جامعة
بنى سويف
كلية
الآداب
قسم
علوم المعلومات
دراسات
عليا
اعداد الطالبة /
سمر على حسن
اشراف /
أ.د/ مها احمد
المادة:
الويب
2015
مقالة عن المجتمع المدنى
يشير
مصطلح المجتمع
المدني إلى
كل أنواع الأنشطة التطوعية التي تنظمها الجماعة حول مصالح وقيم وأهداف مشتركة.
وتشمل هذه الأنشطة المتنوعة الغاية التي ينخرط فيها المجتمع المدني تقديم الخدمات،
أو دعم التعليم المستقل، أو التأثير على السياسات العامة. ففي إطار هذا النشاط
الأخير مثلا، يجوز أن يجتمع مواطنون خارج دائرة العمل الحكومي لنشر المعلومات حول
السياسات، أو ممارسة الضغوط بشأنها، أو تعزيزها (معاقبة صانعي السياسات أو
مكافأتهم).[1]
يضم
المجتمع المدني مجموعة واسعة النطاق من المنظمات
غير الحكومية والمنظمات
غير الربحية التي لها وجودٌ في الحياة العامة وتنهض
بعبء التعبير عن اهتمامات وقيم أعضائها أو الآخرين، استناداً إلى اعتبارات أخلاقية
أو ثقافية أو سياسية أو علمية أو دينية أو خيرية.[2][3]
و
من ثم يشير مصطلح منظمات
المجتمع المدني إلى جمعيات
ينشئها أشخاص تعمل لنصرة قضية مشتركة.[1] وهي تشمل المنظمات
غير الحكومية، والنقابات العمالية، وجماعات السكان الأصليين،
والمنظمات الخيرية، والمنظمات الدينية، والنقابات المهنية، ومؤسسات العمل الخيري.[2] أما الميزة المشتركة التي تجمع بين
منظمات المجتمع
المدني كافة، على شدة تنوعها، فهي تتمثل باستقلالها
عن الحكومة والقطاع الخاص أقله من حيث المبدأ. ولعل هذا الطابع الاستقلالي هو ما
يسمح لهذه المنظمات بأن تعمل على الأرض وتضطلع بدور هام في أي نظام ديمقراطي.[1]
ثمة اجتهادات متنوعة في
تعريف مفهوم المجتمع المدني تعبر عن تطور المفهوم والجدل حول طبيعته وأشكاله
وأدواره. فالمعنى المشاع للمفهوم هو «المجتمع السياسي» الذي يحكمه القانون تحت
سلطة الدولة. لكن المعنى الأكثر شيوعاً هو تمييز المجتمع المدني عن الدولة،
بوصفه مجالاً لعمل الجمعيات التطوعية والاتحادات مثل النوادي الرياضية وجمعيات رجال
الأعمال وجماعات الرفق بالحيوان، وجمعيات حقوق الإنسان،
واتحادات العمال وغيرها. أي أن المجتمع المدني يتكون مما أطلق عليه إدموند بيرك الأسرة الكبيرة.
في المقام الأول يهتم
المرء بسبل عمله ومعيشته، ليكفي حاجته وحاجة أفراد أسرته بالغذاء والسكن وغير ذلك
من لوازم الحياة. ولكن يوجد بجانب ذلك أشخاص كثيرون يهتمون بالمجتمع الذي يعيشون
فيه، ويكونون على استعداد للتطوع وإفادة الآخرين. أي أن المجتمع المدني ينمو
بمقدار استعداد أفراده على العطاء بدون مقابل لإفادة الجماعة. هذا يعتبر من
«الإيثار العام». وفي المجتمعات الديموقراطية تشجع على ذلك النشاط الحكومات.
يستخدم المجتمع المدني
عادة كمفهوم وصفي لتقييم التوازن بين سلطة الدولة من جهة، والهيئات والتجمعات
الخاصة من جهة أخرى فالشمولية مثلاً
تقوم على إلغاء المجتمع المدني، ومن ثم يوصف نمو التجمعات والأندية الخاصة وجماعات
الضغط والنقابات العمالية المستقلة في المجتمعات الشيوعية السابقة بعد انهيار
الحكم الشيوعي، توصف هذه الظواهر بعودة المجتمع المدني.
ومع ذلك، يلتصق مفهوم
المجتمع المدني في أغلب الحالات بدلالات معيارية وأيديولوجية. فوفقاً للرؤية
الليبرالية التقليدية، يتسم المجتمع المدني بأنه مجال تطوع الاختيار ،
والحرية الشخصية ،و المسئولية الفردية ،
تجاه المجتمع الذي يعيش فيه المرء ويريد العطاء له بما لديه من إمكانيات معرفة أو
أمكانيات مادية. أى أن المجتمع المدني يتيح للأفراد المجال لتشكيل مصائرهم الخاصة
ومساعدة الآخرين. ويفسر ذلك أهمية وجود مجتمع مدني قوى متسم بالحيوية في صورة
تأسيس جمعيات تطوعية ومنتديات وجمعيات خيرية كملمح أساسي للديموقراطية
الليبرالية، والتفضيل الأخلاقي لدى الليبراليين التقليديين
للمجتمع المدني ،وهو ما يظهر في الرغبة في تعضيد عمل الأجهزة التنفيذية في الدولة
عن طريق النشاط في المجال الخاص.
