Civil Society Is Good For Democracy Analysis

The works of Tocqueville, Putnam, Berman, and Tsai highlight that neither the claim “civil society is good for democracy” nor “civil society is bad for democracy” is completely accurate. However, this raises a question: under what conditions does civil society strengthen democracy? I highlight two factors: first, to what extent do civil society groups allow for equal access to power?; second, do associations create meaningful obligations to others? In other words, the nature of associations influences their political implications. The meaning of the “civil society” has changed over time (Hodgkinson & Foley, 2003), and the authors engage the topic in different ways. Tocqueville discusses the voluntary associations of citizens, which may be
In his analysis of the U.S., he highlights the importance of associations in combating two potentially problematic features of democracy: individualism and tyranny of the majority (although he still feared the latter). Political associations develop when a lack of administrative centralization allows for sufficient local freedom; people need to work together to get things done (97, 187). This “feebleness” of any given individual also promotes the formation of a diversity of non-political associations for even the smallest tasks. Only together can individuals have enough power to act
However, both Tocqueville and Putnam are perhaps a bit too optimistic about civil society. Berman asks the important question: under what conditions is this optimism warranted? Her main conclusion is that the weak institutional context of Weimar Germany was the reason that civil society produced harmful effects (402). However, she also notes the growing class divisions and the class-based rise of associational life (414-419). In Berman’s narrative, the middle-class unequally had the power to mobilize and put the Nazi party into control