Civil society

Civil society- this is the sphere of self-manifestation of free citizens and voluntarily formed associations and organizations, independent of direct interference and arbitrary regulation by state power. According to the classical scheme of D. Easton, civil society acts as a filter of the demands and support of society to the political system. A developed civil society is the most important prerequisite for building a state of law and its equal partner. The Russian Constitution of 1993 does not use the term "civil society", and of all the institutions of civil society, only the bar is mentioned in federal legislation.

Civil society is one of the phenomena of modern society, a set of social formations (groups, collectives) united by specific interests (economic, ethnic, cultural, and so on) that are implemented outside the sphere of state activity and allow controlling the actions of the state machine.

Civil society is a concept that denotes the totality of non-political relations in society: economic, social, moral, religious, national and others.

Civil society can also be defined as a set of social relations outside the framework of power-state structures, but not outside the framework of the state as such.

Signs of civil society

• The presence in society of free owners of the means of production;
• Developed democracy;
• Legal protection of citizens;
• A certain level of civic culture;
• the most complete provision of human rights and freedoms;
• self-management;
• competition in the formation of their structures and individual groups of persons;
• free-forming public opinion and pluralism;
• legitimacy.

The concept of civil society

In the social sciences, the following main approaches to defining the essence of civil society are distinguished: as opposition to anarchy; as opposed to the church; as a complex of social relations opposed to the state; as a concrete phenomenon of Western civilization. The history of the development of its concept in Western social and political thought testifies to the difficulties of the formation of civil society.

T. Hobbes, English philosopher:

Civil society is a union of individuals, a collective in which all its members acquire the highest human qualities. The state prevails over civil society.

J. Locke, English philosopher:

Civil society is a political society, that is, a public sphere in which the state has its own interests.

C. Montesquieu, French philosopher:

Civil society is a society of enmity of people with each other, which, in order to stop it, is transformed into a state.

T. Payne, American educator:

Civil society is a blessing, and the state is a necessary evil. The more perfect civil society, the less it needs regulation by the state.

G. Hegel, German philosopher:

Civil society is a sphere for the realization of especially private goals and interests of an individual. There is no true freedom in civil society, since there is always a contradiction between private interests and power, which is universal in nature.

K. Marx, F. Engels, German economists and sociologists:

Civil society is the sphere of material, economic life and activity of people. It is it that is primary in relation to the state, civil life as the sum

2.1. Structure and basic elements.

Modern civil society has the following structure:

· 1. Voluntarily formed primary communities of people (family, cooperation, association, economic corporations, public organizations, professional, creative, sports, ethnic, confessional and other associations).

· 2. The totality of non-state non-political relations in society: economic, social, family, spiritual, moral, religious and others: this is the production and private life of people, their customs, traditions, mores.

· 3. The sphere of self-manifestation of free individuals and their organizations, protected by laws from direct interference in it by the state authorities.

Thus, the structure of civil society in developed countries is a wide network of public relations, various voluntary organizations of citizens, their associations, lobbying and other groups, municipal communes, charitable foundations, interest clubs, creative, cooperative associations, consumer, sports societies, public - political, religious and other organizations and unions. All of them express the most diverse social interests in all spheres of society.

· A concrete analysis of the main elements of civil society follows from this.

· Firstly, the economic organization of civil society is a society of civilized market relations. The market as a kind of "component" of economic freedom is impossible without the development of independent entrepreneurial activity aimed at systematic profit.

· The second structural element of civil society is its social organization. In market conditions, it is very complex, which primarily reflects the differences between individual social groups. Three main groups of the population of civil society can be distinguished: employees, entrepreneurs and disabled citizens. Ensuring a balanced balance of economic interests and material possibilities of these groups is an important direction of social policy.

· Employees need to create economic, social and legal conditions for effective work, fair pay for their work, broad participation in profits.

· With regard to entrepreneurs, measures should be taken to guarantee them the freedom of all forms of economic activity, to stimulate their investment in the development of efficient, profitable production of goods and services. As for disabled citizens, they should be provided with targeted social protection, social security and service standards should be defined that will allow them to maintain an acceptable standard of living.

· The third structural element of civil society is its socio-political organization. It cannot be identified with the state-political organization, with the state management of society. On the contrary, the real democracy of civil society as the basis for ensuring the real freedom of the individual becomes possible precisely when society, acquiring the qualities of civil, legal, develops its own, non-state socio-political mechanisms of self-regulation and self-organization. In accordance with this, the so-called political institutionalization of civil society takes place, that is, society organizes itself with the help of such institutions as political parties, mass movements, trade unions, women's, veterans', youth, religious organizations, voluntary societies, creative unions, fraternities, foundations, associations and other voluntary associations of citizens created on the basis of their common political, professional, cultural and other interests. An important constitutional basis for the political institutionalization of civil society is the principle of political and ideological pluralism, a multi-party system. Civil society is alien to political and ideological monopoly, which suppresses dissent and does not allow any other ideology, except for the official, state, no other party except the ruling one - the “party of power”. An important condition for ensuring political and ideological pluralism, and, consequently, the institutionalization of civil society, is the freedom to organize and operate the media.

· This, however, does not mean the identity of individual freedom and the legal status of a citizen. Freedom, as already noted, has such a property as normativity. From this it follows, on the one hand, that a person acquires freedom as a result of his ability to obey its normative requirements (obligatory rules of conduct). On the other hand, this means that the external form of the existence of individual freedom is social norms that determine the measure, the permissible boundaries of freedom. And only in the most important areas, which have an increased significance for society or for the individual himself, the measure of freedom is determined and normalized by the state itself. This is done with the help of legal norms, laws. Laws, if they are of a legal nature, are in this respect, according to Marx, "the bible of freedom." The main legal means of securing, recognizing by the state the achieved freedom of the individual is the constitution.

· At the same time, the rights and freedoms themselves, including constitutional ones, on the one hand, are determined by the level of development of civil society, the maturity of its economic, social, socio-political organization; after all, civil society is a social environment where most of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are realized. On the other hand, the development and deepening of the most important characteristics of civil society as a legal, democratic society, as a society of genuine freedom and social justice largely depend on the fullness of the rights and freedoms of a person and citizen, the degree of their guarantee, the sequence of implementation. In this regard, human and civil rights are an instrument for the self-development of civil society, its self-organization. This dual relationship finds its consolidation at the state-legal, legal level, when the Constitution and other laws establish the responsibility not only of a citizen to the state, but also of the state to the individual.

Real freedom of the individual becomes possible in a society of genuine democracy, where not the state, but political power dominates society and its members, but society has unconditional primacy in relation to the state. The transition to such a society is a historically long process, and it is associated with the formation of a civil society.

What is "civil society?" What are its internal mechanisms that allow the development of economic, socio-cultural, political relations in the regime of democracy, respect for the human person, guaranteeing his rights and freedoms?

To answer this question, it is necessary, first of all, to pay attention to the fact that between the concept of "civil society" and the concept of "society" of the same order, there is not only an obvious relationship, but also very significant differences. Society as a set of relations between people becomes civil only at a certain stage of its development - maturity, under certain conditions. In this regard, behind the adjective "civilian", despite some of its vagueness, there is a very specific and very capacious content. The category of civil society reflects the new qualitative state of society, based on the developed forms of its self-organization and self-regulation, on the optimal combination of public (state-public) and private (individual-personal) interests, with the latter determining the importance and with unconditional recognition as the highest value of such a society of a person , his rights and freedoms. Therefore, civil society is opposed not just by a “non-civilian” society, that is, a society that does not have the qualities of a civil society, but by a society of violence, suppression of the individual, state total control over the public and private lives of its members.

The term "civil society" itself is used in both broad and narrow senses. In a broad sense, civil society includes all the part of society that is not directly covered by the state, its structures, i.e. something that the state "does not reach the hands of". It arises and changes in the course of natural-historical development as an autonomous sphere, directly independent of the state. Civil society in a broad sense is compatible not only with democracy, but also with authoritarianism, and only totalitarianism means its complete, and more often partial absorption by political power.

Civil society in a narrow, intrinsic sense is inextricably linked with the rule of law, they do not exist without each other. Civil society is a variety of relationships not mediated by the state of free and equal individuals in a market and democratic legal statehood. It is a sphere of free play of private interests and individualism. Civil society is a product of the bourgeois era and is formed mainly from below, spontaneously, as a result of the emancipation of individuals, their transformation from subjects of the state into free citizens of proprietors who have a sense of personal dignity and are ready to take on economic and political responsibility.

Civil society has a complex structure, including economic, economic, family-related, ethnic, religious and legal relations, morality, as well as political relations not mediated by the state between individuals as primary subjects of power, parties, interest groups, etc. In civil society, unlike state structures, not vertical (subordination), but horizontal ties prevail - relations of competition and solidarity between legally free and equal partners.

The historical process of the formation of civil society thus characterizes the complex path of mankind's ascent from various forms of oppression, political dictate and state totalitarianism to real democracy in social relations, to real freedom of the individual. It is no coincidence that the first scientific concepts of civil society that arose in the 18th - early 19th centuries paid attention to such characteristics as the presence of a certain sphere of social (primarily property, market and economic), family, moral, ethical, religious relations, relatively independent from the state. In this regard, the initial understanding of civil society was built, in essence, on the opposition of the sphere of public and private interests: if the state organization of society is the embodiment of the former, then the latter should receive their implementation in an independent, autonomous in relation to the state civil, i.e. private sphere people's lives. By itself, the posing of the question of civil society as a certain sphere of non-political, private life of citizens, independent of state power, historically had, of course, progressive significance. It played an important role in establishing a new, bourgeois constitutional system based on the principles of the inviolability of sacred private property, non-interference of the state in the sphere of free enterprise, the elements of market competition, as well as in the sphere of personal, family life of members of civil society. The formation of a bourgeois society meant the transformation of commodity relations into a universal way of social relations of individuals, when the feudal estates and their state-legal privileges were replaced by the formal legal equality of citizens. “This completed the process of separating political life from civil society”(K. Marx). As a result, civil society also acquired an independent existence, independent of political power.

The concept of "civil society" appeared in modern times in the works of T. Hobbes, J. Locke, C. Montesquieu and others.

