states and societieswith many of the same political, economic and social challenges. Yet eachcountry has also had to confront its own historical or present day nationalproblems—such as civil war in Tajikistan and Georgia, interstate conflictbetween Azerbaijan and Armenia—which have contributed to making each oftheir political and development trajectories distinct.
While much valuable work has been done on post-communist political change,economic transition, and conflict issues in CASC, much less attention has beenpaid to the strength, influence and opportunities for civil society. The dominantfocus of political scientists has been to study ‘democratisation’—to assesswhether political participation amongst elites and average citizens has expanded,especially through the introduction of elections and the establishment of multi-party systems. Political scientists who have considered civil society in CASChave tended to look at its contribution to this process.2 They have studiedWestern attempts to promote democratisation through civil society developmentand have generally concluded that successes have been rare.3 On the other handdevelopment specialists and economists have been less eager to employ theconcept of civil society in their analyses of the region. They have preferred totalk about ‘social capital’ and ‘community development’.4 Security analystshave barely touched upon civil society in their study of the causes or possibleways of resolving conflict.5 Significantly there appears to have been very littleexperience sharing and cross-fertilisation between political scientists, develop-ment specialists, economists, and security experts who have looked at civilsociety in the region. This has contributed to the development of a superficialand rigid understanding of the concept in CASC.
Yet civil society is fluid, diverse, exciting and often contradictory. We are con-vinced that further analysis of civil society in CASC is needed if we are to betterunderstand the region and the processes of peace consolidation, economic growthand democratisation that are shaping it. In the following section we will provide abrief description of how civil society has to date been defined internationally, andconsider how these definitions may apply in the region under study. The remainderof the introduction will situate the country-studies in the general theoretical frame-work and highlight some of the principle themes that emerge from them.
The concept of civil society
Since the mid-1980s when the concept of civil society was rediscovered byactivists and scholars alike, ongoing processes of globalisation have propelled it
B. BABAJANIAN, S. FREIZER AND D. STEVENS
210
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:54
11
Oct
ober
201
4
from East Central Europe to non-Western contexts, including Africa, SouthernAsia, Latin American and the Arab World. In many ways CASC was the lastregion where theorists looked to find civil society.6 Yet as this edition aims todemonstrate, systematic empirical and theoretical studies of civil society inCASC—grounded in an understanding of local traditions and a willingness tolisten to local voices—can still make a significant contribution to the existingliterature on civil society.
The contemporary theoretical literature on civil society tends to divide civilsociety groups into ‘ideal types’ to help the observer understand their empiricalmanifestations in various contexts, and to appreciate the different roles they canplay in effecting change. These ‘ideal types’ suggest ways that civil society hasdeveloped as a system of values, political project, and organisational form.7
Many of the contributions herewith have sought to engage with the unfoldingdebate about the possibility of categorising models of civil society by testingtheir applicability in CASC. The two such types of civil society that the authorshave found to be most relevant in the region can be termed ‘neo-liberal’ and‘communal’.8
During the late 1980s, as massive social and political upheavals transformed thenature of the state in East and Central Europe, civil society was (re)defined as pri-marily a neo-liberal concept. At that time civil society’s emergence was linked tothe empowerment of dissident opposition movements who launched a liberal pol-itical project to terminate their region’s socialist/communist experiment. Civilsociety equated with ‘enclaves of independence’, which ‘allow people to defendthemselves against the Communist State’9 and to undermine the tyranny ofgovernment.10 Civil society groups clamoured for the protection of the valuesof justice, freedom, human rights, and democracy. As changes swept the region,citizens in independent organisations were empowered to open a dialogue withgovernment to protect their interests. Neo-liberal civil society was thus primarilyconceived of as a political project, where activists were engaged in lobbying andadvocacy. Most significantly, in former socialist and communist environments,theorists argued that it could contribute to democratic consolidation by ‘stabilizingexpectation and social bargaining, generating a more civic normative environ-ment, bringing actors closer to the political process, reducing the burdens ofgovernance and checking potential abuses of power’.11
According to the neo-liberal definition, civil society can best be associated withthe values of 18th century Western Europe ‘modernity’ during the time of nation-states’ creation. Based on this understanding ‘to be a member of a civil society wasto be a citizen—a member of the state’.12 Members of such a society (men at least)had the right to vote and serve in public office; participation in public affairs wasinstitutionalised. It was also voluntary. Citizens were engaged in civil societyindependent of state, family and community bonds. Participation could not be‘imposed either by birth or awesome ritual’.13
Neo-liberal civil society was also valued as having a role in the economicsphere.14 As the state-controlled economy fell apart in post socialist East andCentral Europe, civil society was believed to have the potential to further
INTRODUCTION
211
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:54
11
Oct
ober
201
4
encourage the rolling back of the state and make significant contributions to theliberalisation of social service provision. It could also support structural reform,the establishment of a free market and the strengthening of private property.
