|
I was asked to speak about
the relations between the individual and the state institutions.
I will address this in correlation with this colloquium's topic:
"Democratic Institutions and Civil Society in South-Eastern
Europe".
When I compared the title of
my speech with the colloquium's, I asked myself one thing: Are
the terms "democratic institutions" and "state
institutions" describing the same thing ? I do believe so.
"State" has a clear definition. If it functions in
a democratic way, it is a democracy, if it does not, it is a
dictatorship. In both, democracy and dictatorship, there are
state institutions. In a democracy they are under democratic
control, while in a dictatorship they are obviously not. I would
not like it, nevertheless, to always have to call
institutions of a democratic state "democratic institutions".
The term "state institution" would then get the negative
implication of being an institution of a non-democratic state.
I will thus consciously use the term "state institution".
When using this term, I mean to include the whole range of governmental
and administrative, parliamentary and judiciary institutions.
I also include the ones on regional and municipal level.
Of what nature is the relation
between an individual and a state institution on one hand, and
the organisations of civil society on the other? I would like
to compare three elements of state structures with the ones of
civil society: the individual's affiliation, the use of force
and finally the basic values.
First, let me say a word about
affiliation, about belonging. I always belong to a state. The
question could only be which state, or how many states. But once
that question is answered, I cannot be excluded from a state,
at least not in a civilised system. Even if I never took part
in elections, I can still participate in the next ones. I will
also have to pay taxes, a situation we do not always appreciate,
but one we have to accept. In civil society this is all very
different. If I do not want to pay membership fees in an association
any longer, or if I do not like an organisation's activities
any longer I can always withdraw my membership. I can resign
from civil society. I can also feel excluded from it. Civil society
has a right to exclude, a right that the state has not. The state,
by definition, bears responsibility for everyone.
On the next point, the use
of force, I would like to be very plain. The use of force, be
it military or police, always has to remain in the hands of the
state. The division between civil society and the state must
never be vague. Private armies are the beginning of the end of
a functioning state. The state has to set up rules for civil
society in order for this not to happen. I will come back to
this.
Now, let me come to the last
point of comparison between civil society and the state: the
basic values. There are no limits as to what values an organisation
of civil society can pursue. And that is exactly where the problem
lies: an organisation of civil society can advocate very questionable
ideas. Who prevents such an organisation from being racist ?
Or who hinders a religious group from preaching intolerance and
to rigorously force it upon their members ? The answer is simple:
only the state can. The state is built upon a constitution where
every citizen's basic rights are clearly defined. Civil society
does not have a constitution. Therefore, again the state has
to integrate civil society by law. Because only the state can
guarantee and implement values and basic rights. Because only
the state has the monopoly on justice and the use of force.
Now let me explain why I think
it is so important to be clear about definitions, especially
when looking at the situation in south-eastern Europe.
In this context we will have
to look at the question of the individual's identity. Any individual
should have many identities. These can be freely chosen identities
such as cultural, professional or political ones; but also identities
one is born with, such as family or ethnic origin. As I am formed
by the ideals of the French revolution, I would like to consider
religious identification to be a freely chosen one. In south-eastern
Europe however, most people think about religion as something
you are born into. In addition to all these identities there
must also be a civic identity. Be it a freely chosen one, or
one an individual is born with. But even civic identity can have
several levels. It concerns not only the state, but can be regional
or even communal. Being European, finally, is an additional civic
identity.
The most important task for
civil society is it to guarantee the individual's many identities.
Individuals with many identities are an enrichment for society
and for the state. These persons are in fact the pillars a state
is built upon. They are the ones that ensure peace in society.
Because none of their different identities can ever totally absorb
them.
It is very dangerous, if people
develop mono-identities. The implications of such a development
can be observed in sects and cults that demand total identification,
complete absorption that excludes all other identities. This
brings us to the central issue of the conflicts that took place
in south-eastern Europe in the last couple of years. In these
situations of conflict, ethnicity started to completely dominate
over all other forms of identification including civic identity.
Such development bears pathological features.
Who defines himself only by
ethnicity - who only accepts one mono-identity - does not see
anymore that one of the functions of the state's institutions
must be to provide political mechanisms to balance differing
interests, be they political, economic, ethnic or of other origin.
People who are infected with this kind of thinking accept statehood
only as a cover for a single and ethnically clean group. Just
how dangerous this notion is, has been sufficiently demonstrated
by the recent wars in former Yugoslavia.
The effects of not accepting
state institutions can presently still be observed in Bosnia.
Unfortunately it is still possible in today's Bosnia that the
state as such is rejected. For example if governments refuse
to take responsibility for police actions claiming that they
have no authority over the police in a certain area or because
certain police organs are not under their control. Or if judicial
decisions are simply not enforced if in favour of a person with
another ethnic origin than preferred by the authorities. Or if
parliaments have difficulties to function, because this would
be accepting inter-ethnic co-operation, which is exactly what
certain members of parliament decidedly do not want.
But still some people elect
these same politicians. And this will not change as long as ethnicity
- ethnically defined identity - dictates everything. It will
not change as long as civic identity does not take its place
again in the consciousness of the people. It will stay this way
until the notion of being protected by one's own ethnic group
is replaced by trust in the state's capacity of protection. It
will stay this way until ethnically motivated violence is replaced
by the state monopoly on the use of force.
Before I come to my conclusion,
let me add a brief historical remark. The Council of Europe was
established as an answer to the Second World War. For many years
after the end of the war nobody spoke about Civil Society. It
was during the Cold War that this term appeared. Then the idea
was to strengthen the dissidents against the totalitarian states
in Central and Eastern Europe. Today we are confronted with a
different problem. We are facing state structures that do not
or not yet function. Is this situation it would be inappropriate
to make people think that Civil Society could in any way replace
state structures.
So let me come to the following
simple conclusion: Efforts to promote civil society in the sense
of a renewal of private interest groups and networks do make
sense. The most important task for civil society is to guarantee
the individual's many identities. If, however, parallel or even
previous efforts to strengthen civic consciousness and functioning
state institutions lag behind, any promotion of civil society
may well be without success.
|