The concept of civil society in the works of these thinkers was based on the ideas of natural law and the social contract. From the point of view of these thinkers, man, as a rational being, strives for freedom. He wants to dispose of his personality, to realize himself as the owner of his life rights. The social contract, the association of people into society, assumed both the transfer of their rights to society (the state), and the restriction of state power itself in the interests of realizing the freedom of citizens. Civil society is the result of a contract, an agreement that implies a relationship of reciprocity, voluntariness between the state and the citizen. According to Locke, the natural community of people turns into civil society when "when any number of people are so united into one society that each of them renounces his executive power, inherent in him by the law of nature, and transfers it to society."

At the same time, the thinkers of the New Age identified not every state with civil society, but only one that expresses the interests of citizens. Accounting for these interests, creating conditions for their free implementation are an indispensable condition for the effective development of society. The emphasis on the protection of private interests was characteristic of the work of the English economist A. Smith. The “system of natural freedom” developed by A. Smith proved the need to eliminate state interference in private entrepreneurship, to provide complete freedom for the development of private initiative, the “unnaturalness” of any state control of the individual economic freedom of citizens, which created the necessary conditions for the unlimited development of commodity-money market relations. Thus, a solid economic foundation was laid for the classical model of an emerging civil society, the main requirements of which were private property, a market economy, and the economic independence of people.

Special merit in developing the concept of civil society in its interdependence with the state belongs to Hegel. Based on the systematization of the entire heritage of French, Anglo-Saxon and German social and political thought, Hegel came to the conclusion that civil society is a special stage in the dialectical movement from the family to the state in the process of a long and complex historical transformation from the Middle Ages to the New Age. “Civil society,” he wrote, “is a differentiation that appears between the family and the state, although the development of civil society comes later than the development of the state.”

According to Hegel, the social life characteristic of civil society is radically different from the ethical world of the family and the public life of the state. Civil society includes a market economy, social classes, corporations, institutions whose task is to ensure the viability of society and the implementation of civil law. Civil society is a complex of individuals, classes, groups and institutions whose interaction is regulated by civil law and which, as such, are not directly dependent on the political state itself.

Thus, Hegel came to the conclusion that there is a sphere not only of “general” and political interests, but also of private, more precisely, private property interests. He defined this area as the area of ​​"civil society".

As Hegel noted, unlike the family, the many components of civil society are often disparate, unstable and subject to serious conflicts. It is like a turbulent battlefield where some private interests clash with other private interests. Moreover, the excessive development of some elements of civil society can lead to the suppression of its other elements. Therefore, civil society cannot remain "civilian" until it is politically governed under the supervision of the state. Only the supreme public authority - the constitutional state - can effectively cope with its injustices and synthesize specific interests into a universal political community. From this position, Hegel criticizes the contemporary theory of natural law for confusing civil society and the state.

K. Marx has a special approach to the problem of civil society. K. Marx significantly simplified the complex structure of the Hegelian model of civil society. For him, civil society is the form in which the bourgeois state, based on private property, has arisen and is functioning. In such a society, “none of the so-called human rights goes beyond the limits of an egoistic person, a person as a member of civil society, i.e., as an individual who withdraws into himself, into his own private interest and private arbitrariness and separates himself from the social whole.”

Indeed, the idea of ​​civil society arose and developed in connection with the emergence and development of bourgeois relations. It was caused by the need to use theoretical means to “pave the way” for the bourgeois social system, which is inconceivable without the freedom of a person - a commodity producer.

However, as the events of the 20th century showed, the idea of ​​civil society not only has not become outdated, but, on the contrary, has become even more relevant. It was in the 20th century that the danger of total enslavement of the individual appeared. The source of this danger is the overgrown power of political and state structures, their expansionist claims, which extend not only to economic relations, but also to all other spheres of human activity, including the field of spiritual culture. The aggressiveness of these structures was most clearly manifested in the lives of people in those countries where totalitarian regimes dominated, the administrative-command order, where there was and still is an authoritarian style of relations between the holders of power and ordinary citizens. Therefore, in the 20th century, the development of the concept of civil society took place mainly under the banner of criticism of totalitarian regimes, protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual. In modern political theories, the idea of ​​civil society has been supplemented by the idea of ​​democracy based on political pluralism, general consensus and partnership of competing social groups. The theory of pluralism has become widespread, according to which the main task of a modern democratic society is to achieve a general civil consensus by taking into account and coordinating the many interests of various groups of the population, removing or mitigating contradictions, and seeking civil consent aimed at integrating society.

For the modern understanding of civil society, it is not enough to understand it only from the standpoint of its opposition to state power and, accordingly, to the sphere of realization of public interests. The main thing in the modern, general democratic concept of civil society should be the definition of its own qualitative characteristics of those real social relations that, in systemic unity, can be defined as a modern civil society.

Civil society is not just some kind of voluminous concept that characterizes a certain sphere of social relations, the limits of which are determined only by the fact that this is “the area of ​​private interests” (Hegel). At the same time, "civil society" is not a legal, not a state-legal concept. The state cannot, is not in a position to “establish”, “decree”, “establish” by its laws the image of civil society that it desires.

Civil society is a natural stage, the highest form of self-realization of individuals. It matures with the economic and political development of the country, the growth of prosperity, culture and self-awareness of the people. As a product of the historical development of mankind, civil society appears in the period of breaking the rigid framework of the estate-feudal system, the beginning of the formation of the rule of law. A prerequisite for the emergence of civil society is the emergence of opportunities for all citizens of economic independence on the basis of private property. The most important prerequisite for the formation of civil society is the elimination of class privileges and the increase in the importance of the human person, a person who turns from a subject into a citizen with equal legal rights with all other citizens. The political foundation of civil society is the rule of law, which ensures the rights and freedoms of the individual. Under these conditions, a person's behavior is determined by his own interests and he is responsible for all actions. Such a person puts his own freedom above all else, while respecting the legitimate interests of other people.

Since a lot of power is concentrated in the hands of the state, it can turn into a huge living organism, reminiscent of the biblical monster Leviathan (something between a hippopotamus and a sea serpent). After all, with the help of officials, the army, the police, the courts, it is easy to suppress the interests of social groups, classes and the whole people. The history of the establishment of fascism in Germany and Italy is a vivid example of how the gluttonous, terrible Leviathan swallowed up society, how the stateization of its spheres took place, and general (total) control over the individual was exercised. These open terrorist dictatorships, as you know, have become the most dangerous opponents of social progress.

In this regard, civil society is an objectively established order of real social relations, which is based on the demands of justice and the measure of achieved freedom, the inadmissibility of arbitrariness and violence, recognized by society itself. This order is formed on the basis of the internal content of these relations, which turns them into a criterion of "justice and measure of freedom." Thus, the relations that make up civil society acquire the ability to carry certain requirements, normative models of behavior of citizens, officials, state bodies and the state as a whole in accordance with the ideals of justice and freedom.

This means that in the relations that make up civil society, the ideas of law are embodied as the highest justice, based on the inadmissibility of arbitrariness and guaranteeing an equal measure of freedom for all members of civil society. These are the normative (obligatory) requirements that develop and exist in civil society, regardless of their state recognition and enshrined in laws. But following them on the part of the state is a guarantee that the law in such a society and state acquires a legal character, that is, they not only embody the state will, but this will fully meets the requirements of justice and freedom.

The legal nature of civil society, its compliance with the highest requirements of justice and freedom is the first most important qualitative characteristic of such a society. This feature of civil society is embodied in the normative requirements inherent in the content of the categories of justice and freedom. Freedom and justice are in the conditions of civil society a social factor that regulates (regulates) the activities of people, teams and organizations. On the other hand, the person himself, as a member of civil society, acquires freedom as a result of his ability to obey the normative requirements of freedom as a recognized necessity.

The second qualitative characteristic of civil society is functional. It is connected with the fact that the basis for the functioning of such a society is not just the creation of a certain field (space) for the implementation of private interests, formally legally independent of state power, but the achievement of a high level of self-organization, self-regulation of society. The main functions of establishing joint activities of members of civil society in certain areas (business and other forms of economic activity, family relations, personal life, etc.) should be carried out in this case not with the help of tools and means of state power standing above society as a “special public authority”, and by society itself on a truly democratic, self-governing basis, and in the sphere of a market economy - primarily on the basis of economic self-regulation. In this regard, the new functional characteristic of civil society is not that the state "generously yields" a certain area of ​​private interests to society itself, leaving it at the mercy of the solution of certain problems. On the contrary, society itself, reaching a new level of its development, acquires the ability to independently, without the intervention of the state, to carry out the corresponding functions. And in this part, it is no longer the state that absorbs society, establishing total state forms of leadership and control over the development of relevant areas, but the reverse process of absorption of the state by civil society takes place: there arises (at least in these areas of “civil life”) the primacy of civil society over the state .

In accordance with this, one can single out the third qualitative feature of civil society, which characterizes its highest values ​​and the main goal of functioning. Unlike the initial ideas about civil society, based on the absolutization of private interests (their main carriers, of course, are private owners), the modern general democratic concept of a post-industrial civil society should be based on the recognition of the need to ensure an optimal, harmonious combination of private and public interests.

Freedom, human rights and his private interests should be considered in this case not from the standpoint of the egoistic essence of the “economic man”, for whom freedom is property, but, on the contrary, property itself in all its diversity of forms becomes a means of affirming the ideals of a liberated person. And this should take place on the basis of unconditional recognition as the highest value of civil society of a person, his life and health, honor and dignity of a politically free and economically independent person.

Accordingly, one should approach the definition main goal functioning of modern civil society. The main goal is to satisfy the material and spiritual needs of a person, to create conditions that ensure a decent life and free development of a person. And the state in this case (under the conditions of a legal civil society) inevitably acquires the character of a welfare state. We are talking about enriching the nature of the state with social principles, which to a large extent transform its power functions. By asserting itself as a social state, the state refuses the role of a “night watchman” and takes responsibility for the socio-cultural and spiritual development of society.

Taking into account the noted qualitative characteristics, it is possible to define the concept of civil society as a system of socio-economic and political relations based on self-organization, functioning in the legal regime of social justice, freedom, satisfaction of the material and spiritual needs of a person as the highest value of civil society.

Modern civil society has the following structure:

1. Voluntarily formed primary communities of people (family, cooperation, association, economic corporations, public organizations, professional, creative, sports, ethnic, confessional and other associations).

2. The totality of non-state non-political relations in society: economic, social, family, spiritual, moral, religious and others. This is the production and private life of people, their customs, traditions, mores.

