Bad Civil Society

Under the State's Thumb: Results from an Empirical Survey of Civic Organizations in Vietnam

“…Early on, the so-called "dark sides" of COs were referred to and their rather more negative role in supporting democratization pointed out. Edwards and Foley (1996), Chambers and Kopstein (2001), Lauth (2003), and Roth (2004), for example, carried out critical studies focusing on the tendency towards violence, corruption, intolerance, and other deficits of "civil ethos" within civil societies and COs (Kern et al 2010: 3). Wischermann (2013a, b) has analyzed COs in Vietnam and described the widespread development of intra-organizational authoritarianism in all types of organizations in the country -something that makes those organizations, at least in principle, supporters of the Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP) and the state it rules.…”

Essay: Rethinking Global Civil Society and the Public Sphere in the Age of Pro-democracy Movements

“…Problems such as lack of transparency and plurality, outlined by Chandhoke, Anderson and Rief, remind us of the critical nature of the civil society concept. As Chambers and Kopstein have examined in detail, civil society responds to a number of normative (ideal) principles that make it much more than merely non-State actors; conversely, terrorist or xenophobic groups would be included in this category, without distinguishing between bad and good civil society actors (Chambers & Kopstein, 2001; see also Keane, 1998;García Marzá, 2008). Even though some recent studies draw different conclusions about Chandhoke's criticisms of the lack of transparency in relation to global civil society (Piewitt, Rodekamp & Steffek, 2010), her works reminds us of the importance of civil society actors, in their institutional dimension, meeting certain minimum principles of transparency, openness, democracy, etc.…”

A Qualidade do Capital Social com Stakeholders: Fator de Desenvolvimento Espúrio ou Sustentável

“…Porém, pressupõem-se que as ideias compartilhadas e o conteúdo transacionado entre os membros de uma organização criminosa em comparação com uma organização filantrópica são consideravelmente diferentes, atribuindo diferentes qualidades ao capital social constituído por grupos homogêneos. O conteúdo ideológico e os principais valores compartilhados entre os membros de um grupo social indicam a qualidade do capital social constituído por eles (Chambers & Kopstein, 2001). …”

“…Por meio de uma análise na dimensão estrutural, Ballet (2005) (Chambers & Kopstein, 2001). Esses propósitos entre os grupos sociais são incontáveis e podem reforçar qualquer ação, por exemplo: o ódio racial, a filantropia, a degradação do meio ambiente ou sua conservação.…”