وعلى النقيض من ذلك،
يوضح الاستخدام الهيجلي للمفهوم أبعاده السلبية حيث يضع أنانية المجتمع المدني في
مواجهة الإيثار المعزز في إطار كل من الأسرة والدولة، من ناحية ثالثة، فإن
الماركسيين والشيوعيين عادة ما ينظرون إلى المجتمع المدني بصورة سلبية حيث يربطونه
بالهيكل الطبقي غير المتكافئ والمظالم الاجتماعية. وتبرر مثل هذه الآراء التخلص من
الهيكل القائم للمجتمع المدني كلية، أو تقليص المجتمع المدني من خلال التوسع في
قوة الدولة ودورها التنظيمي. ولكن التاريخ يبين أن تلك السياسات الماركسية
والشيوعية والاستبدادية قد فشلت.
لا ينقصر المجتمع
المدني على التطوع الفردي فقط بغرض تحقيق فائدة اجتماعية للناس أو تكوين اتحادات
مع أناس يشتركون في ممارسة رياضة أو هواية مشتركة في أوقات الفراغ، بل تشمل أيضا
حرية تأسيس شركات ومؤسسات أهلية للتجارة أو الإنتاج الصناعي. فبتزايد الشركات
المساهمة التي تنشؤها الأهالي تزداد فرص العمل، ويقل العبء على الدولة لتوفير عمل
لكل مواطن، ويتيح للحكومة أن تهتم بالتعليم من المدرسة الابتدائية إلى الدراسة
الجامعية والتأهيل الجيد للشباب ليقوم بعد ذلك بالمشاركة الفعالة في الإنتاج. ومن
واجبات الدولة بناء البنية التحتية ومثلا الاهتمام بالمواصلات وتسيير السكك
الحديدية، والبريد. فالمجتمع المدني هو تضامن اجتماعي يشمل الجميع، يشمل الترابط
بين صاحب العمل والعمال، ويكون للدولة والجهاز التشريعي فيها باصدار القوانين التي
تحدد علاقة صاحب العمل بالعامل والعمال، كما تصدر القوانين الخاصة بالتأمين الصحي
للعمال والموظفين.
تتبع النمسا وألمانيا مفهوم
المجتمع المدني على هذا المفهوم الموسع، حيث تتيح الدولة للاهالي إنشاء شركات
ومؤسسات تساهمية إلى أبعد الحدود. وفي الوقت التي تقوم فيه الدولة بإنشاء المقومات
الأساسية مثل بناء البنية التحتية، وتشغيل السكك الحديدية والمواني، والبريد، فهي
تهتم أيضا بأن تقوم الأجهزة التشريعية بتحديد العلاقة بين صاحب العمل والعامل
والعمال. فمثلا يقرر المشرع بأن يكون التأمين الصحي للعامل وذويه من القصر مناصفة
بين صاحب العمل والعامل. كما ينظم المشرع تأمين العامل ضد البطالة إذا ما ساء حال
شركة ما واضطرت لتسريح بعضا من عمالها. فالدولة هي التي تقوم بتحصيل تأمين البطالة
من المنبع (أي من الشركة أو المؤسسة مباشرة) وتحدده وترفعه بحسب تطغلاء الأسعار،
وهي التي تقوم بعد ذلك بدفع إعانة البطالة للعامل بالقدر وللمدة التي حددها
القانون.
معظم الشركات الألمانية
والنمساوية الكبيرة، مثل سيمنز ودايملر بنز وكروب للحديد
والصلب، وباير للصناعات الكيميائية وصناعة الدواء هي شركات مساهمة تمتلكها
الأهالي. فهي أدوات إنتاجية وتوفر فرص العمل والعلاقة بينها وبين العملين فيها
ينظمها المشرع، فهي منظومة نشطة للتضامن الاجتماعي وتحقيق الرخاء
Civil
society
Civil society is the "aggregate of non-governmental organizations
and institutions that manifest interests and will of citizens."[1] Civil society includes the family and the private sphere,
referred to as the "third sector" of society, distinct from government and
business.[2] Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon defines civil
society as 1) the aggregate of non-governmental organizations and institutions
that manifest interests and will of citizens or 2) individuals and
organizations in a society which are independent of the government.[1]
Sometimes the term civil society is used in the more general sense of "the elements such as freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, etc, that make up a democratic society" (Collins English Dictionary).[3] Especially in the discussions among thinkers of Eastern and Central Europe, civil society is seen also as a concept of civic values. One widely known representative of this concept is the Polish former dissident Adam Michnik.
Volunteering is
often considered a defining characteristic of the organizations that constitute
civil society, which in turn are often called "NGOs",
or "NPOs".
Most authorities have in mind the realm of public participation in voluntary
associations, trade unions and the like,[4] but it is not necessary to belong to all of these to be a
part of civil society.
Etymology
The term civil society goes back to Aristotle's
phrase koinōnía politikḗ (κοινωνία πολιτική), occurring in his Politics, where it refers to a ‘community’,
commensurate with the Greek city-state (polis)
characterized by a shared set of norms and ethos, in which free citizens on an equal
footing lived under the rule of law. The telos or
end of civil society, thus defined, wascommon wellbeing (τὸ εὖ ζῆν tò eu zēn), in as man was
defined as a ‘political (social) animal’ (ζῷον πολιτικόν zōon politikón).[5][6][7][8] Though the concept was
mentioned in Roman writers, such as Cicero, it
entered into Western political discourse following the translation of
Aristotle’s works into Latin (societas civilis) by late medieval and
early Renaissance writers such as William
of Moerbeke and Leonardo Bruni,
where it often referred to the ancient notion of a republic (res publica).