3. The sphere of self-manifestation of free individuals and their organizations, protected by laws from direct interference in it by the state authorities.

Thus, the structure of civil society in developed countries is a wide network of public relations, various voluntary organizations of citizens, their associations, lobbying and other groups, municipal communes, charitable foundations, interest clubs, creative, cooperative associations, consumer, sports societies, public political, religious and other organizations and unions. All of them express the most diverse social interests in all spheres of society.

From this follows a concrete analysis of the main elements of civil society.

First, the economic organization of civil society - This society of civilized market relations. The market as a kind of "component" of economic freedom is impossible without the development of independent entrepreneurial activity aimed at systematic profit.

The second structural element of civil society is its social organization. In market conditions, it is very complex, which primarily reflects the differences between individual social groups. Three main groups of the population of civil society can be distinguished: employees, entrepreneurs and disabled citizens. Ensuring a balanced balance of economic interests and material possibilities of these groups is an important direction of social policy.

Employees need to create economic, social and legal conditions for effective work, fair pay for their work, and broad participation in profits.

With regard to entrepreneurs, measures should be taken to guarantee them the freedom of all forms of economic activity, to stimulate their investment in the development of efficient, profitable production of goods and services. As for disabled citizens, they should be provided with targeted social protection, social security and service standards should be defined that will allow them to maintain an acceptable standard of living.

Finally, the third structural element of civil society is its socio-political organization. It cannot be identified with the state-political organization, with the state management of society. On the contrary, the real democracy of civil society as the basis for ensuring the real freedom of the individual becomes possible precisely when society, acquiring the qualities of civil, legal, develops its own, non-state socio-political mechanisms of self-regulation and self-organization. In accordance with this, the so-called political institutionalization of civil society takes place, that is, society organizes itself with the help of such institutions as political parties, mass movements, trade unions, women's, veterans', youth, religious organizations, voluntary societies, creative unions, fraternities, foundations, associations and other voluntary associations of citizens created on the basis of their common political, professional, cultural and other interests. An important constitutional basis for the political institutionalization of civil society is the principle of political and ideological pluralism, a multi-party system (Article 13 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). Civil society is alien to political and ideological monopoly, which suppresses dissent and does not allow any other ideology, except for the official, state, no other party except the ruling one - the “party of power”. An important condition for ensuring political and ideological pluralism, and, therefore, the institutionalization of civil society is the freedom to organize and operate the media (Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).

This, however, does not mean the identity of individual freedom and the legal status of a citizen. Freedom, as already noted, has such a property as normativity. From this it follows, on the one hand, that a person acquires freedom as a result of his ability to obey its normative requirements (obligatory rules of conduct). On the other hand, this means that the external form of the existence of individual freedom is social norms that determine the measure, the permissible boundaries of freedom. And only in the most important areas, which have an increased significance for society or for the individual himself, the measure of freedom is determined and normalized by the state itself. This is done with the help of legal norms, laws. Laws, if they are of a legal nature, are in this respect, according to Marx, "the bible of freedom." The main legal means of securing, recognizing by the state the achieved freedom of the individual is the constitution.

At the same time, the rights and freedoms themselves, including constitutional ones, on the one hand, are determined by the level of development of civil society, the maturity of its economic, social, socio-political organization; after all, civil society is a social environment where most of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are realized. On the other hand, the development and deepening of the most important characteristics of civil society as a legal, democratic society, as a society of genuine freedom and social justice largely depend on the fullness of the rights and freedoms of a person and citizen, the degree of their guarantee, the sequence of implementation. In this regard, human and civil rights are a tool for the self-development of civil society, its self-organization. This dual relationship finds its consolidation at the state-legal, legal level, when the Constitution and other laws establish the responsibility not only of a citizen to the state, but also of the state to the individual.

The main function of civil society is the most complete satisfaction of the material, social and spiritual needs of its members. A variety of economic, ethnic, regional, professional, religious associations of citizens are called upon to promote the comprehensive realization by the individual of his interests, aspirations, goals, etc.

As part of this main function, civil society performs a number of important social functions:

1. On the basis of legality, it ensures the protection of private spheres of human and citizen's life from unreasonable strict regulation of the state and other political structures.

2. On the basis of civil society associations, mechanisms of public self-government are created and developed.

3. Civil society is one of the most important and powerful levers in the system of "checks and balances", the desire of political power for absolute domination. It protects citizens and their associations from unlawful interference in their activities by state power and thereby contributes to the formation and strengthening of the democratic bodies of the state, its entire political system. To perform this function, he has a lot of means: active participation in election campaigns and referendums, protests or support for certain demands, great opportunities in shaping public opinion, in particular, with the help of independent media and communications.

4. Civil society institutions and organizations are called upon to provide real guarantees of human rights and victories, equal access to participation in state and public affairs.

5. Civil society also performs the function of social control in relation to its members. It, regardless of the state, has the means and sanctions by which it can force individuals to comply with social norms, ensure the socialization and education of citizens.

6. Civil society also performs a communication function. In a democratic society, there is a diversity of interests. The widest range of these interests is the result of the freedoms that a citizen has in a democracy. A democratic state is designed to satisfy the interests and needs of its citizens as much as possible. However, under the conditions of economic pluralism, these interests are so numerous, so diverse and differentiated that the government has practically no channels of information about all these interests. The task of the institutions and organizations of civil society is to inform the state about the specific interests of citizens, the satisfaction of which is possible only by the forces of the state.

7. Civil society performs a stabilizing function through its institutions and organizations. It creates strong structures on which all social life rests. In difficult historical periods (wars, crises, depressions), when the state begins to stagger, it "turns its shoulder" - strong structures of civil society.

One of the functions of civil society is also to provide a certain minimum level of necessary means of subsistence for all members of society, especially for those who themselves cannot achieve this (the disabled, the elderly, the sick, etc.).

Civil society is the basis of modern civilization, without which it is impossible to imagine. Initially, it was positioned as opposed to military, command and administrative systems, where all citizens obeyed the instructions of the authorities and could not influence them in any way. But it looks quite different. An example of a developed self-awareness of citizens is easy to find in Western Europe. Without the existence of a developed civil society, it is impossible to really build where all citizens, regardless of their position and status, from a simple worker to the president of the country, obey the law.

In order to start thinking about the principles of functioning and the history of the origin of civil society in its modern sense, it is necessary to clarify what is meant by this term. So, civil society is a manifestation of the active actions of free citizens of the country, who independently organized themselves into non-profit associations and act independently of the state, and are not subject to any external influence.

What is the essence of such a society?

There are some examples of manifestations of civil society that characterize the relationship between the individual and the state:

• the interests of society and the state cannot stand above the interests of the individual;
• the highest value is the freedom of the citizen;
• there is an inalienable right of a citizen to private property;
• no one has the right to interfere in the personal affairs of a citizen if he does not violate the law;
• citizens enter into an informal agreement among themselves on the creation of a civil society, which is a protective layer between them and the state.

The main difference of civil society is that people can freely organize themselves into professional groups or interest groups, and their activities are protected from state interference.

The history of the emergence of civil society

Many thinkers back in the days of ancient Greece wondered what is the reason for the creation of the state and its integral part - society. What motives drove the ancient people when they united in such complex and multifunctional public formations that occupied large territories. And how they influenced those who were in power at a certain period of time.

Despite the fact that domestic science has only recently paid close attention to the formation of civil society, its formation and development, this burning discussion has been going on in world political science and philosophy for hundreds of years, the significance of which can hardly be overestimated. Within the framework of scientific works, such great minds as Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli, Hegel, Marx and many, many others tried to determine the main features within which the functioning of civil society became possible. They found examples in those states and within the framework of those political systems under which they lived. One of the most important and pressing has always been the question of the nature of the relationship between the state and civil society. On what principles are these relations built and are they always equally beneficial to both parties?

What examples have already existed in world history?

History knows many examples of civil society. For example, during the Middle Ages, Venice became an example of the democratic principle of checks and balances within the framework of political power. Many social signs that are something ordinary for us were first implemented there. The foundations of the value of the individual and her freedoms, the awareness of the need to provide equal rights - these and many other ideas of democracy were born just then.

Another city-state in Italy, Florence, has made an invaluable contribution to the development of this historical phenomenon called civil society. The example of Venice, of course, had its significant impact.

It is also worth noting the German cities of Bremen, Hamburg and Lübeck, they also developed the foundations of civic consciousness and observed the influence of the population on the style and methods of governing these cities.

Did something similar exist in Russia?

Despite the territorial remoteness and cultural differences, one can find examples of civil society in Russia both on its modern territory and on the territory of neighboring states that are close to it in spirit. First of all, we are talking about Novgorod and Pskov, in which, with the development of trade, an inherently unique political and political economy has developed. . For their full-fledged and successful activities, the classic approach for that period of time was not suitable, so a form of government with a democratic bias developed here.

Features of Novgorod and Pskov

The basis of the life of Novgorod and Pskov was the established middle class, which was engaged in trade and production of goods, and provided various services. City management was carried out by convening a people's council. All free people had the right to participate in these meetings. Citizens who were pledged and working for a part of the product received on the land of the owner, or fell into bondage for debts, were classified as not free, and serfs were also ranked among them.

What is characteristic is that the prince was an elective office. If the townspeople were not satisfied with the way the prince performed his functions, they could remove him from this position and choose another candidate. The city concluded an agreement with the prince, in which quite a few restrictions were imposed on his powers. For example, he could not acquire land as property, he was not allowed to conclude agreements with foreign states without the mediation of the Novgorodians themselves, and much more. These relationships fully characterize the concept of civil society, an example of which is demonstrated by the management institutions created in Novgorod and Pskov.

Interest in the principles of development of civil society in post-Soviet Russia

In the late 80s, and especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union, conversations and discussions about the rule of law, its foundations, as well as the principles of the formation of civil society in the new country sounded with triple force. Interest in this topic was and remains very high, because after many decades of complete merging of the state and society, it was necessary to understand how to quickly, but painlessly create something that took more than one century in Western democratic countries.

Young historians and political scientists studied examples of the formation of civil society, invited numerous specialists from abroad in order to directly learn from the successful experience of other states.