As an organisational form most often neo-liberal civil society has beendescribed as ‘the realm of autonomous voluntary organizations, acting in thepublic sphere as an intermediary between the state and private life’.15 It is best rep-resented by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the voluntary sectormade up of organisations that are private, non-profit distributing, self-governingand voluntary.16 As of 1989 a large scale Western driven political project beganto support these groups, grounded in the belief that external funding and trainingcould strengthen nascent neo-liberal civil society. This has been severely criticisedby many analysts as a neo-imperialist project to impose Western hegemony andprevent the recognition of more traditional and indigenous forms of civil society.17
Significantly many of the neo-liberal groups that first emerged in the late 1980sand early 1990s in CASC, in part replicating political activist organisations basedin East and Central Europe, did not survive long beyond the break-up of the SovietUnion. These organisations tended to attract urban-based intellectuals, and in mostcountries of the region lacked widespread grassroots popular support.18 Severaltransformed themselves into political parties.19 In Central Asia in particular thenew post-independence governments often repressed them, pushing their leadersinto jail or towards emigration. Thereafter, from the mid-1990s until today,non-governmental organisations (NGO) became the most prevalent form ofneo-liberal civil society to develop. They began to address a wide range ofissues, including human rights promotion, women’s leadership, elections monitor-ing, environmental protection, education, micro-credit, microeconomic develop-ment, health and family planning. While much of the state run welfare systemand infrastructure began to crumble, NGOs took over many of the functions pre-viously reserved for government. Western donor organisations provided grants,training and access to wider networks to support them.
Yet it is possible to argue that a second form of civil society also existed inCASC with roots antecedent to the break up of the Soviet Union. Numerous obser-vers, including some of our contributors, argue that due to the dominance of thestate no forms of civil society existed during communism.20 Yet civil society asunderstood as a communal concept can be considered as having roots in centuriesof community organising, with the development of traditions of mutual aid andlocalised forms of decision making.
This argument is substantiated by a second wave of theorising on civil society,which began through the expansion of the civil society debate to non-Westerncontexts in the mid-late 1990s. Scholars from the Islamic world were frequentlyat the forefront of this re-conceptualisation of civil society as a communalconcept.21 Here civil society was not viewed as a neo-liberal construct but as acommunal one. Theorists argued ‘for a more inclusive usage of civil society, inwhich it is not defined negatively, in opposition to the state, but positively inthe context of the ideas and practices through which cooperation and trust areestablished in social life’.22 Thus communal civil society was less concerned
B. BABAJANIAN, S. FREIZER AND D. STEVENS
212
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:54
11
Oct
ober
201
4
with state-society relations, and the ability of citizens to resist amoral and powerhungry political elites, than with relations within society, with community solidar-ity, self-help and trust. The main aim of this civil society was to ensure that allmembers of the group had the necessary means for survival. Based on informalcoping mechanisms—family ties, friendship or good neighbourliness—it organ-ised to offer services, community infrastructure and other essentials. In thiscontext civility signified providing the basic material and economic conditionsto people to ensure that they could function in the group. It was about inspiring‘cohesion and trust in local communities’.23
Proponents of the communal definition argued that it was necessary to shift civilsociety debates from formal structures and organisations towards an investigationof the host of informal group activities and meeting places that connect individ-uals, build trust, encourage reciprocity, and facilitate exchange of views onmatters of public concern.24 Communal civil society could be thus defined as asphere of social interaction where people come together on a voluntary basis,along interest lines, to exchange information, deliberate about collective action,and define public opinion. It is a space made up of organisations as well ashighly informal modes of interaction. Communal civil society could be locatedin ‘families, communities, friendship networks, solidaristic workplace ties, volun-tarism, spontaneous groups and movements’.25 It is most often bound by a setterritory and focused in the local community, the site of face-to-face encounters.The values that this civil society espouses aim first and foremost to maintaincommunity stability and security; they tend to be conservative and patriarchal.Community meetings generally seek consensus; shared ideas and values tend tobe more appreciated than divisive and innovative ones. Commitment to civilsociety is not necessarily based on the assertion of an individual’s will, butoften on group and community expressions of solidarity. The ensuing environmentcan be oppressive to those who did not wish to conform to the majority. This civilsociety contains repression as well as democracy, vice as well as virtue.26
Various organisational representations of communal civil society evolved inCASC, often adopting new functions, and forms of interaction with the state, inchanging political environments. They include the Kyrgyz and Kazakh nomadichordes (zhuz), which were based on extended clan networks through which econ-omic, political and social issues were addressed. Amongst urbanised and sedentarypopulations—especially Tajiks and Uzbeks—kinship ties were strengthened bylinks based on proximity in mahallas. These were geographic neighbourhoodsbut also the site of intensive contacts, information exchange, opinion formationand decision making. In the post-Soviet period, as several of our authors describe,mahallas survived in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan but often with new occupationsand levels of accountability.27 Throughout Central Asia traditional forms ofcommunity self-help termed hashar (in Uzbekistan/Tajikistan) and ashar (inKyrgyzstan) still have empirical meaning today.
In the South Caucasus pre-Soviet traditional forms of community organising areless visible than in Central Asia. In rural Georgia self-help groups existed, and inmountainous regions self-governing bodies led by a council of elders (temi) were
INTRODUCTION
213
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:54
11
Oct
ober
201
4
influential, yet few still function.28 Yet as Babajanian argues in his article, formsof mutual aid based on both face-to-face and diffuse social connections, friendshipand reciprocal exchange such as blat may still serve as a basis for communityorganising in parts of the South Caucasus. The Church is another institution,which has helped nurture communal civil society in Armenia and Georgia.