With the rise of a distinction between monarchical autonomy and public law, the
term then gained currency to denote the corporate estates (Ständestaat)
of a feudal elite of land-holders as opposed to the powers exercised by the
prince.[9] It had a long history
in state theory, and was revived with particular force in recent times, in
Eastern Europe, where dissidents such as Václav Havel employed it to denote
the sphere of civic associations threatened by the intrusive holistic state-dominated
regimes
Democracy
The literature on relations between
civil society and democratic political society have their roots in early classical liberalwritings like those of Alexis de Tocqueville.[11] However they were developed in significant ways by 20th
century theorists like Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, who identified the role of
political culture in a democratic order as vital.[12]
They argued that the political element
of political organizations facilitates better awareness and a more informed
citizenry, who make better voting choices, participate in politics, and hold
government more accountable as a result.[12] The statutes of these organizations have often been
considered micro-constitutions because they accustom participants to the
formalities of democratic decision making.
More recently, Robert D. Putnam has argued that even non-political
organizations in civil society are vital for democracy. This is because they
build social capital, trust and shared values, which
are transferred into the political sphere and help to hold society together,
facilitating an understanding of the interconnectedness of society and
interests within it.[13]
Others, however, have questioned how
democratic civil society actually is. Some have noted that the civil society
actors have now obtained a remarkable amount of political power without anyone directly electing or
appointing them.[14][15] It has also been argued that civil society is biased
towards the global north.[16] Partha
Chatterjee has argued
that, in most of the world, "civil society is demographically limited."[17] For Jai Sen civil society is a neo-colonial project driven
by global elites in their own interests.[18] Finally, other scholars have argued that, since the
concept of civil society is closely related to democracy and representation, it
should in turn be linked with ideas of nationality and nationalism.[19] Latest analyses suggest that civil society is a neoliberal
ideology legitimizing antidemocratic attack of economic elites on institutions
of the welfare state through the development of the third sector as its
substitute.[20
Globalization
Critics and activists currently often
apply the term civil society to the domain of social life which
needs to be protected against globalization, and to the sources of
resistance thereto, because it is seen as acting beyond boundaries and across
different territories.[23] However, as civil society can, under many definitions,
include and be funded and directed by those businesses and institutions
(especially donors linked to European and Northern states) who support globalization, this is a contested use.[24] Rapid development of civil society on the global scale
after the fall of the communist system was a part of neo-liberal strategies
linked to the Washington Consensus.[14] Some studies have also been published, which deal with
unresolved issues regarding the use of the term in connection with the impact
and conceptual power of the international aid system (see for example Tvedt
1998).
On the other hand, others see globalization as a social phenomenon expanding the
sphere of classical liberal values, which inevitably led to a
larger role for civil society at the expense of politically derived state
institutions.
The
integrated Civil Society Organizations (iCSO) System, developed by
the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), facilitates interactions
between civil society organizations and DESA.[25]
History[edit]
From a historical perspective, the
actual meaning of the concept of civil society has changed twice from its
original, classical form. The first change occurred after the French
Revolution, the second during the fall of communism in Europe.
Western antiquity[edit]
The concept of civil society in its
pre-modern classical
republican understanding
is usually connected to the early-modern thought of Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century. However, it has
much older history in the realm of political thought. Generally, civil society
has been referred to as a political association governing social conflict
through the imposition of rules that restrain citizens from harming one
another.[26] In the classical period, the concept was used as a synonym
for the good society, and seen as indistinguishable from the state. For
instance, Socrates taught
that conflicts within society should be resolved through public argument using
‘dialectic’, a form of rational dialogue to
uncover truth. According to Socrates, public argument through ‘dialectic’ was
imperative to ensure ‘civility’ in the polis and ‘good life’ of the people.[27] For Plato,
the ideal state was a just society in which people dedicate themselves to the
common good, practice civic virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation and justice,
and perform the occupational role to which they were best suited. It was the
duty of the ‘philosopher king’
to look after people in civility. Aristotle thought
the polis was an ‘association of associations’ that enables citizens to share
in the virtuous task of ruling and being ruled.[26] His koinonia
politike as political community.
The concept of societas civilis is Roman and was introduced by Cicero. The political discourse in the
classical period, places importance on the idea of a ‘good society’ in ensuring
peace and order among the people. The philosophers in the classical period did
not make any distinction between the state and society. Rather they held that
the state represented the civil form of society and ‘civility’ represented the
requirement of good citizenship.[26] Moreover, they held that human beings are inherently
rational so that they can collectively shape the nature of the society they
belong to. In addition, human beings have the capacity to voluntarily gather
for the common cause and maintain peace in society. By holding this view, we
can say that classical political thinkers endorsed the genesis of civil society
in its original sense.
The Middle Ages saw
major changes in the topics discussed by political philosophers. Due to the
unique political arrangements of feudalism, the concept of classical civil
society practically disappeared from mainstream discussion. Instead
conversation was dominated by problems of just war, a preoccupation that would last
until the end of Renaissance.
Pre-modern history[edit]
The Thirty Years' War and the subsequent Treaty of Westphalia heralded the birth of the sovereign
states system. The Treaty endorsed states as territorially-based
political units having sovereignty. As a result, the monarchs were able to
exert domestic control by emasculating the feudal lords and to stop relying on
the latter for armed troops.[28] Henceforth, monarchs could form national armies and deploy
a professional bureaucracy and fiscal departments, which enabled them to
maintain direct control and supreme authority over their subjects. In order to
meet administrative expenditures, monarchs controlled the economy. This gave
birth to absolutism.[29] Until the mid-eighteenth century, absolutism was the
hallmark of Europe.[29]
The absolutist concept of the state was
disputed in the Enlightenment period.[30] As a natural consequence of Renaissance, Humanism, and the
scientific revolution, the Enlightenment thinkers raised fundamental questions
such as "What legitimacy does heredity confer?", "Why are
governments instituted?", "Why should some human beings have more
basic rights than others?", and so on. These questions led them to make
certain assumptions about the nature of the human mind, the sources of political
and moral authority, the reasons behind
absolutism, and how to move beyond absolutism. The Enlightenment thinkers
believed in the inherent goodness of the human mind. They opposed the alliance
between the state and the Church as the enemy of human progress and well-being
because the coercive apparatus of the state curbed individual liberty and the
Church legitimated monarchs by positing the theory of divine origin. Therefore,
both were deemed to be against the will of the people.