Problems in modern manifestations of civic position in Russia

Economic setbacks and problems arose at every turn. It was not easy to convey to citizens that now their lives, well-being, future depend largely on their personal choice, and that they should do it consciously. Generations of people did not have full rights and freedoms. This needed to be taught. Any civil society, the example of which is studied by modern scientists, suggests that, first of all, the initiative should come from the citizens themselves, who perceive themselves as the main driving force of the state. In addition to rights, there are responsibilities.

Challenges for the future

According to experts and political scientists, one of the tasks of the post-communist society is the need to give a new meaning and significance, within which civil society will develop. The examples of the countries of developed democracies will help to avoid many mistakes and will enable the formation of a new society.

Now there is an active process of the middle class and non-profit organizations. The era of rapid, almost uncontrollable development has come to an end. The formation phase begins. Time will tell whether the inhabitants of our country will ever be able to recognize themselves as full-fledged members of civil society.

Details Updated: June 18, 2016

Topic 13. Civil society

1. Definition of civil society

1.1. The concept of civil society

The most important prerequisite and at the same time a factor in the formation of a political system of a democratic type is the presence of a civil society. Civil society characterizes the whole set of various forms of social activity of the population, not due to the activities of state bodies and embodying the real level of self-organization of society. The state of social ties and relations described by the term “civil society” is a qualitative indicator of the civil self-activity of the inhabitants of a particular country, the main criterion for separating the functions of the state and society in the social sphere.

Real freedom of the individual becomes possible in a society of genuine democracy, where not the state, but political power dominates society and its members, and society has unconditional primacy in relation to the state. The transition to such a society is a historically long process, and it is associated with the formation of a civil society.

Between the concept of “civil society” and the concept of “society” of the same order, there is not only an obvious relationship, but also very significant differences. Society as a set of relations between people becomes civil only at a certain stage of its development of maturity, under certain conditions. In this regard, behind the adjective "civilian", despite some of its vagueness, there is a very specific and very capacious content. The category of civil society reflects a new qualitative state of society, based on the developed forms of its self-organization and self-regulation, on the optimal combination of public (state-public) and private (individual-personal) interests, with the determining value of the latter and with unconditional recognition as the highest value of such a society of man, his rights and freedoms. Therefore, civil society is opposed not just by a “non-civil” society, that is, a society that does not have the qualities of a civil society, but by a society of violence, suppression of the individual, state total control over the public and private lives of its members.

The term "civil society" itself is used in both broad and narrow senses. In a broad sense, civil society includes all the part of society that is not directly covered by the state, its structures, i.e. something that the state "does not reach the hands of". It arises and changes in the course of natural-historical development as an autonomous sphere, directly independent of the state. Civil society in a broad sense is compatible not only with democracy, but also with authoritarianism, and only totalitarianism means its complete, and more often partial absorption by political power.

Civil society in a narrow, proper sense is inextricably linked with the rule of law, they do not exist without each other. Civil society is a variety of relationships not mediated by the state of free and equal individuals in a market and democratic legal statehood. This is the sphere of free play of private interests and individualism. Civil society is a product of the bourgeois era and is formed mainly from below, spontaneously, as a result of the emancipation of individuals, their transformation from subjects of the state into free citizens-owners with a sense of personal dignity and ready to take on economic and political responsibility .

Civil society has a complex structure, including economic, economic, family, ethnic, religious and legal relations, morality, as well as political relations not mediated by the state between individuals as primary subjects of power, parties, interest groups, etc. . In civil society, unlike state structures, not vertical (subordination), but horizontal ties prevail - relations of competition and solidarity between legally free and equal partners.

For a modern understanding of civil society, it is not enough to think about it only from the standpoint of its opposition to state power and, accordingly, to the sphere of realization of public interests. The main thing in the modern, general democratic concept of civil society should be the definition of its own qualitative characteristics of those real social relations that, in systemic unity, can be defined as a modern civil society.

Civil society is not just some kind of voluminous concept that characterizes a certain sphere of social relations, the limits of which are determined only by the fact that this is “the area of ​​private interests” (Hegel). At the same time, “civil society” is neither a legal, nor a state-legal concept. The state cannot, is not in a position to “establish”, “decree”, “establish” by its laws the image of civil society that it desires.

Civil society is a natural stage, the highest form of self-realization of individuals. It matures with the economic and political development of the country, the growth of well-being, culture and self-awareness of the people. As a product of the historical development of mankind, civil society appears in the period of breaking the rigid framework of the estate-feudal system, the beginning of the formation of a legal state. A prerequisite for the emergence of a civil society is the emergence of opportunities for all citizens of economic independence on the basis of private property. The most important prerequisite for the formation of civil society is the elimination of class privileges and the increase in the importance of the human person, a person who turns from a subject into a citizen with equal legal rights with all other citizens. The political foundation of civil society is the rule of law, which ensures the rights and freedoms of the individual. Under these conditions, a person's behavior is determined by his own interests and he is responsible for all actions. Such a person places his own freedom above all else, while at the same time respecting the legitimate interests of other people.

Since a lot of power is concentrated in the hands of the state, it can easily suppress the interests of social groups, classes and the whole people with the help of officials, the army, the police, the courts. The history of the establishment of fascism in Germany and Italy is a vivid example of how the state absorbs society, how the statehood of its spheres takes place, and general (total) control over the individual is exercised.

In this regard, civil society is an objectively established order of real social relations, which is based on the requirements of justice and the measure of achieved freedom, the inadmissibility of arbitrariness and violence, recognized by society itself. This order is formed on the basis of the internal content of these relations, which turns them into a criterion of "justice and measure of freedom." Thus, the relations that make up civil society acquire the ability to carry certain requirements, normative models of behavior of citizens, officials, state bodies and the state as a whole in accordance with the ideals of justice and freedom.

This means that in the relations that make up civil society, the ideas of law are embodied as the highest justice, based on the inadmissibility of arbitrariness and guaranteeing an equal measure of freedom for all members of civil society. These are the normative (obligatory) requirements that develop and exist in civil society, regardless of their state recognition and enshrined in laws. But following them on the part of the state is a guarantee that the law in such a society and state acquires a legal character, i.e. they not only embody the will of the state, but this will fully meets the requirements of justice and freedom.

The daily life of individuals, its primary forms constitute the sphere of civil society.However, the diversity of everyday needs and the primary forms of their implementation requires the coordination and integration of the aspirations of individuals and social groups in order to maintain the integrity and progress of the whole society. Balance, the relationship of public, group and individual interests is carried out by the state through managerial functions. Consequently, the global society, that is, the all-encompassing human community, consists of civil society and the state.

Civil society and the state are social universals, ideal types that reflect the various aspects and conditions of the life of society that oppose each other.

Civil society is the sphere of absolute freedom of individuals in relations with each other. By definition J-L. Kermonne, "civil society is composed of a plurality of interpersonal relationships and social forces that unite the men and women that make up this society without direct intervention and assistance from the state."

Civil society appears as a social, economic, cultural space in which free individuals interact, realizing private interests and making individual choices. On the contrary, the state is a space of totally regulated relationships between politically organized subjects: state structures and political parties adjoining them, pressure groups, etc. Civil society and the state complement each other. Without a mature civil society, it is impossible to build a legal democratic state, since it is conscious free citizens who are capable of rational organization of human society. Thus, if civil society acts as a strong mediating link between a free individual and a centralized state will, then the state is called upon to counteract disintegration, chaos, crisis and decline by creating conditions for the realization of the rights and freedoms of an autonomous individual.

1.2. Scientific concepts of civil society.

The idea of ​​civil society is one of the most important political ideas of modern times. Arising in the middle of X VII in. in Europe, the concept of "civil society" has undergone a certain evolution, giving rise to several concepts and interpretations. However, it is invariably considered in opposition to the concept of "state".

Liberal interpretation of civil society goes back to the time of T. Hobbes and J. Locke. The concept of "civil society" was introduced by them to reflect the historical development of human society, the transition of man from natural to civilized existence. A person in a “wild”, “natural” state, who knows neither civilization nor a state, develops in the chaos of general mutual enmity and continuous wars. The natural, pre-state state of society is opposed to the civilized, socio-political, personifying order and civil relations.

The natural beginning of society and human life is not nature and the unbridled natural passions of a person, but civilization, that is, the exceptional ability of a person to consciously unite with his own kind for living together. Civil society was recognized as a condition for satisfying basic human needs for food, clothing, housing. Civil society appeared as a result of the processes of differentiation and emancipation of various spheres of public life (economic, social, cultural), within which the daily needs of the individual are satisfied.

The formation of independent spheres of social life reflected the processes of the increasing diversity of the activities of individuals and the complication of social relations. The diversity of social relations was a consequence of the formation of an autonomous personality, independent of the authorities and possessing such a level of civic self-awareness that allowed her to build her relations with other individuals reasonably and expediently. According to J. Locke, the process of crystallization of an independent individual is based on private property. It is an economic guarantee of his freedom and political independence.

Relations between the state and civil society were built on a contractual basis. In essence, these relations were civilized, since the state and civil society together created the conditions for satisfying basic human needs and ensuring the livelihoods of individuals. The state protects the inalienable rights of citizens and, with the help of power, limits natural enmity, removes fear and anxiety for relatives and friends, for their wealth; and civil society restrains the desire of power to dominate.

Another tradition is the approach of G. Hegel, who considered civil society as a set of individuals who satisfy their daily needs with the help of labor. The basis of civil society is private property. However, according to G. Hegel, it was not civil society that was the driving force of progress, but the state. The primacy of the state in relation to civil society was due to the fact that, according to G. Hegel, the basis for the development of everything and everyone is the "World Spirit", or "Absolute Idea". Civil society was the “other being” of the spirit-idea, namely the state personified all the virtues and was the most perfect embodiment of the world's self-developing idea, the most powerful manifestation of the human personality, the universality of the political, material and spiritual principles.

The state protected a person from accidents, ensured justice and realized the universality of interests. Civil society and the individual were subordinate to the state, because it is the state that integrates individual groups and individuals into an organic whole, setting the meaning of their life. The danger of the existence of an all-embracing state lies in the fact that it absorbs civil society and does not seek to guarantee citizens their rights and freedoms.

