Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe

ESS 2008:CEC Participation in civil actions/projects [big cities, last 12 months]
1-at least once in 6m. 2- less then once in 6m. 3- never

ESS 2008:CEC Participation in ad hoc collective actions in residential environments [big cities, last 12 months]
1-at least once in 6m. 2- less then once in 6m. 3- never

ESS2008: trade union membership in CEC big cities [actual, past]

ESS2008: party memberships in CEC big cities [actual]

Civil Society in Communism: Explanations
Fuzzy concept of the post-68 East European anti-authoritarian Left- = Volk, people
It was real, but the label was strongly modified by „semipermeability” of the private/public borders
Temporary, or even ad hoc mobilization in the public space . Overgeneralization of the 1980-81 Solidarnosc experience
It existed as an answer to the strong state. The weak post-comm.state dismantled it.
„anti-politics”programs- dissident’s self-defence in authoritarian environments- entrance ticket to future political class

DIVERSITY OF NATIONAL CIVIL REGIMES OF POST-COMMUNISM
Explanatory factors:
Style of fragmentalization/diversity in society
Ideologies of government spending and social control
Grassroots traditions of conflict and confrontation in the state/society relationship

BIFURCATION OF STRATEGIES
Transnational [global and European]
„Orange” national regimes
Questions:
Is the combination of A. and B. possible, and if yes, then with which typology?
Strong state’s reconstruction: impact on civil revival?

IDEOLOGICAL PROFILS OF „NATIONAL” AND „EUROPEAN” CIVIL SOCIETY REGIMES
key dimensions:
-government social welfare spending
-scale of the non-profit sector
Traditional national regimes:
a.authoritarian-distributive- overregulates social order+protesting civil society
b.Liberal- civil society=alternative to low government social spending
c.Corporatist= the state acts in common with non-profits
d.Social democratic- extensive state+advocacy of the civil society
New European[?] regimes:
a.Corporatist-social-democratic mosaic welfare regimes
b.Flexicurity in Social Economy –promotion of social risk taking

„EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT FAILURE”
Explanatory theories for Transeuropean civil networks:
Interdependence theory- collaboration with Transeuropean governance- generated from above legitimation for bureacratic actions
Development perspective- pioneer function in the most uncertain terrains of governance
European government failure- different public goods interpretations + cultural heterogeneity of the population

LIMITS OF THE EUROPEAN VOLUNTEERISM
BENEFICIARIES
-varieties of public+ social benefit
-distributive impacts
-effects on public policy
NICHE ISSUES- where is the NGO niche in the European governance structures
REVENUE DEPENDENCY- growing reliance on service fees, government contracts, overseas grants
ADVOCACY IN BRUSSELS- differences of Left-Right landscapes

NEO-GRAMSCIAN PERSPECTIVES ON THE TRANSEUROPEAN CIVIL SOCIETY
Minimum spontaneity + strong presence of leadership & movement from below
European civil socity is integrally connected to the „Transeuropean state”
But there is public space for emergence of counter-hegemonic and emancipatory forces
„WAR OF POSITION” instead of „WAR OF MANOEUVRE”

POST-SOVIET CIVIC IDEOLOGIES
Actors- new urban professional class
Strategies of symbolic control in public space
Stabilization of elite role sets via post-modern cultural scene and not through institutions.
Maximalist movements- occupation of politics and not only co-habitation with it [non-traditional civil movements with „security considerations” of the new middle class

Risk processing strategies of the „orange” middle class

SYMBOLIC WORK IN „ORANGE” TRANSFORMATIONS
a.Introduce a radical change in the system of signification of the social world
b.Represent this change as legitimate
c.Claim that authors are masters of social change
d.Create new patron-clientele relationships
e.Introduce a new common speech community of modernizers as an elite group into the public space

DISCOURSE ON EXPERIMENTAL REVOLUTIONARY CULTURE
Labeling [verbal occupation] is more important as real actions
Instread of past-oriented message- messages on projected dependencies
Visions on leapfrogging modernization
Centrality of the Sollen, revolt against the Sein
Ignorance of tools and institution building, sacralization of shortcuts in development

Perspectives I: nationalist/populistic integration
Nationalist mobilization
Scapegoat building
Self-simulation as victims
Exlusion og marginals and minorities
LOWER MIDDLE CLASS, AS CARRIER OF THE NATION