Strongly influenced by the atrocities
of Thirty Years' War, the political philosophers of the time held that social
relations should be ordered in a different way from natural law conditions.
Some of their attempts led to the emergence of social contract theory that contested social relations
existing in accordance with human nature. They held that human nature can be
understood by analyzing objective realities and natural law conditions. Thus
they endorsed that the nature of human beings should be encompassed by the
contours of state and established positive laws. Thomas Hobbes underlined the need of a powerful
state to maintain civility in society. For Hobbes, human beings are motivated
by self-interests (Graham 1997:23). Moreover, these self-interests are often
contradictory in nature. Therefore, in state of nature, there was a condition of a
war of all against all. In such a situation, life was "solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish and short" (Ibid: 25). Upon realizing the danger of
anarchy, human beings became aware of the need of a mechanism to protect them.
As far as Hobbes was concerned, rationality and self-interests persuaded human
beings to combine in agreement, to surrender sovereignty to a common power
(Kaviraj 2001:289).[full citation
needed] Hobbes called this
common power, state, Leviathan.
John Locke had
a similar concept to Hobbes about the political condition in England. It was
the period of the Glorious Revolution, marked by the struggle between the
divine right of the Crown and the political rights of Parliament. This
influenced Locke to forge a social contract theory of a limited state and a
powerful society. In Locke’s view, human beings led also an unpeaceful life in
the state of nature. However, it could be maintained at the sub-optimal level
in the absence of a sufficient system (Brown 2001:73). From that major concern,
people gathered together to sign a contract and constituted a common public
authority. Nevertheless, Locke held that the consolidation of political power
can be turned into autocracy, if it is not brought under reliable restrictions
(Kaviraj 2001:291). Therefore, Locke set forth two treaties on government with
reciprocal obligations. In the first treaty, people submit themselves to the
common public authority. This authority has the power to enact and maintain
laws. The second treaty contains the limitations of authority, i. e., the state
has no power to threaten the basic rights of human beings. As far as Locke was
concerned, the basic rights of human beings are the preservation of life,
liberty and property. Moreover, he held that the state must operate within the
bounds of civil and natural laws.
Both Hobbes and Locke had set forth a
system, in which peaceful coexistence among human beings could be ensured
through social pacts or contracts. They considered civil society as a community
that maintained civil life, the realm where civic virtues and rights were
derived from natural laws. However, they did not hold that civil society was a
separate realm from the state. Rather, they underlined the co-existence of the
state and civil society. The systematic approaches of Hobbes and Locke (in
their analysis of social relations) were largely influenced by the experiences
in their period. Their attempts to explain human nature, natural laws, the
social contract and the formation of government had challenged the divine right
theory. In contrast to divine right, Hobbes and Locke claimed that humans can
design their political order. This idea had a great impact on the thinkers in
the Enlightenment period.
The Enlightenment thinkers argued that
human beings are rational and can shape their destiny. Hence, no need of an
absolute authority to control them. Both Jean-Jacques Rousseau,
a critic of civil society, and Immanuel Kant argued that people are peace lovers
and that wars are the creation of absolute regimes (Burchill 2001:33). As far
as Kant was concerned, this system was effective to guard against the
domination of a single interest and check the tyranny of the majority (Alagappa
2004:30).
Modern history[edit]
G. W. F.
Hegel[31] completely changed the meaning of civil society, giving
rise to a modern liberal understanding
of it as a form of market society
as opposed to institutions of modern nation state.[11] Unlike his predecessors, Hegel considered civil society (German: bürgerliche Gesellschaft) as a separate realm, a "system of
needs", that is the, "[stage of] difference which intervenes between
the family and the state."[32] Civil society is the realm of economic relationships as it
exists in the modern industrial capitalist society,[33] for it had emerged at the particular period of capitalism
and served its interests: individual rights and private property.[34] Hence, he used the German term "bürgerliche
Gesellschaft" to denote civil society as "civilian society" – a
sphere regulated by the civil code. This new way of thinking about
civil society was followed byAlexis de Tocqueville and Karl Marx as
well.[11] For Hegel, civil society manifested contradictory forces.
Being the realm of capitalist interests, there is a possibility of conflicts
and inequalities within it (ex: mental and physical aptitude, talents and
financial circumstances). He argued that these inequalities influence the
choices that members are able to make in relation to the type of work they will
do. The diverse positions in Civil Society fall into three estates: the
substantial estate (agriculture), the formal estate (trade and industry), and
the universal estate (civil society).[35] A man is able to choose his estate, though his choice is
limited by the aforementioned inequalities. However, Hegel argues that these
inequalities enable all estates in Civil Society to be filled, which leads to a
more efficient system on the whole.
Karl Marx followed
Hegelian way of using concept of civil society. For Marx, civil society was the
‘base’
where productive forces and social relations were taking place, whereas
political society was the 'superstructure'.[11] Agreeing with the link between capitalism and civil
society, Marx held that the latter represents the interests of the bourgeoisie.[36] Therefore, the state as superstructure also represents the
interests of the dominant class; under capitalism, it maintains the domination
of the bourgeoisie. Hence, Marx rejected the positive role of state put forth
by Hegel. Marx argued that the state cannot be a neutral problem solver.