Rejecting G. Hegel's thesis about the primacy of the state in relation to civil society, K. Marx considered the latter to be the foundation of a global society, and the vital activity of individuals as a decisive factor in historical development. This followed from the materialistic understanding of history, according to which the evolution of society is the result of the evolution of the material conditions of life. Civil society is a set of material relations of individuals. K. Marx considered civil society as a social organization that develops directly from production and circulation. The totality of economic, production relations of individuals (that is, the relations that individuals enter into among themselves in the process of production) and the productive forces corresponding to them (means of production and labor) constitute the basis. The economic basis determines the superstructure, political institutions (including the state), law, morality, religion, art, etc. The state and politics are a reflection of production relations.

Following the thesis about the dependence of the superstructure on the basis, K. Marx considered the state an instrument of political domination of a class that owns the means of production. Consequently, the bourgeois state is, according to K. Marx, a mechanism for the implementation and protection of the interests of the economically dominant class-owner, including industrialists, entrepreneurs, financiers, landowners. In such a state, only the propertied classes and social groups are citizens. The bourgeois state, realizing the will of the economically dominant class, hinders the free development of autonomous individuals, absorbs or excessively regulates civil society. Consequently, the relationship between the state and civil society is not equal and contractual.

K. Marx saw the possibility of overcoming the gap between civil society and the state under capitalism in the creation of a new type of society - a communist society without a state, where the individual and personal principles will completely dissolve in the collective.

The hopes of K. Marx that the proletarian state would create conditions for the development of associations of free citizens turned out to be unrealizable. In practice, the socialist state subordinated public property to itself and deprived civil society of its economic basis. On the basis of state property, a new political class arose - the party nomenklatura, which was not interested in the formation of an autonomous and free personality, and, consequently, a mature civil society.

Analyzing the consequences of the implementation of the Marxist doctrine in Russia, which led to the establishment of a totalitarian regime and the destruction of the germs of civil society, A. Gramsci defended the idea of ​​the hegemony of civil society. By the latter, he understood everything that is not a state. In the conditions of a mature civil society, as it was in the West, the process of social reorganization should begin not with a political revolution, but with the achievement of hegemony by the advanced forces within civil society. This statement of A. Gramsci follows from his definition of the independent role of the superstructure as an essential factor in historical development.

Considering the process of formation of civil society in the West, A. Gramsci drew attention to the great importance of ideology and culture in establishing the political dominance of the bourgeoisie. By establishing intellectual and moral dominance over society, it forced other classes and groups to adopt their values ​​and ideology. Of particular importance in the superstructure, according to Gramsci, belongs to civil society, which is closely connected with ideology (science, art, religion, law) and the institutions that create and distribute it (political parties, church, mass media, school etc.). Civil society, like the state, serves the ruling class in strengthening its power.

The relationship between the state and civil society depends on the maturity of the latter: if civil society is vague and primitive, then the state is its “external form”. The state can destroy civil society and act as the only instrument of power. And only in the conditions of a mature civil society, as in the West, does its relationship with the state have a balanced character. In the latter case, according to A. Gramsci, the state should be understood as the “private apparatus” of the “hegemony” of civil society.

Consequently, the analysis of the concepts of civil society allows us to draw a number of conclusions.

First of all, for a long time in political science the concepts of "state" and "civil society" did not differ, they were used as synonyms. However, since the middle of X VII c., the processes of differentiation of various spheres of society, their liberation from all-encompassing state power, the isolation of an autonomous and independent individual with inalienable rights and freedoms actualized the search for a balanced representation of two trends in historical development: on the one hand, the aspirations of the individual to autonomy and freedom and, as a result, the growth of spontaneity and spontaneity in social development, which in political science reflected the concept of "civil society", and on the other hand, the need for streamlining, integrity, neutralization of conflicts in ever-complicating combinations social interactions, which reflected the concept of "state". Most often, the state and civil society were opposed to each other.

Secondly, civil society (basically bourgeois) is replacing the traditional, feudal society. In Western political science, with all its variations, two interpretations of civil society dominate. The first one considers civil society as a social universal, denoting the space of interpersonal relations that oppose the state in any of its forms. As a sphere for the realization of the daily needs of individuals, civil society includes the entire historical complex of interactions between individuals with each other.

In the second interpretation, civil society appears as a phenomenon of Western culture, as a specific historical form of existence of Western civilization. A feature of Western culture is its amazing adaptability to changing conditions and increased survival in a foreign cultural environment. The uniqueness of civilization is due to the balance of three forces: separate institutions of power, civil society and an autonomous individual. As the basis for the balanced interaction of these forces, the idea of ​​progress was recognized, expressed in the orientation of consciousness towards the constant improvement of man, civil society and the state.

Thirdly, modern political science interpretation considers civil society as a complex and multi-level system of non-power relations and structures. Civil society includes the entire set of interpersonal relations that develop outside the framework and without the intervention of the state, as well as an extensive system of public institutions independent of the state that implement everyday individual and collective needs. Since the everyday interests of citizens are unequal, the spheres of civil society also have a certain subordination, which can be conditionally expressed as follows: basic human needs for food, clothing, housing, etc. satisfy production relations that make up the first level of interpersonal relationships. They are implemented through such public institutions as professional, consumer and other associations and associations. The needs for procreation, health, raising children, spiritual improvement and faith, information, communication, sex, etc. are implemented by a complex of socio-cultural relations, including religious, family, marriage, ethnic and other interactions. They form the second level of interpersonal relationships and take place within the framework of such institutions as the family, the church, educational and scientific institutions, creative unions, and sports societies.

Finally, the third, highest level of interpersonal relations is the need for political participation, which is associated with individual choice based on political preferences and value orientations. This level presupposes the formation of specific political positions in the individual. Political preferences of individuals and groups are realized with the help of interest groups, political parties, movements.

If we consider modern civil society in developed countries, then it will appear as a society consisting of many independently acting groups of people with different orientations. Thus, the structure of civil society in the United States is an all-encompassing network of various voluntary associations of citizens, lobby groups, municipal communes, charitable foundations, interest clubs, creative and cooperative associations, consumer, sports and other societies, religious, public - political and other organizations and unions, reflecting a wide variety of social interests in the industrial, political, spiritual spheres, personal and family life.

These independent and independent of the state socio-political institutions sometimes tensely oppose each other, fighting for the trust of citizens, sharply criticize and expose social evil in politics, economics, morality, in public life and in production. At one time, A. Tocqueville named the presence of an extensive system of civil society institutions as one of the features of the United States, which became the guarantor of the stability of American democracy.

1.3. Characteristics of civil society.

The legal nature of civil society, its compliance with the highest requirements of justice and freedom is the first most important qualitative characteristic of such a society. This feature of civil society is embodied in the normative requirements inherent in the content of the categories of justice and freedom. Freedom and justice are, in a civil society, a social factor that regulates (regulates) the activities of people, teams and organizations. On the other hand, the person himself, as a member of civil society, acquires freedom as a result of his ability to obey the normative requirements of freedom as a recognized necessity.

The second qualitative characteristic of civil society is functional. It is connected with the fact that the basis for the functioning of such a society is not just the creation of a certain field (space) for the realization of private interests, formally legally independent of state power, but the achievement of a high level of self-organization, self-regulation of society. The main functions of establishing joint activities of members of civil society in certain areas (entrepreneurship and other forms of economic activity, family relations, personal life, etc.) should be carried out in this case not with the help of tools and means standing above by the society of state power as a “special public authority”, and by the society itself on a truly democratic, self-governing basis, and in the sphere of a market economy, primarily on the basis of economic self-regulation. In this regard, the new functional characteristic of civil society is not that the state "generously yields" a certain area of ​​private interests to the society itself, leaving it at the mercy of the solution of certain problems. On the contrary, the society itself, reaching a new level of its development, acquires the ability to independently, without the intervention of the state, to carry out the corresponding functions. And in this part, it is no longer the state that absorbs society, establishing total state forms of leadership and control over the development of relevant areas, but the reverse process of absorbing the state by civil society occurs: there arises (at least in these areas of “civil life”) the primacy of civil society. -schestviya over the state.

In accordance with this, one can single out the third qualitative feature of civil society, which characterizes its highest values ​​and the main goal of functioning. Unlike the initial ideas about civil society, based on the absolutization of private interests (their main carriers, of course, are private owners), the modern general democratic concept of a post-industrial civil society should be based on the recognition of the need to ensure optimal, harmonious combination of private and public interests.

Freedom, human rights and his private interests should be considered in this case not from the standpoint of the egoistic essence of the “economic man”, for whom freedom is property, but, on the contrary, property itself in all its diversity of forms becomes a means of affirming ideals liberated person. And this should take place on the basis of unconditional recognition as the highest value of civil society of a person, his life and health, honor and dignity of a politically free and economically independent person.

In accordance with this, one should also approach the definition of the main goal of the functioning of modern civil society. The main goal is to satisfy the material and spiritual needs of a person, to create conditions that ensure a decent life and free development of a person. And the state in this case (under the conditions of a legal civil society) inevitably acquires the character of a welfare state. We are talking about the enrichment of the nature of the state with social principles, which to a large extent transform its power functions. By asserting itself as a social state, the state refuses the role of a "night watchman" and assumes responsibility for the socio-cultural and spiritual development of society.

Taking into account the noted qualitative characteristics, it is possible to define the concept of civil society as a system of socio-economic and political relations based on self-organization, functioning in the legal regime of social justice, freedom, satisfaction of the material and spiritual needs of a person as the highest value of civil society.

The foundations of civil society in the economic sphere are a diversified economy, various forms of ownership, regulated market relations; in the political sphere - decentralization of power, separation of powers, political pluralism, citizens' access to participation in state and public affairs, the rule of law and the equality of all before it; in the spiritual sphere - the absence of a monopoly of one ideology and worldview, freedom of conscience, civilization, high spirituality and morality.

2. Conditions for the emergence and functioning of civil society

2.1. Structure and basic elements.

Modern civil society has the following structure:

1. Voluntarily formed primary communities of people (family, cooperation, association, economic corporations, public organizations, professional, creative, sports, ethnic, confessional and other associations).

2. The totality of non-state non-political relations in society: economic, social, family, spiritual, moral, religious and others: this is the production and private life of people, their customs, traditions, mores.

3. The sphere of self-manifestation of free individuals and their organizations, protected by laws from direct interference in it by the state authorities.

Thus, the structure of civil society in developed countries is a wide network of social relations, various voluntary organizations of citizens, their associations, lobbying and other groups, municipal communes, charitable foundations, interest clubs, creative, cooperative associations , consumer, sports societies, socio-political, religious and other organizations and unions. All of them express the most diverse social interests in all spheres of society.