While religious and ethnically based organisations most often fit a communaldefinition of civil society none of the authors in this present volume have selectedto focus on them. This is somewhat misleading. One may argue that militantIslamic and nationalist movements, as well as more non-violent religious andethnic organisations, are gaining strength in many countries of the region. Theyare based on their own system of values, insure social cohesion, and in most ofCASC serve as an anti-government mobilising force. Hizb-ut-Tahrir in CentralAsia, Russian skinheads in Kazakhstan, the newly created Karabakh Guerrillasand older Karabakh Liberation Organisation (KLO) in Azerbaijan, are part of aworrying growth of extremist organisations. Even if they promote values thatno tolerant, non-violent, democratically minded person would share, they mayaccording to the widest definition still be considered to be part of civil society.29
Amongst our contributors there is some disagreement on the existence of a typeof civil society that may be termed ‘state led civil society’. Babajanian in thisvolume described how during the Soviet period formal public organisations andassociations (such as the party, the trade unions, the Young Communist Leagueand others) were controlled by the state as part of the Soviet political structureand yet performed civil society functions. Other authors, including Ilkhamov,resist associating these groups with civil society, arguing that civil society mustbe independent from the state, have the individual as its basic unit, and be norma-tively based. Proponents of the existence of a ‘state led civil society’ argue that thepublic organisations that exist in authoritarian regimes may provide benefits, rep-resent their beneficiaries vis-a-vis the state, mobilise volunteers, organise activi-ties, and help disseminate information. Such a civil society may include theWomen’s Committee which Kandiyoti elsewhere argues advocates for the protec-tion of women’s rights, lobbies for collective women’s interests, and provides aforum to gather women’s personal and professional complaints under the watchfuleye of a state appointed women representative.30
Finally ‘global civil society’ which came to prominence as a theoretical conceptsince 2001, has only been briefly touched upon by contributors to this volume.31
According to the definition proposed by the Global Civil Society yearbook series,it is the ‘realm of non-coercive collective action around shared interests and valuesthat operates beyond the boundaries of nation states’.32 It includes social move-ments and citizen’s networks that cross national boundaries and are concernedwith global issues such as the implementation of international treaties, the fightsagainst HIV/AIDS, climate change, banning land mines, etc. Though someelements of global civil society seems to have made their appearance in theCaucasus—especially around the Rose Revolution in Georgia and amongstdiaspora groups in Armenia—it seems fair to conclude that global civil societyhas yet to make its mark on CASC.
B. BABAJANIAN, S. FREIZER AND D. STEVENS
214
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:54
11
Oct
ober
201
4
Outline of the articles
What unites the contributions to this edition is the way in which they engage withthe empirical realities of the existing societies in CASC. In contrast to muchanalysis of the region, each article is based on extensive fieldwork, much ofwhich was carried out in the under researched rural regions. The articles reflecta dialectic relationship between concept and context—using the concept toanalyse changes occurring in these societies, but at the same time being open tore-evaluating the applicability of the concept in the light of these social processes.
In her article, Sabine Freizer compares two case studies of civil societyorganisations operating in two regions of Tajikistan, one ‘neo-liberal’ and one‘communal’, and questions whether the two are as different as the theoreticaldistinction implies. While some authors have highlighted a ‘divide’ between thetwo, she finds evidence of a convergence in their characteristics, attributable inpart by international organisations’ increasing engagement with not only neo-liberal but also communal civil society.
Drawing from the research and experience of a British NGO active in theregion, INTRAC, Lucy Earle critically evaluates this increasing interest ofinternational organisations in communal civil society, suggesting that the instru-mental approach to communal civil society in ‘community development’ mayactually be contradicting their original focus on promoting a neo-liberal civilsociety able to promote democracy. Drawing from a number of case studies insouthern Kyrgyzstan, she suggests that an uncritical use of aksaksals and theashar tradition may be reinforcing rather than challenging exclusionary structuresin local communities.
Babken Babajanian also notes how in Armenia the Western academic anddevelopment communities largely ignored communal forms of civil society, andinvestigates the nature of communal civil society across 20 rural communities.He concludes that a tradition of ‘civic participation’ is alive and well andconstrained not by cultural factors such as ‘apathy’ or ‘paternalism’ but by struc-tural factors—specifically the institutional legacy of poor governance bequeathedby the Soviet system and the poverty experienced by many communities sinceindependence.
Daniel Stevens examines a number of cases of partnerships between NGOs andmahallas in Uzbekistan. These partnerships, promoted by an internationalorganisation as a way of ‘neo-liberal’ civil society interacting with ‘communal’civil society, in reality represent an interaction of civil society with what is effec-tively local government, given the extent of state co-option of the mahalla.Drawing on theories of ‘state–society synergy’ he argues that at the local levelsuch partnerships can be effective, though significant obstacles remain at themacro level for a scaling up of effective partnerships between state and societalactors.
Alisher Ilkhamov also examines the difficult external context within whichneo-liberal civil society organisations in Uzbekistan operate, specifically therestrictions on NGO activity introduced since November 2003. He analyses the
INTRODUCTION
215
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:54
11
Oct
ober
201
4
internal weaknesses that many NGOs display, particularly their inability tomobilise resources through domestic constituencies and to become active in the‘public sphere’. Part of the blame, he argues, lies with international organisationswho overloaded the emerging sector with funding and were blinded in their focuson what he refers to as the ‘organisational–structural’ approach which neglects thedevelopment of social and communication networks that would enable civilsociety to find its voice in the public sphere.
The impact of international support for civil society is also analysed by BorisPetric, drawing from fieldwork carried out in the Naryn region of Kyrgyzstan.He illustrates how the neo-liberal ‘NGO’ has taken on new meanings as it is trans-planted into the context of Kyrgyz social life. In the context of a shift in poweraway from presidential apparatus to the parliament, international funding forNGOs has created new players in the complex web of relationships that structurespolitical life, introducing new resources and creating new dependencies andclientelist relationships between international organisations and NGOs.