Rather, he depicted the state as the defender of the interests of the
bourgeoisie. He considered the state to be the executive arm of the
bourgeoisie, which would wither away once the working class took democratic
control of society.[37]
The above view about civil society was
criticized by Antonio Gramsci (Edwards 2004:10). Departing somehow
from Marx, Gramsci did not consider civil society as coterminous with the
socio-economic base of the state. Rather, Gramsci located civil society in the
political superstructure. He viewed civil society as the vehicle for bourgeois
hegemony, when it just represents a particular class. He underlined the crucial
role of civil society as the contributor of the cultural and ideological
capital required for the survival of the hegemony of capitalism.[38] Rather than posing it as a problem, as in earlier Marxist
conceptions, Gramsci viewed civil society as the site for problem-solving.
Misunderstanding Gramsci, the New Left assigned
civil society a key role in defending people against the state and the market
and in asserting the democratic will to influence the state.[39] At the same time, Neo-liberal thinkers consider civil
society as a site for struggle to subvert Communist and authoritarian regimes.[40] Thus, the term civil society occupies an important place
in the political discourses of the New Left and Neo-liberals.
Post-modern history[edit]
It is commonly believed that the
post-modern way of understanding civil society was first developed by political
opposition in the former Soviet bloc East European countries in the 1980s.
However, research shows that communist propaganda had
the most important influence on the development and popularization of the idea
instead, in an effort to legitimize neoliberaltransformation in 1989. According to
theory of restructurization of welfare systems, a new way of using the concept
of civil society became a neoliberal ideology legitimizing
development of the third sector as a substitute for the welfare state. The recent development of the
third sector is a result of this welfare systems restructuring, rather than of
democratization.[20]
From that time stems a practice within
the political field of using the idea of civil society instead of political society. Henceforth, postmodern
usage of the idea of civil society became divided into two main : as
political society and as the third sector – apart from plethora of definitions.
The Washington Consensus of the 1990s, which involved
conditioned loans by the World Bank and IMF to debt-laden developing states,
also created pressures for states in poorer countries to shrink.[14]This in turn led to practical changes for
civil society that went on to influence the theoretical debate. Initially the
new conditionality led to an even greater emphasis on "civil society"
as a panacea, replacing the state's service provision and social care,[14] Hulme and Edwards suggested that it was now seen as
"the magic bullet."
By the end of the 1990s civil society
was seen less as a panacea amid the growth of the anti-globalization
movement and the
transition of many countries to democracy; instead, civil society was
increasingly called on to justify its legitimacy and democratic credentials.
This led to the creation by the UN of a high level panel on civil society.[41] However, in the 1990s with the emergence of the
nongovernmental organizations and the new social movements (NSMs) on a global scale, civil
society as a third sector became
treated as a key terrain of strategic action to construct ‘an alternative
social and world order.’ Post-modern civil society theory has now largely
returned to a more neutral stance, but with marked differences between the
study of the phenomena in richer societies and writing on civil society in
developing states.
Link to the public
sphere[edit]
Jürgen Habermas said that the public sphere encourages rational will-formation; it
is a sphere of rational and democratic social interaction.[42] Habermas argues that even though society was
representative of capitalist society, there are some institutions that were
part of political society. Transformations in economy brought transformations
to the public sphere. Though these transformations happen, a civil society develops
when it emerges as non-economic and has a populous aspect, and when the state
is not represented by just one political party. There needs to be a locus of
authority, and this is where society can begin to challenge authority. Jillian
Schwedler points out that civil society emerges with the resurrection of the
public sphere when individuals and groups begin to challenge boundaries of
permissible behaviour — for example, by speaking out against the regime or
demanding a government response to social needs — civil society begins to take
shape.[43]
مقالة عن الخديوى توفيق
الخديوي إسماعيل (1245 هـ / 31 ديسمبر 1830 - 1312 هـ / 2 مارس 1895)، خامس حكام مصرمن الأسرة العلوية وذلك من 18 يناير 1863 إلى أن خلعه عن العرش السلطان العثماني تحت
ضغط كل منإنجلترا وفرنسا في 26 يونيو 1879. في
فترة حكمه عمل على تطوير الملامح العمرانية والاقتصادية والإدارية في مصر بشكل كبير ليستحق لقب المؤسس
الثاني لمصر الحديثة بعد إنجازات جده محمد علي باشا الكبير.