From this follows a concrete analysis of the main elements of civil society.

First, the economic organization of civil society is a society of civilized market relations. The market as a kind of "component" of economic freedom is impossible without the development of independent entrepreneurial activity aimed at systematic profit.

The second structural element of civil society is its social organization. In market conditions, it is of a very complex nature, which primarily reflects the differences between individual social groups. Three main groups of the population of civil society can be distinguished: employees, entrepreneurs and disabled citizens. Ensuring a balanced balance of economic interests and material capabilities of these groups is an important direction of social policy.

Employees need to create economic, social and legal conditions for efficient work, fair pay for their work, and broad participation in profits.

With regard to entrepreneurs, measures should be taken to guarantee them the freedom of all forms of economic activity, to stimulate their investment in the development of efficient, profitable production of goods and services. As for disabled citizens, they should be provided with targeted social protection, social security and service standards should be defined that will allow them to maintain an acceptable standard of living.

The third structural element of civil society is its socio-political organization. It cannot be identified with the state-political organization, with the state management of society. On the contrary, the real democracy of civil society as the basis for ensuring the real freedom of the individual becomes possible precisely when society, acquiring the qualities of civil, legal, develops its own, non-state socio-political mechanisms of self-regulation and self-organization. In accordance with this, the so-called political institutionalization of civil society takes place, that is, society organizes itself with the help of such institutions as political parties, mass movements, trade unions, women's, veterans', youth, religious organizations, voluntary societies, creative unions, communities, foundations, associations and other voluntary associations of citizens created on the basis of their common political, professional, cultural and other interests. An important constitutional basis for the political institutionalization of civil society is the principle of political and ideological pluralism, a multi-party system. Civil society is alien to political and ideological monopolism, which suppresses dissent and does not allow any other ideology, except for the official, state, no other party than the ruling one - the “party of power”. An important condition for ensuring political and ideological pluralism, and, consequently, the institutionalization of civil society, is the freedom to organize and operate the media.

This, however, does not mean the identity of individual freedom and the legal status of a citizen. Freedom, as already noted, has such a property as normativity. From this it follows, on the one hand, that a person acquires freedom as a result of his ability to obey its normative requirements (obligatory rules of conduct). On the other hand, this means that the external form of the existence of individual freedom is social norms that determine the measure, the permissible boundaries of freedom. And only in the most important areas, which have an increased significance for society or for the individual himself, the measure of freedom determines, normalizes the state itself. This is done with the help of legal norms, laws. Laws, if they are of a legal nature, are in this respect, according to Marx, "the bible of freedom." The main legal means of consolidating, recognizing by the state the achieved freedom of the individual is the constitution.

At the same time, the rights and freedoms themselves, including constitutional ones, on the one hand, are determined by the level of development of civil society, the maturity of its economic, social, socio-political organization; after all, civil society is a social environment where most of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are realized. On the other hand, the development and deepening of the most important characteristics of civil society as a legal, democratic society, as a society of genuine freedom and social justice largely depend on the fullness of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, the degree of their guarantee, the sequence of implementation . In this regard, human and citizen's rights are a tool for the self-development of civil society, its self-organization. This dual relationship finds its consolidation at the state-legal, legal level, when the Constitution and other laws establish the responsibility not only of a citizen to the state, but also of the state to the individual.

2.2. Functions of civil society.

The main function of civil society is the most complete satisfaction of the material, social and spiritual needs of its members. A variety of economic, ethnic, regional, professional, religious associations of citizens are called upon to promote the comprehensive realization by the individual of his interests, aspirations, goals, etc.

As part of this main function, civil society performs a number of important social functions:

1. On the basis of legality, it ensures the protection of private spheres of human and citizen's life from unreasonable strict regulation of the state and other political structures.

2. On the basis of civil society associations, mechanisms of public self-government are created and developed.

3. Civil society is one of the most important and powerful levers in the system of "checks and balances", the desire of political power for absolute domination. It protects citizens and their associations from unlawful interference in their activities by state power and thereby contributes to the formation and strengthening of the democratic bodies of the state, its entire political system. To perform this function, he has a lot of means: active participation in election campaigns and referendums, protests or support for certain demands, great opportunities in shaping public opinion, in particular, with the help of independent media and communications.

4. Institutions and organizations of civil society are called upon to provide real guarantees for the rights and victories of a person, equal access to participation in state and public affairs.

5. Civil society also performs the function of social control in relation to its members. It is independent of the state, has the means and sanctions by which it can force individuals to comply with social norms, ensure the socialization and education of citizens.

6. Civil society also performs a communication function. In a democratic society, a diversity of interests is manifested. The widest range of these interests is the result of the freedoms that a citizen has in a democracy. A democratic state is designed to satisfy the interests and needs of its citizens as much as possible. However, in the conditions of economic pluralism, these interests are so numerous, so diverse and differentiated that the state power has practically no channels of information about all these interests. The task of the institutions and organizations of civil society is to inform the state about the specific interests of citizens, the satisfaction of which is possible only by the forces of the state.

7. Civil society performs a stabilizing function through its institutions and organizations. It creates strong structures on which all social life rests. In difficult historical periods (wars, crises, depressions), when the state begins to stagger, it "turns its shoulder" - strong structures of civil society.

One of the functions of civil society is also to provide a certain minimum level of necessary means of subsistence for all members of society, especially those who cannot achieve this themselves (the disabled, the elderly, the sick, etc.).

2.3. Forms of interaction between the state and civil society

The transition from a traditional, feudal society to a civil society, essentially bourgeois, meant the emergence of a citizen as an independent social and political entity with inalienable rights and obligations. The development of horizontal non-powerful social ties formed by autonomous associations of citizens ran into opposition from the centralized state. However, the state was forced not only to reckon with the emerging associations of citizens, but also to embark on the path of legal regulation of relations with the population, to significantly rebuild its own power structures.

Not in all countries, the conflict between civil society and the state, which in some cases resulted in clashes between the parliament as a body of the people representation and royal power about their political role and scope of authority, was allowed by the establishment of the constitutional and legal principles of their relationship. This struggle was a reflection of the ongoing search for specific political and organizational forms to ensure stable and moderate government, in which the distribution of political power in society would be balanced.

The transition from absolutist-monarchist rule to democracy began, as a rule, with the subordination of the state and civil society to legal norms, with the introduction of the principle of separation of powers, which constitute a single system of constitutionalism. Constitutionalism, as a political and legal principle, has a different interpretation due, probably, to its long evolution. According to the classical legal definition, constitutionalism, like parliamentarism and absolutism, is a specific form of government. Absolutism is a form of state in which all power is concentrated in the monarch. In this sense, constitutionalism opposes absolutism as a form of the rule of law, in which relations between the state and civil society are regulated by legal norms.

The nature of the relationship between the people's representation (parliament) and the government (executive power) depends on the dominance of either the principle of parliamentarism or the principle of constitutionalism in the mechanism of power. Parliamentarianism means the dependence of the government on the decisions of parliament. Constitutionalism presupposes the independence of the government from the will of Parliament. An example of such a distribution of power is the system of ministerial government within a constitutional monarchy. In this case, the translation of a particular line of policy is the responsibility of a minister appointed by and accountable to the monarch. The formal legal side of constitutionalism means the presence in society of the basic law of the state (constitution), which determines the representation of the people, the division and scope of powers of various branches of government and guarantees the rights of citizens.

According to the method of emergence, determined by the correlation of political forces (progressive and traditionalist, reactionary), constitutionalism can be of a contractual nature, i.e., be the result of mutual agreement between society and the state, or oktroirovannyy, i.e. "go down" from above -state. In the second case, the monarch “gives” society a constitution, deliberately limiting his own powers, renouncing them in favor of the government and parliament.

Contractual constitutionalism prevailed in the countries of classical, chaotic modernization, where the processes of formation of civil society and the rule of law went in parallel and gradually. These processes had economic, social and cultural prerequisites and naturally formed the social structure of civil society represented by the middle class (small merchants, entrepreneurs, artisans, farmers, freelancers, etc.), ensured economic dominance bourgeoisie. Then the economic domination of the bourgeoisie through the revolution was supplemented by a political one - the transfer of power into its hands. In the process of modernization, the state and civil society closely interact.

Octroized constitutionalism characteristic of countries with delayed modernization, in which there are no prerequisites (economic, social, cultural, legal) for the transition from traditional to civil society. Thus, the absence of a mature middle class leads to the fact that reforms can be carried out by a part of the liberal bourgeoisie in alliance with an enlightened bureaucracy and with the use of state institutions. The catching-up type of development of such countries requires the intensification of the process of transformation, the use of authoritarian methods of modernization. This leads to constant conflicts between the state and civil society.

The choice of specific political forms of transition from absolutism to democracy, during which the ratio of the state and civil society changed, in addition to historical, national features, was due to the struggle of three political forces: royal power, popular representation (parliament) and government bureaucracy. The maturity of civil society, expressed in the presence of an extensive party system capable of expressing the interests of citizens in parliament, limited the power of the monarch. However, the process of rationalization of managerial activity significantly increased the role of the bureaucracy. Practically, all executive power passed to her, and the monarch only formally remained its pinnacle.

Based on this, the distribution of powers between the three political forces determined the choice of the political form of government that was to replace absolutism. Naturally, a long period of absolutist-monarchist rule formed political traditions that influenced the choice of political organization. It is no coincidence that the political modernization of absolutist regimes in most Western countries, with the exception of the United States, has given rise to a mixed form - constitutional monarchy. However, the share and volume of political dominance in the mechanisms of power of the king, parliament and government bureaucracy are different. They were determined by the nature of the political coalition favored by these forces. The orientation of the interests of the coalition members determined the type of regime.

First the type of regime within the framework of a constitutional monarchy - a parliamentary monarchy - was given by the English Revolution. It was the result of a coalition of an all-powerful parliament and a powerless monarch. England was the first to implement the classical version of the political system of constitutionalism. Its meaning was the transfer of real power from the monarch to the government and the prime minister, who are completely dependent on the parliament. A feature of British constitutionalism is the absence of a written constitution and the presence of special means of regulating relations between the legislative and executive powers by means of customary legal precedents.