Finally, Laurence Broers, in his analysis of the Georgian ‘Rose Revolution’,examines the way in which during both the run up to and aftermath of the Novem-ber 2003 election segments of civil society collaborated with opposition politicalparties to force regime change. In doing so he highlights both the opportunities anddifficulties that NGOs face in reforming the ‘neo-patrimonial’ state. He poses thepertinent question, after civil society has captured the state, who will be there tocheck future abuses of power by the government?
While each article engages with the empirical realities of each society from avariety of theoretical starting points, a number of common themes emergewhich are suggestive of a more comprehensive approach to understanding civilsociety in the region—an approach that we tentatively refer to as the ‘politics ofcivil society’. For each article sheds light on the ways in which power relationsshape and are shaped by civil society organisations at three levels—the local,the national and the international.
Civil society and local power relations
With most of the articles drawing from close fieldwork, they highlight the way inwhich at the local level power relations shape civil society organisations, bothformal and informal, and the processes by which such organisations in turn maystart to challenge the existing distribution of power in the community.
Several of the articles in this volume emphasise the importance of individualleaders to local organizations, as a result of the communities’ hierarchicalstructure. In both communal and neo-liberal civil society in Tajikistan, Freizerargues that ‘charismatic and dedicated leadership proved essential’. Earle andPetric came to similar conclusions in Kyrgyzstan where the authority of thehead of a communal form of civil society, the aksakal, could not be publiclyquestioned, and NGO staff demonstrated an unwillingness to speak openlyabout their election observation activities without their director’s presence. InUzbekistan, Stevens found that, as in the Kyrgyz cases, in the more ‘communal’
B. BABAJANIAN, S. FREIZER AND D. STEVENS
216
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:54
11
Oct
ober
201
4
mahallas the chairperson’s personality and effectiveness was critical to a project’ssuccessful implementation. Amongst ‘neo-liberal’ civil society the lack of a broadconstituency of support and volunteers highlights the all-important role of theNGO’s executive leaders.
Individual leaders are able to assert their authority in part because of the verticalorganisational structures that their groups adopt but also as a result of pre-existingsystems of patronage. Babajanian describes how in local communities in Armeniathe mayor and other informal leaders, such as school directors, become intermedi-aries between the community and formal state institutions by drawing on personalnetworks and allocating resources and advantages through them. Similarly inKyrgyzstan Petric describes how candidates demonstrate their largesse throughprovision of benefits to voters, and Earle notes how aksakals, with significant land-holdings, are able to secure citizens’ loyalty by distributing flour and giving tem-porary employment. Though some disenfranchised community members maybenefit from the actions of communitarian leaders, these practices evidently dolittle to reduce inequality or to change existing power relations.
Attempts have been made to transform the system by making leaders accounta-ble to the community at large, rather than to small groups of his relations andfriends. Freizer provides examples of how elections have been used at thevillage level to increase accountability and promote community participation indecision making. Yet these efforts tend to be externally driven and are poorlyembedded. As Earle also argues citizens often take part in these community meet-ings and elections more as a formal duty to satisfy donors, rather than to becomeinvolved in a process of negotiation, consensus building and participatory plan-ning. Additionally civil society organisations have to operate within a contextwithin which most resources are distributed through informal channels—largelypersonal relationships. The role of the leader, whose ability to negotiate connec-tions in this informal world is crucial in delivering resources to the community,remains strong, and the formal structures of accountability are not able to takehold.
The dominant position held by leaders threatens to undermine some of thetraditions of collective self-help that persist in the region. In a number of thearticles the concept of ashar or hashar is referred to, representing a tradition ofcontributing labour to building, renovation or infrastructure renewal projects incommunities. However, when the ends of such endeavours are dictated bydominant leaders, the tradition can verge on the exploitative, with the moremarginalised expected to contribute to projects that benefit the more powerful,as occurred in Earle’s case study in Kyrgyzstan. More negative traditionalpractices are also being revived. A number of the articles identify patterns of patri-archy and the exclusion of women and young people in the process of decisionmaking at the local level. In the village organisations in Tajikistan, the womenmet separately, and they were at times sidelined in the participatory processesorganised in community development projects in Kyrgyzstan.
However, the weakness of formal structures of accountability in local commu-nity groups does not always translate into exploitative behaviour on the part of
INTRODUCTION
217
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:54
11
Oct
ober
201
4
local elites. In fact, many of the articles describe situations in which local elitesinvest significant amounts of time and energy in improving the lives of communitymembers through the various civil society organisations analysed. This seems tooccur in cases when such leaders are embedded in their communities. It is theconcept of embeddedness that Babajanian and Stevens use to explain the efficacyof local mayors and some mahalla chairpersons in promoting community deve-lopment in the cases of Armenia and Uzbekistan, and by Freizer with respect toboth communal and ‘neo-liberal’ NGO in Tajikistan. Embeddedness refers tothe extent to which leaders are integrated into the communities in terms ofresidence, participation in other community structures and levels of identificationwith the community. Where this is the case, community pressure can motivatesuch leaders to focus on public goods rather than give in to the temptations ofpursuing private gain created by the weak institutionalisation of civil societydescribed above.