مولده ونشأته[عدل]
هو
إسماعيل بن إبراهيم
باشا بن محمد علي
باشا. ولد
في 31 ديسمبر 1830م في قصر المسافر خانه بالجمالية، وهو الابن الأوسط بين ثلاثة
أبناء لإبراهيم
باشا غير أشقاء وهم الاميرين احمد رفعت ومصطفى
فاضل[1].اهتم
والده ابراهيم باشا بتعليمه ، فتعلم مبادىء العلوم واللغات العربية والتركية
والفارسية ، بالاضافة الى القليل من الرياضيات والطبيعة و قد ارسله والده وهو فى
سن الرابعة عشر الى فيينا عاصمة النمسا ، لكى يعالج بها من إصابته برمد صديدى،
وأيضاً لإستكمال تعليمه[1]، وقد بقي في فيينا لمدة عامين، ثم
التحق بالبعثه المصرية الخامسة إلى باريس لينتظم لينضم إلى تلاميذها ، وكان من
بينهم الأمير احمد رفعت ( شقيقه ) والأميران عبد الحليم وحسين وهما من أبناء محمد
على وفى باريس درس علوم الهندسة والرياضيات والطبيعة ، كما أتقن اللغة الفرنسية
تحدثاً وكتابة وتأثر بالثقافة والمعمار الفرنسي كثيراً، ثم عاد إلى مصر فى عهد
ولاية والده إبراهيم باشا ، وحين توفي ابراهيم خلفه فى الحكم عباس
حلمي الأول، وقد كان الأمير إسماعيل يكره إبن عمه عباس
(فوالد عباس هو الأمير أحمد طوسون عم إسماعيل) ، فلما تولى الحكم شعر اسماعيل
واخوته بكراهية عباس لهم ، ثم مات جده محمد على ، واشتد الخلاف بين اسماعيل وبقية
الأمراء بشأن تقسيم ميراث جده ، وسافر اسماعيل وبعض الامراء إلى الاستانه ، وعينه
السلطان عبد
المجيد الأول عضواً بمجلس أحكام الدولة العثمانية ،
وانعم عليه بالبشاوية ، ولم يعد إلى مصر الى بعد مقتل إبن عمه عباس وتولى بعده عمه
محمد سعيد ولاية مصر [1].وعندما عاد إسماعيل من
الاستانه لقى من عمه سعيد عطفاً كبيراً ، وعهد اليه برئاسة ( مجلس الأحكام ) الذى
كان أكبر هيئه قضائية فى البلاد في ذلك الوقت ، وأرسله سعيد باشا سنة 1855 فى مهمة
سياسية لدى الامبراطور نابليون
الثالث بشأن رغبة سعيد باشا من الدول الأوروبية
فى توسيع نطاق إستقلال مصر بعد إشتراكها مع الحلفاء فى حرب القرم ، فأدى اسماعيل
تلك المهمة بما امتاز به من ذكاء ولباقة ، ووعده نابليون الثالث بتأييد مقترحه فى
مؤتمر الصلح بباريس ، ولكنه لم يحقق وعده ، وكذلك قابل البابا ( بيو التاسع )[1]، ثم أرسله سعيد باشا في جيش تعداده 14000 إلى السودان وعاد
بعد أن نجح في تهدئة الأوضاع هناك.
توليه الحكم
بعد وفاة محمد
سعيد باشا في 18 يناير 1863 حصل على السلطة دون معارضة وذلك لوفاة شقيقه
الأكبر أحمد
رفعت باشا ومنذ أن تولى مقاليد
الحكم ظل يسعى إلى السير على خطى جده محمد علي والتخلص تدريجياً من قيود معاهدة
لندن 1840[2] ،
وفي 8 يونيو 1876م أصدر السلطان عبد
العزيز الأول فرمان منح فيه إسماعيل
لقب الخديوي مقابل زيادة
في الجزية، وتم بموجب هذا الفرمان أيضًا تعديل طريقة نقل الحكم لتصبح بالوراثه
لأكبر أبناء الخديوي سنًا[2]، كما حصل في 10 سبتمبر 1872 م على فرمان
آخر يتيح له حق الإستدانة من الخارج دون الرجوع إلى الدولة
العثمانية، وفي 8 يونيو 1873 م حصل الخديوي إسماعيل على
الفرمان الشامل الذي تم منحه فيه إستقلاله في حكم مصر بإستثناء دفع الجزية السنوية
وعقد المعاهدات السياسة وعدم حق في التمثيل الدبلوماسي وعدم صناعة المدرعات
الحربية[2] .
إنجازات الخديوي إسماعيل
الإصلاح النيابي[عدل]
تحويل مجلس المشورة
الذي أسسه جده محمد علي
باشا إلى مجلس
شورى النواب، وأتاح للشعب اختيار ممثليه. وافتتحت أولى
جلساته في 25 نوفمبر 1866.
الإصلاح الإداري[عدل]
تحويل
الدواوين إلى نظارات.
وضع
تنظيم إداري للبلاد، وإنشاء مجالس محلية منتخبة للمعاونة في إدارة الدولة.
الإصلاح القضائي[عدل]
أصبح
للمجالس المحلية حق النظر في الدعاوي الجنائية والمدنية.
انحصار
اختصاص المحاكم الشرعية في النظر في الأحوال الشخصية.
إلغاء
المحاكم القنصلية وتبديلها بالمحاكم المختلطة.
الإصلاح العمراني[عدل]
إضاءة
الشوارع ومد أنابيب المياة.
في المجال الاقتصادي[عدل]
صورة
فوتوغرافية للخديوي إسماعيل عام 1879م
زيادة
مساحة الأراضي الزراعية.
زيادة
مساحة الأراضي المنزرعة قطنًا.
إنشاء
مصانع، ومن بينها 19 مصنعًا للسكر ومنها ( أرمنت والمطاعنه والضبعيه والبلينا
وجرجا والمنيا والشيخ فضل والفيوم ) .
المجال التعليمي والثقافي[عدل]
·
زيادة ميزانية نظارة
المعارف.
·
وقف الأراضي على
التعليم.
تكليف
الحكومة بتحمل نفقات التلاميذ.
إنشاء
الجمعية الجغرافية ودار الآثار(1875).