Most of the countries of Western Europe tried to transfer the English version into their societies. However, the presence of two opposing political streams - the republican-democratic one, which strove to establish the principle of popular sovereignty, and the absolutist-monarchist one, which preferred the preservation of the royal authorities, did not allow to reproduce the English system. As a result, a constitutional monarchy was established there in a dualistic form. This meant the emergence of an independent legislative power in the person of parliament, but with the preservation of legislative and executive functions for the monarch (the king remained the head of the executive branch, supreme commander in chief and supreme arbiter). The presence of monarchical and representative power created a system of checks and balances, which, however, was not stable due to the cultural and political heterogeneity of society. The political coalition of the monarch and the bureaucracy against parliament produced a third type of constitutional monarchy, called monarchical constitutionalism. If the English version of political modernization meant changing the essence and goals of the political order while maintaining traditional institutions, then with this version the essence of government remained the same, and only political institutions were transformed. This version of political modernization was the personification of imaginary constitutionalism. The constitutions granted by the monarchs were only the legalization of the traditional holders of power. The establishment of imaginary constitutionalism in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, in Russia was a consequence of the immaturity of civil society.

As the political history of world democracy has shown, the activity of public associations and the growth of their members are primarily facilitated by the following structural factors: raising the educational level of the population; development of public communications; periods of increased political protest, attracting new recruits to social associations; the reaction of the public to the newly put forward government reform programs, etc.

At the same time, the age-old difficulties of the formation and development of civil society are not only the activity of the state, the desire of the ruling elites to strengthen their positions in society and even exceed their own powers. A serious danger to the formation and existence of civil society is also the activity of various kinds of corporate-bureaucratic structures within the state, which invariably belittle the status of citizens' self-active activity and seek to strengthen state guardianship over it. Independent and extremely important reasons for the weakening of the positions of civil society are the lack of clarity for the population of the values ​​of social self-activity, the lack of commitment of public opinion to the values ​​of the ideology of human rights. Therefore, civil society does not arise where people do not fight for their rights and freedoms, where there are no traditions of critical analysis by the public of the activities of the authorities, and, finally, where political freedoms are perceived by people as self-will and lack of responsibility for their actions.

3. The principle of the primacy of the individual

3.1. Origin of the principle.

Let us turn to the liberal-democratic principle "not man for society, but society for man." If we understand it literally, then any moral virtues from absolute ones will certainly turn into relative ones: they oblige the individual only to the extent that they are useful to him personally. Moreover, this principle excludes such recognized types of civic duty as, for example, the defense of the Fatherland.

Consequently, this principle is not real, but normative-ideal: it allows you to defend the dignity of the individual in front of society and assert its civil sovereignty. The latter is revealed in the principle of a civil contract, which assumes that people enter into relations between themselves and the state to the extent that they find it acceptable and expedient for themselves. The principle of a civil contract means that no one can force anyone into those long-term social relations and agreements; they are valid for a person only to the extent that he voluntarily accepted them as a subject of equal contractual relations.

Secondly, this principle means an apology for the so-called natural state: if a person is left to his own nature, not re-educated, not to force his will, then in all respects the results will be better than under the opposite conditions.

The principle of the state of nature has a purely normative meaning: it is that ideal assumption, without which it is impossible to justify the autonomy of the individual in the face of society and his civil dignity.

The normative assumption, which became the basis of Western democracies, reflected the social worldview and the status of one particular estate - the third. It was this particular and specific attitude that was destined to become a civilized norm, which the West demonstrates and propagates as "natural", i.e. universal.

But along with this estate experience, the national historical experience of Western countries also influenced the adoption of this principle. Contrary to the notions of the naturalness of the principle itself and its organic peculiarity to Western man and Western culture, historical experience shows that it was rather a difficult and problematic choice. On the one hand, the problem was to stop the endless civil strife and wars at the cost of ceding local and individual rights and freedoms to a despotic-centralized state, capable of bringing peace and order with an iron fist. On the other hand, the problem was to avoid the abuses of this state itself in the form of encroachments by unrestrained and uncontrolled political despotism on a person's life, his personal well-being and dignity.

3.2. The modern political embodiment of the principle.

The individual principle with all the postulates that follow from it means the primacy of civil society in relation to the state. Civil status is based on exchange relations between sovereign and equal individuals. At the same time, such a state is recognized as normal when equal in rights and free citizens, without exception, satisfy all their needs in the course of a partner exchange - according to the principle "you - to me, I - to you." That is, citizens do not need the state to provide certain benefits - they satisfy their needs on the basis of the principle of individual self-activity.

The main paradox of modern Western democracy is that it assumes a non-political way of life for the majority of citizens and is therefore called representative. Classical ancient democracy of ancient Greece and Rome was a participatory democracy. It really united the citizens of the policy, jointly participating in solving the main issues of the life of their city-state.

That is, we are talking about a choice: either complete freedom of private life is established at the cost of losing personal participation in solving public affairs entrusted to certain persons - professionals in the field of politics, or citizens directly resolve common collective issues. But then they no longer have the time or even the right to privacy.

For the man of the ancient polis, the state was not a monster hanging "from above": he himself was both a full-fledged amateur participant and the embodiment of all his decisions. It was in modern times that two poles arose in Europe: on the one hand, a concrete person who performs in all the variety of social roles, but at the same time is not equal with others, often suffering from exploitation and inequality, and on the other, an abstract a citizen of the state, having equal rights, but at the same time socially empty, removed from the needs and concerns of everyday life. This provision is called formal freedoms and formal democracy.

Modern society has separated amateur and political ways of life, everyday authoritarianism and formal democracy. In everyday civil life, an amateur-individualistic way of life is mainly led by the entrepreneurial minority, while the lives of the rest are at the mercy of the non-political authoritarianism of the real masters of life - production managers and company owners. On the contrary, in political terms, all citizens are recognized as equal, but this equality does not affect their meaningful everyday roles, but only the right to come to the polls every few years.

It must be said that the consumerism of representative democracy, which forces most people to accept the anti-democratism of civil life in exchange for high wages and technical comfort, is not limited to the material side itself. The point is also that a private, socially passive way of life has become a kind of habit and even a value of modern consumer society. The citizen, who in everyday life lays aside the affairs and cares of citizenship, enjoys his non-participation - the fact that "competent persons" relieve him of the responsibility associated with making everyday social decisions. Many people value their right not to participate in decisions as much as others value their right to participate. Where exactly modern trends are leading, which of these varieties of citizens is growing faster, remains debatable.

Participatory democracy requires such mobilization outside of professional life, such tension and responsibility, which are not always psychologically acceptable for people.

Another functional feature of the principle of the primacy of the individual, which makes it indispensable in the system of representative democracy, is its ex-group character.

If people voted in elections as stable members of certain social communities, then the distribution of votes of voters in general terms would be known in advance (based on the numerical ratio of the relevant groups of society), and in this case, elections as a procedure for the open will of the majority would be completely redundant. The entire system of pre-election manipulation, agitation and propaganda proceeds from the fact that the ties of individuals with the respective groups are not stable, so voters can be lured away by getting their votes.

At the same time, without a minimum of inter-group mobility, society would be, in essence, estate or even caste, and the nation, in turn, could not acquire stable unity and identity.

3.3. Principle costs.

In modern political science there is such a thing as G. Bakker's paradigm. Bakker is a representative of the Chicago school, who received the Nobel Prize for his work "Human Capital" (1964). As a follower of the liberal tradition, Bakker proceeds from the fact that the sphere of power-political relations will continuously narrow, giving way to relations of civil partnership exchange.

Literally, he interprets all social relations as economic, connected with the expectations of the maximum possible economic return on invested capital. Becker applies the economic law of saving time not only to the sphere of production, but also to the sphere of consumption; it is this device that allows him to declare economic theory universal, explaining all human relations without exception.

According to Becker, just as the law of shortening the time of production of goods operates in the sphere of production, so also the law of reduction of the time for satisfying needs operates in the sphere of consumption. Therefore, modern man prefers to buy a refrigerator and store food in it, instead of cooking every day, he prefers to invite friends to a restaurant instead of taking them at home, and so on. Actually, the modern consumer society is described as a society that by all means saves consumption time, which means a steady depreciation of those areas of life and human relations that are fraught with unnecessary waste of time.

Why is the birth rate falling in modern society? Bakker explains this by the law of marginal utility. Children in a traditional society, firstly, quickly got on their feet, and secondly, remained in the family as assistants to their father and mother. Therefore, the well-known love of children of traditional societies, in fact, Bekker believes, is an economically rational behavior, because in reality we are talking about children as capital, which gave a quick and significant return. Since in modern society children do not soon become independent and there is now no hope for them as breadwinners in old age, modern economic man prefers to have little or no children at all.

In the theories of the Chicago school, it is not politics that recedes before the economy, but society recedes before the world of commerce. The Chicago School doesn't just free civil society from the world of politics; it liberates civil relations from everything that was in them both civil, and intimate-personal, and moral, and spiritual. If Marx's theory at one time subordinated everything to production relations, then the Chicago school subordinates everything to exchange relations and declares the consumer to be the type in front of which all higher spheres, values ​​and relations should be humbled.

The second drawback of the libertarian interpretation of civil society is the attitude towards the socially unprotected - all those who have nothing to offer within the framework of equivalent exchange relations. No one can deny that as liberalism as a new great doctrine has triumphantly marched through the world, the attitude towards the socially unprotected has noticeably worsened.

The liberal theory considers culture, education, qualifications, developed intellect, professional ethics not valuable in themselves, not as a prerequisite for a civilized existence, but as a means of immediate market return and benefit.

What kind of society can result from the consistent social application of this theory? A society in which the best - not only in the proper spiritual and moral, but also in the professional and intellectual sense - retreat before the worst, the higher dimensions of human existence before the lower, so that the market society gradually slides towards a pre-civilized state, to wildness. Even if we push aside the proper spiritual criteria of progress, leaving only the material and practical ones, then even then we have to admit that the Chicago theory does not meet its criteria, because the mechanisms developed by it consistently reject everything developed and highly complex in favor of the primitive and one-dimensional . It is the professional and social groups that are leading by the usual sociological criteria that are shrinking and losing their status, giving way to the primitive predators of the market.