As well as being shaped by the existing structures of power relations, the articlesalso point to ways in which some of the values and additional resources thataccompany civil society organisations can begin to reshape local politics. Thisis particularly true with the introduction of liberal views via ‘neo-liberal’NGOs, for example in Tajikistan the NGO’s goal of empowering women andethnic minorities led to situations in which women began to speak out and takeaction over the issue of domestic violence, with some success. Such values,according to Freizer, were presented ‘in ways that would be accepted in more tra-ditional and isolated environments’ and as such began to take hold. More generallythe values of community mobilisation began to resonate as a result of successes, asEarle and Stevens relate in their examination of community development inKyrgyzstan and mahalla–NGO partnerships in Uzbekistan. Success gave rise toincreasing confidence in communities’ ability to organise for further projects.
When it comes to the power of additional resources, the gatekeeper is able eitherto consolidate their existing position of leadership or challenge existing leaders. Inthe case of Kyrgyzstan Earle notes how channelling resources through the aksakalcan strengthen his position, but both she and Petric also note how new elites canalso be created—‘local experts’ with close links to international organisations andenjoying high levels of income and opportunities to improve their leadershipskills.
The articles also shed some light on the seriously under-researched area of thenature of the state at the local level and the way in which it interacts with civilsociety. What the articles illustrate are the blurred boundaries between state andsocietal structures at this level, and the way in which local civil society organi-sations can act as intermediaries between the community and local state struc-tures. As Babajanian and Stevens relate, local mayors in Armenia and mahallachairpersons in Uzbekistan operated in roles that combined official governmentresponsibilities with, in certain places, active engagement with the community.Freizer describes how in Tajikistan the Village Organisation presidents wereactive as mediators between the community and the jamoat local governmentstructures. The relationship here, as elsewhere, seems less one of tension
B. BABAJANIAN, S. FREIZER AND D. STEVENS
218
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:54
11
Oct
ober
201
4
between state and societal actors than informal co-operation and mutualacceptance. It is where national political structures are challenged or affectedthat tensions arise.
Civil society and national power relations
All of the articles in this volume describe linkages and relationships between theformal institutions of state and civil society. The civic and governance spheres arecomplimentary and mutually reinforcing. The political and institutional environ-ment in a country affects the specific forms and manifestation of civil society.Civil society in turn can have an important influence on the formal institutionsof the state and national politics. This two-way causality suggests that, althoughconceived to be an autonomous and politically neutral sphere of action, civilsociety cannot be analysed independently of other important societal actors andwithout taking into account important contextual political and institutionalvariables and conditions.
Babajanian and Ilkhamov discuss the impact of the governance sphere on civilsociety. In Armenia, for example, the relations between the formal institutions ofthe state and the civic sphere are based on personalised social networks that havetheir roots in the Soviet times. Babajanian discusses how the persistence of suchinformal relationships can suppress the ability of ordinary citizens to controltheir own development. Ordinary citizens have to rely on local formal or informalleaders who have leadership skills, connections and authority to ‘get things done’.The lack of sufficient engagement and support to grassroots initiatives by theformal institutions in Armenia further limits civic activism.
In Armenia, where the legal and regulatory framework supports decentralisa-tion and the overall political environment has been rapidly opening up,constraints to civil society are posed by informal norms and practices. InUzbekistan, limits to civil society are more formalised and it appears that itssuppression has become an explicit objective of the state. Ilkhamov discusseshow Uzbekistan’s authoritarian government openly represses grassroots initiat-ives and NGOs funded and supported by international donors. Such repressionis conduced through issuing legal restrictions, controlling financial assets ofNGOs and interfering in their agenda and activities. The Uzbek state hasalso embarked on the co-optation of communal civil society through formalis-ing and controlling traditional local institutions—mahallas. The regime has alsodiscouraged the traditional practice of charitable donations to the mosque.Ilkhamov suggests that these repressive measures have resulted in the weaken-ing of both formal and informal civil society in Uzbekistan. On the one hand,the NGOs are withdrawing from important human rights advocacy and socialmobilisation functions. On the other hand, the existing stocks of socialcapital do not transcend beyond narrow ethnic and kinship boundaries intothe civic sphere.
Petric and Broers discuss the types of influence that civil society can have on thestate. Petric suggests that the civic and political spheres in Kyrgyzstan are often
INTRODUCTION
219
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:54
11
Oct
ober
201
4
blurred. Petric maintains that the national elite in Kyrgyzstan have communalembeddedness. In particular, members of the Parliament in Kyrgyzstan oftenrely on local solidarity networks and communal social structures, by using populisttactics and relying on their personal bonds. The persistence of these informalembedded relationships can have serious repercussions for democratic processesand limit the ability to scale up community activism to national political advocacy.It reinforces clientelistic tactics in politics and negatively affects the nature ofdemocratic governance. Thus on the one hand, relations based on patronagemay prevent people from selecting genuinely committed politicians. On theother hand, they may stifle downwards accountability of formal leaders to theirconstituents.
Broers shows that civil society was crucial in making the Georgian Roserevolution happen. He suggests that the involvement of civil society groups andactivists in monitoring the elections, organising protests and using mass mediato mobilise public support was key in toppling the ineffective and corrupt Shevard-nadze regime. Broers maintains that many civic activists received positions in thepublic office after the revolution. Apart from illustrating the power of civil society,the Georgian case also poses questions about the difficulty of a conceptualdefinition of civil society in the post-Soviet political and institutional context.The article suggests that the ‘autonomy’ and ‘political neutrality’ may not necess-arily be attributes of a post-Soviet civil society, and that the boundaries betweenthe civic and political can often be unclear.