عزله عن الحكم[عدل]
أدت
النزعة الإستقلالية للخديوي إسماعيل في حكم مصر إلى قلق السلطان العثماني،
بالإضافة إلى أطماع الإستعمارية لكل من إنجلترا وفرنسا لمصر وتحت ضغط كل من قنصلي
إنجتلرا وفرنسا على السلطان العثماني عبد
الحميد الثاني أصدر فرماناً بعزل الخديوي إسماعيل في 26
يونيو 1879م وبُعث إلى مصر عن طريق التلغراف وجاء نص الفرمان الذي
ورد من الآستانة كالتالي : ( إلى سمو إسماعيل باشا خديوي مصر السابق ، إن
الصعوبات الداخلية والخارجية التي وقعت أخيراً في مصر قد بلغت من خطورة الشأن حداً
يؤدي استمراره إلى إثارة المشكلات والمخاطر لمصر والسلطنة العثمانية ، ولما
كان الباب العالي يرى أن توفير أسباب الراحة والطمأنينة للأهالي من أهم واجباته
ومما يقضيه الفرمان الذي خولكم حكم مصر ، ولما تبين أن بقاءكم في الحكم يزيد
المصاعب الحالية ، فقد أصدر جلالة السلطان إرادته بناء على قرار مجلس الوزراء
بإسناد منصب الخديوية
المصرية إلى صاحب السمو الأمير توفيق باشا
، وأرسلت الإرادة السنية في تلغراف آخر إلى سموه بتنصيبه خديوياً لمصر ، وعليه
أدعو سموكم عند تسلمكم هذه الرسالة إلى التخلي عن حكم مصر احتراماً للفرمان
السلطاني) .
الوفاة[عدل]
نحت
له تمثال من صنع المثال الإيطالي بييترو كانونيكا، وأزاح الستار
عنه الملك فاروق في 4 ديسمبر 1938 في مكانه الأصلي بميدان
المنشية أمام الموقع الأول لقبر الجندي المجهول بالإسكندرية إلى
أن نقل بعد ذلك، وهو مقام حاليًا في ميدان الخديوي إسماعيل بكوم الدكة بالإسكندرية،
وكان التمثال هدية من الجالية الإيطاليةبالإسكندرية تقديرًا
لاستضافة مصر للملك فيكتور
عمانويل الثالث آخر
ملوك إيطاليا بعد
الاطاحة به عن عرشه.
زوجاته ومستولداته وأبناؤه[عدل]
الزوجة / المستولده
|
أبنائه منها
|
شفق نور هانم
|
|
نور فلك هانم
|
|
فريال هانم
|
|
صافيناز هانم
|
|
مثل ملك هانم
|
الأمير حسن باشا
|
جانانيار هانم
|
الأمير إبراهيم حلمي، والأميرة زينب هانم
|
جهان شاه قادين
|
الأمير محمود حمدي
|
شهرت فزا هانم
|
الأميرة توحيدة، والأميرة فاطمة
|
مثل جهان قادين
|
الأميرة جميلة فاضل
|
نشئة دل قادين
|
الأميرة أمينة
|
بزم عالم
|
|
جشم آفت هانم
|
|
حور جنان قادين
|
الأميرة أمينة
|
فلك نار قادين
|
الأمير رشيد بك
|
جمال نور قادين
|
الأمير علي جمال باشا
|
Isma'il
Pasha
Isma'il Pasha (Arabic: إسماعيل
باشا Ismā‘īl Bāshā, Turkish: İsmail
Paşa), known as Ismail the
Magnificent (December 31,
1830 – March 2, 1895), was theKhedive of Egypt and Sudan from 1863 to 1879, when he was removed
at the behest of the United Kingdom. Sharing the ambitious outlook
of his grandfather, Muhammad Ali Pasha,
he greatly modernized Egypt and Sudan during his reign, investing heavily in
industrial and economic development, urbanisation, and the expansion of the
country's boundaries in Africa.
His philosophy can be glimpsed at in a
statement that he made in 1879: "My country is no longer in Africa; we are
now part of Europe. It is therefore natural for us to abandon our former ways and
to adopt a new system adapted to our social conditions".
In 1867 he also secured Ottoman and
international recognition for his title ofKhedive (Viceroy)
in preference to Wāli (Governor)
which was previously used by his predecessors in the Ottoman Eyalet of Egypt and Sudan (1517–1867). However, Isma'il's
policies placed the Ottoman Khedivate of
Egypt and Sudan(1867–1914) in severe debt, leading to the sale of
the country's shares in theSuez Canal Company to the United Kingdom, and his
ultimate toppling from power at British hands.
Family
The second of the three sons of Ibrahim Pasha and the grandson ofMuhammad Ali,
Ismail, of Albanian descent, was born in Cairo at Al Musafir Khana
Palace[1] His mother was Hoshiar (Khushiyar Khater), third wife of
his father. She was reportedly a sister of Valide Sultan Pertevniyal (1812–1883). Pertevniyal was a wife of Mahmud II of
the Ottoman Empire and mother ofAbdülaziz I.[2][3][4][5]
Youth and education[edit]
After receiving a European education in
Paris where he attended the École
d'état-major, he returned home, and on the death of his elder
brother became heir to his uncle, Said I, the Wāli and Khedive of
Egypt and Sudan. Said, who apparently conceived his own safety to lie in
ridding himself as much as possible of the presence of his nephew, employed him
in the next few years on missions abroad, notably to the Pope,
the Emperor Napoleon III, and the Sultan of Ottoman Empire. In 1861 he was dispatched at
the head of an army of 18,000 to quell an insurrection in Sudan,
a mission which he successfully accomplished.
Khedive of Egypt[edit]
After the death of Said, Ismail was
proclaimed Khedive on January 19, 1863, though the Ottoman Empire and the otherGreat Powers recognized
him only as Wāli. Like all Egyptian and Sudanese rulers since his grandfather
Muhammad Ali Pasha, he claimed the higher title of Khedive, which the Ottoman Porte had
consistently refused to sanction. Finally, in 1867, Isma'il succeeded in
persuading the Ottoman Sultan Abdülaziz to
grant a firman finally
recognizing him as Khedive in exchange for an increase in the tribute. Another
firman changed the law of succession to direct descent from father to son
rather than brother to brother, and a further decree in 1873 confirmed the
virtual independence of the Khedivate of Egyptfrom
the Porte.