Bakker is also credited with the discovery that predetermined the transition from the theory of industrial society to the theory of post-industrial society. We are talking about human capital as the main form of social wealth. In a post-industrial society, the importance of non-material sources of social wealth, primarily related to the human factor, increases. Bakker was one of the first to theoretically prove and substantiate mathematically that profitable investments in science, education, health care, comfort and hygiene systems give several times higher economic returns than investments in internal production factors familiar to capitalism.

In general, we can conclude that the main shortcoming of modern liberal theory is the same as that of Marxism - it assumes that such factors of social life are economically assessable and calculable, which have a stochastic, indefinite character in relation to their own economic use.

Literature

Butenko A.P., Mironov A.V. State and civil society // Socio-political journal. 1997. No. 1.

Vasiliev V.A. Civil Society: Ideological and Theoretical Origins // Socio-political journal. 1997. No. 4.

Gadzhiev K.S. Political Science: Textbook. - M., 1995.

State and civil society // Socio-political journal. 1997. No. 4.

Davletshina N.V., Kimlika B.B., Clark R.J., Ray D.W.Democracy: State and Society. - M., 1995.

Political Science Course: Textbook. - 2nd ed., corrected. and additional - M., 2002.

Levin I.B. Civil Society in the West and in Russia // Polis. 1996. No. 5.

Mukhaev R.T. Political science: a textbook for students of law and humanities faculties. - M., 2000.

Panarin A.S. Political science. Textbook. Second edition, revised and enlarged. - M., 2001.

Political Science in Questions and Answers: Textbook for High Schools / Ed. prof. Yu.G.Volkova. - M., 1999.

Political Science for Lawyers: A Course of Lectures. / Under the editorship of N.I.Matuzov and A.V.Malko. - M., 1999.

Political science. Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M., 1993.

Solovyov A.I. Three faces of the state - three strategies of civil society // Polis. 1996. No. 6.

One of the main tasks of any democratic state in the modern world is to achieve consensus among citizens. This is possible only if the interests of various social groups are observed and there is a possibility of achieving civil accord. Civil society plays the main role in strengthening and uniting state and private interests. This concept is quite broad, and in this article we will try to understand it.

What is civil society

Very often, the development of the state itself directly depends on the level at which civil society is located. To understand the essence of this concept, it is necessary to give a definition. Civil society is a system of social relations and institutions that are not state-owned. This includes formal and informal structures that provide conditions for political and social activity of a person.

In addition, civil society is also the satisfaction and implementation of various needs and interests of individuals, social groups and associations. It usually exists in two dimensions: social and institutional.

If we talk about the social component, then this is a historical experience that, as it were, outlines the limits of the possible actions of all participants in the political process. Experience can be both collective and individual. It determines the behavior of the individual in the political arena, the way of thinking and some other aspects of interpersonal relations.

If we imagine that civil society is an institutional dimension, then it can be characterized as a set of organizations that express the interests of various segments of the population. In addition, they try to implement them independently of the state.

Thus, the concept of civil society is quite broad, and different political scientists interpret it differently.

Principles of civil society

Any society has its own beliefs, civil in this regard is no exception. It operates on the basis of the following principles:

Signs of civil society

Society does not depend on the state and has its own developed economic, political, legal and cultural relations between its members, so it is characterized by certain features. The main ones are the following:

• The consciousness of people is at a high level.
• There is material security, which is based on the ownership of property.
• All members of society have close ties with each other.
• There is a controlled state power, which is represented by employees who have the appropriate competence and ability to solve the problems of society.
• Power is decentralized.
• Some of the power is transferred to self-government bodies.
• Any conflicts in society should be resolved by finding compromises.
• There is a real sense of collectivity, provided by the awareness of belonging to one culture, nation.
• The personality of society is a person who is focused on spirituality and the creation of everything new.

It is also worth mentioning that a developed democracy can and should be included in the signs of a civil society. Without it, it is impossible to build a modern society. In almost every state society has its own distinctive characteristics.

Structure of civil society

Society is also distinguished by the fact that it has its own structure, which necessarily includes public organizations and institutions. Their task is to ensure and create conditions for the realization of the interests of citizens and the needs of entire teams.

In addition, the structure of civil society includes some subsystem elements, which include:

• National movements and nations.
• Classes.
• Social strata of society (for example, pensioners, students).
• political parties or movements.
• Social movements of a mass nature (for example, trade union organizations, environmentalists, animal advocates, etc.).
• Religious organizations.
• Public organizations (dog lovers, teetotalers or beer lovers society).
• Various unions or associations, which may include entrepreneurs, bankers.
• Consumer society, to which we can all be attributed.
• Any team in production, in educational institutions.
• The family is the cell of our society, so it is also part of its structure.

It often happens that even outstanding personalities can perform the functions of a separate element of society. These include the following: A. Sakharov, A. Solzhenitsyn, D. Likhachev and others.

Functions of civil society

Any organization, association performs its specific functions. This also applies to civil society. Among the main functions are the following:

1. The production of norms and values ​​that the state approves with its sanctions.
2. The formation of the environment in which the formation of the individual takes place.
3. Creation of conditions for the free development of the individual on the basis of various forms of ownership.
4. Regulation and control of all structures of society and their relationships with each other with the help of civil law. This allows you to avoid or overcome various conflicts and develop a certain policy in the interests of the whole society.
5. Protection of the rights of each person and his interests by creating an extensive system of legal mechanisms.
6. Large-scale self-government in all spheres of public life.

Relations between society and the state

The state and civil society are constantly interacting. Society turns to the state with its initiatives, proposals, interests and demands, most often requiring support, and above all material.

The state, in turn, meets in different ways, these can be:

• Consideration of initiatives and their support or disapproval.
• Allocation of funds for the development of organizations or foundations.

In almost every state in the structures of power there are bodies that deal with public relations. This relationship can be in different forms, for example, registration of new organizations and assistance to them, creation of conditions for material support.

In addition to special bodies, there is another form of contact between society and the state. This is when representatives of civil society are members of commissions, councils that work in the government. For example, deputies, experts and narrow professionals who have valuable information regarding the development of society.

If we consider in detail the interaction between society and the state, we can draw certain conclusions:

1. Civil and legal society is a powerful lever in the system of limiting the desire of political power to dominate. For this, participation in election campaigns is used. As well as the formation of public opinion with the help of independent media.
2. Civil society is constantly in need of state support. That is why many representatives of organizations take an active part in the work of government agencies. Despite the fact that most organizations are self-forming and independent, they still interact with the state in various forms.
3. It has a keen interest in good relations with society.

The concept of civil society is too broad and large-scale, but it necessarily implies close interaction with government agencies. For a democratic state, it is very important that these relationships be trusting and close, this is the only way to have economic and political stability.

Civil society and its institutions

As we have already found out, the main element of any society is a person. Therefore, all groups and organizations should contribute to the comprehensive development of the individual and the realization of his interests.

Civil society institutions can be divided into several groups:

1. Organizations in which a person receives everything necessary to meet his vital needs, for example, food, food, shelter. These may be trade union organizations, industrial or consumer unions.
2. The second group of institutions includes the family, the church, sports organizations, creative unions. In them, the individual satisfies his spiritual needs, physical.
3. Political parties and movements satisfy the needs for managerial activity.

Thus, the implementation of all the interests of citizens is carried out by the institutions of civil society. The boundaries of these rights and freedoms are precisely its main features.

Characteristic features of modern civil society

Today is characterized by civil society, which has the following characteristics:

• There is no complete and unified system of civil structures yet. You can also talk about the weak legal protection of citizens.
• In society, one can see the division of people into the poor and the rich, the elite and the common people, government officials and everyone else.
• Weak social basis of society. According to estimates, the middle class occupies from 16 to 30% of all citizens.
• The unifying cultural values ​​are not clearly expressed: respect for the individual, solidarity, trust, and others.
• Citizens in most cases are passive and do not want to take part in the political and public life of the state.
• Organizations either weakly or ineffectively influence the authorities.
• The legal basis of civil society is still at the stage of formation.
• The image of society as a whole is influenced by both historical development and modern features.
• At present, the process of formation of civil society in Russia cannot yet be called complete. This is a very long journey. Many citizens simply do not realize the role of society in the life of the state and their own.

A big problem at the moment is the alienation of many organizations, groups, institutions from the state.

Global open society

Global civil society is already an international sphere for the manifestation of citizens' initiatives, their unification on a voluntary basis in organizations. This area is not amenable to intervention and regulation by the state. Such a society is the main basis for the development of civilization and a kind of regulator not only of the economy, but also of politics in all world countries.

An open global society has its own characteristics:

1. There is a rapid change of officials based on public opinion.
2. The same can be said about the elite of society.
3. Availability of accessible media that are not subject to state censorship.
4. The presence of social networks in which citizens can influence each other.
5. Public opinion is dependent on the assessments of citizens.
6. All rights and freedoms are realized in reality, and not just on paper.
7. Self-government is at a high level.
8. The state conducts a correct social policy.
9. The middle class also plays a role in society.
10. State structures are controlled by public organizations.

Thus, it can be said that a global society is one in which the state does not dominate the relations of citizens.

Society and its development

If we talk about the development of civil society, we can safely say that it is not over yet. This applies not only to our country, but also to all other world states.

Most political scientists argue that the formation of civil society began in ancient times, for example, in Greece, Rome, there were separate elements of society. There was a development of trade, crafts, this led to the emergence of commodity-money industries, which were enshrined in Roman private law.

If we talk about European regions, we can distinguish several stages in the development of society:

1. The first stage can be attributed to the 16th-17th centuries. At this time, political, economic, ideological prerequisites for the development of civil society began to appear. This is the rapid development of industry, trade, the division of labor, the development of commodity-money relations, the ideological revolution, the formation of culture and art.
2. The second stage starts from the 17th century and continues until the 19th century. This period was marked by the formation of civil society in the most developed countries in the form of capitalism, which was based on private enterprise.
3. The 20th century is the beginning of the third stage of development, which continues to the present.

If we talk about the development of civil society in Russia at the present time, we can note a number of features:

• Our society has an underdeveloped political culture.
• Many citizens lack social responsibility.
• Initially, Russia belonged to those countries that are more oriented towards the state than towards society. Such stereotypes are quite difficult to correct.
• There is no powerful social stratum that would be able to lead the social movement, so the state plays the main role in this.

The formation of civil society is a long and practically continuous process in which both citizens and the state take an active and equal part. If it is possible to form a modern legal civil society, then the state will also be forced to obey the laws and serve for the benefit of citizens.