Germany’s Contested Civil Society in a Time of Politization

IF 2.2 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Nonprofit Policy Forum Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI:10.1515/npf-2021-0060
S. Hummel
{"title":"Germany’s Contested Civil Society in a Time of Politization","authors":"S. Hummel","doi":"10.1515/npf-2021-0060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Growing efforts to shrink civil societies’ scope of action are evident around the globe. Germany’s civil society has not been fully immune from this, but analysing whether there is a shrinking civic space requires a twofold perspective. While having a high democratic state standard and a rather supportive environment, there is also a discourse of whether it is legitimate for civil society organisations (CSO) to be politically active, following controversial recent lawsuits against CSOs on that ground. Additionally, there is an increasing atmosphere of hate and demonization from some social groups against civil society activists that impede their work and scope of action. Accordingly, there is an ongoing discussion whether Germany’s civil society is affected by the shrinking space phenomenon or not. To capture and theoretically comprehend these processes in Germany, I argue that these signs of “shrinking spaces” should rather be understood as a contestation that is the outcome of a growing re-politicization of civil society in the last 15 years. It is rooted in a new wave of politicization in which democracy is no longer an undisputed paradigm. Against this background, over the last decade, civil society has become again a terrain of contestation where different views and options are expressed and collide, but that is also attacked from the outside. Two main changes, I argue, have driven forward the politicization of civil society: first, a new social cleavage that is exploited by (right-wing) populism and, second, the claim for more direct participation in the democratic systems by the citizens which produced new political opportunity structures of good governance that allow more CSOs to advocate. While this process emancipated many CSOs, it also brought forth different contestations about legitimate participation. In this way, one can simultaneously observe a shrinking and a growing space for civil society in Germany.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2021-0060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract Growing efforts to shrink civil societies’ scope of action are evident around the globe. Germany’s civil society has not been fully immune from this, but analysing whether there is a shrinking civic space requires a twofold perspective. While having a high democratic state standard and a rather supportive environment, there is also a discourse of whether it is legitimate for civil society organisations (CSO) to be politically active, following controversial recent lawsuits against CSOs on that ground. Additionally, there is an increasing atmosphere of hate and demonization from some social groups against civil society activists that impede their work and scope of action. Accordingly, there is an ongoing discussion whether Germany’s civil society is affected by the shrinking space phenomenon or not. To capture and theoretically comprehend these processes in Germany, I argue that these signs of “shrinking spaces” should rather be understood as a contestation that is the outcome of a growing re-politicization of civil society in the last 15 years. It is rooted in a new wave of politicization in which democracy is no longer an undisputed paradigm. Against this background, over the last decade, civil society has become again a terrain of contestation where different views and options are expressed and collide, but that is also attacked from the outside. Two main changes, I argue, have driven forward the politicization of civil society: first, a new social cleavage that is exploited by (right-wing) populism and, second, the claim for more direct participation in the democratic systems by the citizens which produced new political opportunity structures of good governance that allow more CSOs to advocate. While this process emancipated many CSOs, it also brought forth different contestations about legitimate participation. In this way, one can simultaneously observe a shrinking and a growing space for civil society in Germany.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
政治化时代德国有争议的公民社会
缩小公民社会活动范围的努力在全球范围内日益明显。德国的公民社会并没有完全免受这种影响,但分析公民空间是否在缩小需要双重视角。虽然有一个高度民主的国家标准和一个相当支持的环境,但也有一个关于公民社会组织(CSO)在政治上活跃是否合法的讨论,在最近针对公民社会组织的争议诉讼之后。此外,一些社会团体对民间社会积极分子的仇恨和妖魔化气氛日益加剧,妨碍了他们的工作和行动范围。因此,关于德国公民社会是否受到空间萎缩现象的影响,人们一直在讨论。为了捕捉和从理论上理解德国的这些过程,我认为,这些“空间缩小”的迹象应该被理解为一场争论,这是过去15年来公民社会日益重新政治化的结果。它植根于新的政治化浪潮,在这种浪潮中,民主不再是一种无可争议的范式。在这种背景下,在过去十年中,公民社会再次成为一个争论的领域,不同的观点和选择在这里表达和碰撞,但这也受到来自外部的攻击。我认为,两个主要的变化推动了公民社会的政治化:首先,右翼民粹主义利用了新的社会分裂;其次,公民要求更直接地参与民主制度,这产生了新的良好治理的政治机会结构,允许更多的公民社会组织倡导。这一过程在解放许多公民社会组织的同时,也引发了关于合法参与的不同争论。通过这种方式,人们可以同时观察到德国公民社会空间的缩小和扩大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nonprofit Policy Forum
Nonprofit Policy Forum PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
18.80%
发文量
23
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
Frontline of Refugee Reception Policy: Warsaw Reception Centers During the 2022 Ukrainian Crisis Frontline of Refugee Reception Policy: Warsaw Reception Centers During the 2022 Ukrainian Crisis Anders Sevelsted, Jonas Toubøl (eds.) (2023) The Social Enterprise Craze: CSO Financial Sustainability in Ghana How Do Nonprofits’ Organizational Characteristics Shape Environmental Philanthropy in Texas? A Network Science Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1