In a very different country context Stevens also addresses the problem of civilsociety autonomy vis-a-vis the state. Stevens suggests that the synergetic relationsbetween local mahalla committees and internationally supported NGOs inUzbekistan have improved the capacity of mahallas and resulted in positive deve-lopment outcomes. Thus by providing important financial and organisationalinputs, NGOs enabled mahallas to mobilise collective action and solve some ofthe immediate priority needs of their communities. Stevens argues that in orderto ‘scale up synergy’ at a national level and to make ‘small successes’ sustainable,the state should play a key role in reaching out to the civic sphere.
Civil society and international power relations
All of the articles in this volume highlight the importance of international donorsin shaping civil societies in the CASC region. Donor support is manifested in thecreation of NGOs and other formal associations, and in influencing communalforms of civil society. The involvement of external agents in the region hasserious implications for social, economic and political processes in the CASCsocieties. Depending on how specific projects and programmes are conceptualisedand implemented, these projects and programmes can strengthen relations of trustand solidarity at the local level, but they can also neglect local needs and priorities,induce social divisions and reinforce existing inequalities.
There has been increasing donor attention towards utilising existing social struc-tures in promoting civil society. In Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, donors
B. BABAJANIAN, S. FREIZER AND D. STEVENS
220
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:54
11
Oct
ober
201
4
attempt to capitalise on the communal forms of civil society, tapping into existingsocial structures—through the use of ashar and local leaders—aksakals. InArmenia, the traditional community institutions are less pronounced andexternally visible, and many development practitioners and scholars still believethat there is little community activism there. As a result, community based interven-tions do not explicitly utilise the existing social networks and communal insti-tutions. Yet the Central Asian cases suggest that channelling resources throughexisting informal structures and institutions can enhance the effectiveness ofpolicies and programmes. Thus in Tajikistan, the village organisations (VOs)were created along the lines of traditional village groups and integrated traditionalconcepts of self-help, volunteerism and community mobilisation. Freizer maintainsthat because of such embeddedness in local communities, local people maintain astrong sense of ownership over them. Having gained the trust and respect of localresidents, the VOs are capable of effectively allocating and sharing local resources,and facilitating social cohesion. Similarly, Earle argues that the use of local socialstructures can have a positive impact on levels of community mobilisation. Thususing ashar to improve community infrastructure in Kyrgyzstan encouragedcommunities to contribute labour and resources in other initiatives, to implementfurther projects and initiatives and apply for more funding. At the same time,utilising the existing institutions may undermine the cultural and social base ofthese institutions. For example, Stevens argues that the formalisation of traditionalmahallas in Uzbekistan may run the risk of undermining their legitimacy asautonomous of the government.
The articles provide evidence that international donors’ inadequate conceptual-isation of the nature of local politics and power relations can negatively impactcommunity driven projects. Thus community driven development is oftenconceived as a de-politicised project, and it often ignores the important politicaland institutional constraints on the civic sphere. It assumes that through bottom-up community based development projects civic participation and local self-reliance can be promoted. The design and implementation mode of manycommunity-based programmes do not address intrinsic structural inequalitiesand institutional constraints of post-Soviet societies. Earle and Petric, forexample, suggest that giving resources and decision-making authority to localleaders in Kyrgyzstan resulted in the capture of benefits by the powerful leadersand reinforced social inequalities. Support for local leaders must be done inparallel with social mobilisation of ordinary community members and efforts toensure community-wide awareness about and inclusion in development activities
The power of donors in shaping civil society at the local level may create depen-dence of the domestic public arena upon global interests. Petric suggests that thecivic sphere in Kyrgyzstan is largely driven by Western donors. Many local NGOsdo not pursue issues of immediate priority for the local population but rather adjustto the donor’s agenda, which may not necessarily be based on locally definedneeds and priorities. Donors can also bolster liberal civil society at the level ofnational politics. Broers shows that the foreign support for Georgian NGOs wascrucial in toppling the Shevardnadze regime. The implication of this can be
INTRODUCTION
221
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:54
11
Oct
ober
201
4
quite disturbing, as it shows the vulnerability of the local public arena and nationalgovernments to the political agenda of the West.
Using the case of Kyrgyzstan, Earle argues there is a clear mismatch betweenthe neo-liberal and communal forms of civil society advocated by the samedonors, as both forms are not mutually reinforcing and complimentary. Earlesuggests that donor projects that promote the neo-liberal forms of civil societyare linked with the macro structures, as they are orientated towards achievingpolitical goals, such as advocating for human rights, promoting democraticvalues and ensuring participation of citizens in public debate. At the same time,the communal forms of civil society are not necessarily driven by the goals ofempowerment and democratic institution building. Thus poorly defined objectivesand design features of donor programmes and policies may contribute to a greaterdivide between the two forms of civil society.
At the same time, donor driven neo-liberal NGOs are not necessarily detachedfrom the local reality and serving externally defined priorities. Moreover, thoroughconceptualisation and implementation of development programmes and policiescan contribute to the convergence of both forms of civil society. Thus Freizershows how the Ghamkhori NGO established by a foreign activist in Tajikistanbecame a catalyst for strengthening local solidarities and serving the genuineneeds and priorities of local people. This case demonstrates the importance ofdefining culturally appropriate objectives, using local social structures andpaying closer attention to the voice of motivated local professionals in themanagement of neo-liberal NGOs.
The articles in this volume raise the important question about the effectivenessof donor programmes and the sustainability of social and institutional structuresthey support. They also point to a possible danger of a ‘boomerang effect’ ofdonor programmes. Thus the lack of tangible ‘results on the ground’ and someof the negative effects of civil society strengthening programmes can createresentment and apathy of people and undermine the concept of civil society andappreciation of democratic values in the eyes of citizens.
Concluding remarks
The contributions to this edition only begin to address the deficit in our under-standing of the evolving nature of societies in CASC, and the extent to whichthe concept of civil society can be usefully applied. A number of the contributorsoutline areas of future research, and there is a need for further exploration of thecomplexities of civil societies in the region.
As this edition demonstrates, a better understanding of civil society in theCASC region and the refinement of the concept of civil society has not only anacademic but also a practical relevance. Strengthening the bridge between empiri-cal research and policy design and implementation is of primary importance.Scholars of civil society have an important responsibility not only to investigateand theorise but also to influence the course of development policies andprogrammes.
B. BABAJANIAN, S. FREIZER AND D. STEVENS
222
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:54
11
Oct
ober
201
4
Notes and references
1. Central Asia Survey covers those territories and predominantly Muslim Irano-Turkic populations fromwestern China to western Anatolia that share a common historical, ethnic, cultural and linguistic heritageand in some cases communist experience. These are the republics of former Soviet Central Asia, Azerbaijan,Crimea, and the Muslim Ibero-Caucasian and Turkic peoples of the North Caucasus, Middle Volga and Uralswhose territories are included in the Russian Federation. Also covered are Chinese Xinjiang, Afghanistan,Iran, Turkey, Armenia and Georgia. Herewith in this edition we will nevertheless be concentrating on theseven countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus.
2. Karen Dawisha and Bruce Parrott, eds, Conflict, Cleavage and Change in Central Asia and the Caucasus(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
3. Neil MacFarlane, Western Engagement in the Caucasus and Central Asia (London: The Royal Institute ofInternational Affairs, 1999) pp 65–67; Fiona Adamson, ‘International democracy assistance in Uzbekistanand Kyrgyzstan: building civil society from the outside?’, in Sarah Mendelson and John Glenn, eds, ThePower and Limits of NGOs (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002); Erica Weinthal and PaulineJones Luong, ‘Environmental NGOs in Kazakhstan: democratic goals and nondemocratic outcomes’, inSarah Mendelson and John Glenn, eds, The Power and Limits of NGOs (New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 2002).
4. World Bank, The Europe and Central Asia CDD Strategy: Scaling Up Community-Driven Development inEurope and Central Asia (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2000); World Bank, Up-Scaling CDD: Strategy forCentral Asia (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2001); World Bank, The Context for Community DrivenDevelopment in Central Asia: Local Institutions and Social Capital in Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan andUzbekistan (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2002); Stan Peabody, Kathleen Kuehnast and Sheetal Rana,Critical Issues for Scaling Up Community Driven Development in Central Asia (Washington, DC: WorldBank, 2003).
5. For example civil society is left unmentioned in Robert Ebel and Rajan Menon, eds, Energy and Conflict inCentral Asia and the Caucasus (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000); Gary Bertsch et al., eds,Security and Foreign Policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia (New York: Routledge, 2000);Olga Oliker and Thomas Szayna, eds, Faultlines of Conflict: in Central Asia and the South Caucasus(Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 2003); Farian Sabahi and Daniel Warner, eds, The OSCE and the Multiple Chal-lenges of Transition: The Caucasus and Central Asia (Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate, 2004).
6. The first comprehensive book on the subject was undoubtedly Holt Ruffin and Daniel Waugh, eds, CivilSociety in Central Asia (London: Center for Civil Society International; The Central Asia-Caucasus Instituteat Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, John Hopkins University, in association with Universityof Washington Press, 1999).
7. Marlies Glasius, David Lewis and Hakan Seckinelgin, eds, Exploring Civil Society: Political and CulturalContexts (Oxford: Routledge, 2004).
8. Sabine Freizer, ‘Central Asian fragmented civil society: communal and neoliberal forms in Tajikistan andUzbekistan’, in Marlies Glasius, David Lewis and Hakan Seckinelgin, eds, Exploring Civil Society: Politicaland Cultural Contexts (London: Routledge, 2004), pp 130–141.
9. Adam Michnik, ‘The Rebirth of Civil Society’, Public lecture presented at the LSE on 20 October, 1999.10. See generally John Keane, Civil Society: Old Images, New Visions (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998); Adam
Seligman, ‘Civil society as idea and ideal’, in S. Chambers and W. Kymlicka, eds, Alternative Conceptions ofCivil Society (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992); Andrew Arato and Jean Cohen, Civil Societyand Political Theory (Boston, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1992).
11. Larry Diamond, Marc F. Plattner, Yun-han Chu and Hung-mao Tien, eds, Consolidating the Third WaveDemocracies (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1997), p xxxi.
12. John Keane, Civil Society and the State (London: Verso, 1988), p 36.13. Ernest Gellner, ‘The importance of being modular’, in John Hall, ed, Civil Society: Theory, History,
Comparison (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995), p 42.14. This is what helps differentiate neo-liberal civil society from what others have preferred to call liberal civil
society. For while liberal perspectives on civil society are primarily concerned with increasing the account-ability and responsiveness of state institutions, neo-liberal ones want to minimise the role of the state inpolitical and economic spheres. See Glasius et al., op cit, Ref 7, p 6.
15. Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner, eds, The Global Resurgence of Democracy, 2nd edn (Baltimore, MD:John Hopkins University Press, 1996).
16. Leslie Salamon and Helmut Anheier, ‘Social origins of civil society: explaining in the not for profit sectorcross nationally’, Voluntas, Vol 9, No 3, 1996, 213–248.
17. Chris Hann, ‘In the church of civil society’, in Glasius, op cit, Ref 7, pp 44–49; Jude Howell and JennyPearce, Civil Society and Development: A Critical Exploration (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2002),
INTRODUCTION
223
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:54
11
Oct
ober
201
4
pp 199–203; Shirin Akiner, ‘Prospects for civil society in Tajikistan’, in A. Sajoo, ed, Civil Society in theMuslim World: Contemporary Perspectives (London: I.B. Tauris, 2002), pp 149–193; Olivier Roy,‘Soviet Legacies and Western aid imperatives in the New Central Asia’, in A. Sajoo, ed, Civil Society inthe Muslim World: Contemporary Perspectives (London: I.B. Tauris, 2002), pp 123–148.
18. Dawisha and Parott, op cit, Ref 2.19. Such as the Popular Front in Azerbaijan; the Round Table in Georgia; Erk and Birlik in Uzbekistan, and
Rastokhez, which became closely united with the Democratic Party in Tajikistan.20. This is Alisher Ilkhamov’s argument in this volume. In addition, see Vladimir Shlapentokh, Public and
Private Life of the Soviet People Changing Values in Post-Stalin Russia (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1989), p 10; Touraj Atabaki, ‘The impediments to the development of civil societies’, in TourajAtabaki and John O’Kane, eds, Post Soviet Central Asia (London: Tauris, 1998), p 41; Patricia Carley,‘The legacy of the Soviet political system and the prospects for developing civil society in Central Asia’,in Vladimir Tismaneanu, ed, Political Culture and Civil Society in Russia and the New States of Eurasia(New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1995); Steven Fish, ‘Russia’s fourth transition’, in Larry Diamond andMichael Plattner, eds, The Global Resurgence of Democracy, 2nd edn (Baltimore, MD: John HopkinsUniversity Press, 1996), pp 264–267; Roger Kangas, ‘State building and civil society in Central Asia’, inVladimir Tismaneanu, ed, Political Culture and Civil Society in Russia and the New States of Eurasia(New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1995), p 274; Richard Rose, ‘Post-communism and the problem of trust’, inLarry Diamond and Michael Plattner, eds, The Global Resurgence of Democracy, 2nd edn (Baltimore,MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1996), pp 253–255.
21. See generally Mustapha Kamel al-Sayyid, ‘The concept of civil society in the Arab World’, in PoliticalLiberalization and Democratization in the Arab World (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1995);Abdou Filali-Ansary, ‘State, society and creed: reflections on the Maghreb’, in Civil Society in theMuslim World: Contemporary Perspectives (London: I.B. Tauris, 2002); Hasan Hanafi, ‘Alternative con-ceptions of civil society: a reflective Islamic approach’, in C. Hann and E. Dunn, eds, Alternative Con-ceptions of Civil Society (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002); Masoud Kamali,Revolutionary Iran: Civil Society and State in the Modernization Process (Ashgate: Aldershot, 1998);Muhammad Khatami, Islam, Dialogue and Civil Society (Canberra: Center for Arab and Islamic Studies,Austalian National University, 2000); A. Sajoo, ed, Civil Society in the Muslim World: ContemporaryPerspectives (London: I.B. Tauris, 2002).
22. Chris Hann and Elizabeth Dunn, eds, Civil Society: Challenging Western Models (London: Routledge, 1996),pp 14, 22.
23. Ibid.24. Ashutosh Varshney, Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2002), p 46.25. Paul Dekker and Andries van den Broek, ‘Civil society in comparative perspective: involvement in voluntary
associations in North America and Western Europe’, Voluntas, Vol 9, No 1, 1998, p 13.26. Alison Van Rooy, ed, Civil Society and the Aid Industry (London: Earthscan, 2000).27. On mahallas, in addition to the chapters herewith and texts referenced, see Marianne Kamp, ‘Between
women and the state: Mahalla committees and social welfare in Uzbekistan’, in Pauline Jones Luong, ed,The Transformation of Central Asia: States and Societies from Soviet Rule to Independence (Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press, 2004).
28. David Gzirishvili, Final Report on Situation Analysis of CBOs in Georgia (Tbilisi: Georgia, 2003).29. ‘Box 1.5. Al Quaeda’, in Marlies Glasius, Mary Kaldor and Helmut Anheier, eds, Global Civil Society 2002
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp 24–26.30. Deniz Kandiyoti, ‘Post Soviet institutional design and rural livelihoods in Uzbekistan’, mimeo, London,
2004, p 6.31. This largely coincides with the publication of: Helmut Anheier, Marlies Glasius and Mary Kaldor, eds,
Global Civil Society 2001 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). Other publications include: LouisKriesberg, ‘Social movements and global transformation’, in Jackie Smith, Charles Chatfield andRon Pagnucco, eds, Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics (New York: Syracuse UniversityPress, 1997); Alejandro Colas, International Civil Society (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002); John Clark, ed,Globalizing Civic Engagement: Civil Society and Transnational Action (London: Earthscan, 2003); MaryKaldor, Global Civil Society: An Answer to War (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003); Helmut Anheier,Marlies Glasius and Mary Kaldor, eds, Global Civil Society 2004/5 (London: Sage, 2005).
32. Helmut Anheier, Marlies Glasius and Mary Kaldor, eds, Global Civil Society 2004/5 (London: Sage, 2005),p v.
B. BABAJANIAN, S. FREIZER AND D. STEVENS
224
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:54
11
Oct
ober
201
4