Reforms[edit]
Ismail launched vast schemes of
internal reform on the scale of his grandfather, remodeling the customs system
and thepost office, stimulating commercial progress,
creating a sugar industry, building palaces,
entertaining lavishly, and maintaining an opera and a theatre. He greatly
expanded Cairo,
building an entire new quarter of the city on its western edge modeled on
Paris. Alexandria was
also improved. He launched a vast railroad building project that saw Egypt and
Sudan rise from having virtually none to the most railways per habitable
kilometer of any nation in the world[citation needed].
Isma'il Pasha Statue in Alexandria,
Egypt
One of his most significant achievements
was to establish an assembly of delegates in November 1866. Though this was
supposed to be a purely advisory body, its members eventually came to have an
important influence on governmental affairs. Village headmen dominated the
assembly and came to exert increasing political and economic influence over the
countryside and the central government. This was shown in 1876, when the
assembly persuaded Ismail to reinstate the law (enacted by him in 1871 to raise
money and later repealed) that allowed landownership and tax privileges to
persons paying six years' land tax in advance.
Ismail tried to reduce slave trading and extended Egypt's rule in Africa.
In 1874 he annexed Darfur, but was prevented from expanding into Ethiopia after
his army was repeatedly defeated by Emperor Yohannes IV,
first at Gundat 16 November 1875, and again at Gura in March of the following year.
War with Ethiopia[edit]
Ismail dreamt of expanding his realm
across the entire Nile including its diverse sources, and
over the whole African coast of the Red Sea.[6] This, together with rumours about rich raw material and
fertile soil, led Ismail to expansive policies directed against Ethiopia under
the Emperor Yohannes IV.
In 1865 the Ottoman Sublime Porte ceded the Ottoman Province of Habesh (with Massawa and Suakin at
the Red Sea as the main cities of that province) to Ismail. This province,
neighbor of Ethiopia, first consisted of a coastal strip only, but expanded
subsequently inland into territory controlled by the Ethiopian ruler. Here
Ismail occupied regions originally claimed by the Ottomans when they had
established the province (eyaleti) of Habesh in the 16th century. New economically
promising projects, like huge cotton plantations in the Barka delta,
were started. In 1872 Bogos (with the city of Keren) was annexed by the governor of the new
"Province of Eastern Sudan and the Red Sea Coast", Werner Munzinger Pasha. In October 1875 Ismail's army
occupied the adjacent highlands of Hamasien, which were then tributary to the
Ethiopian Emperor. In March 1876 Ismail's army suffered a dramatic defeat after
an attack by Yohannes's army at Gura'.
Ismail's son Hassan was captured by the Ethiopians and only released after a
large ransom. This was followed by a long cold war, only finishing in 1884 with
the Anglo-Egyptian-Ethiopian Hewett
Treaty, when Bogos was given back to Ethiopia. The Red Sea Province
created by Ismail and his governor Munzinger Pasha was taken over by the
Italians shortly thereafter and became the territorial basis for the Colonia Eritrea (proclaimed
in 1890).
Suez Canal[edit]
Ismail's khedivate is closely connected
to the building of the Suez Canal. He agreed to, and oversaw, the
Egyptian portion of its construction. On his accession, he refused to ratify
the concessions to the Canal company made by Said, and the question was
referred in 1864 to the arbitration of Napoleon III, who awarded £3,800,000 to
the company as compensation for the losses they would incur by the changes
which Ismail insisted upon in the original grant. Ismail then used every
available means, by his own undoubted powers of fascination and by judicious
expenditure, to bring his personality before the foreign sovereigns and public,
and he had much success. In 1867 he visited Paris and London, where he was received
by Queen
Victoria and welcomed
by the Lord Mayor.
Whilst in Britain he also saw aBritish Royal Navy
Fleet Review with the Ottoman Sultan. In 1869 he again paid a visit
to Britain. When the Canal finally opened, Ismail held a festival of
unprecedented scope, inviting dignitaries from around the world.
Debts[edit]
These developments - especially the
costly war with Ethiopia - left Egypt in deep debt to the European powers, and
they used this position to wring concessions out of Ismail. One of the most
unpopular among Egyptians and Sudanese was the new system of mixed courts,
by which Europeans were tried by judges from their own states, rather than by
Egyptian and Sudanese courts. But at length the inevitable financial crisis
came. A national debt of over £100 million sterling (as
opposed to three millions when he acceded to the throne) had been incurred by
the Khedive, whose fundamental idea of liquidating his borrowings was to borrow
at increased interest. The bond-holders became restive. Judgments were given
against the Khedive in the international tribunals. When he could raise no more
loans, he sold the Egyptian and Sudanese shares in the Suez Canal Company in 1875 to the British government for
£3,976,582; this was immediately followed by the beginning of direct
intervention by theGreat Powers in Egypt and Sudan.
In December 1875, Stephen Cave and
John Stokes were sent out by the British government to inquire into the
finances of Egypt,[7] and in April 1876 their report was published, advising
that in view of the waste and extravagance it was necessary for foreign Powers
to interfere in order to restore credit. The result was the establishment of
the Caisse de la Dette.
In October, George
Goschen and Joubert
made a further investigation, which resulted in the establishment of
Anglo-French control over finances and the government. A further commission of
inquiry by Major
Baring (afterwards 1st
Earl of Cromer) and others in 1878 culminated in Ismail making over his estates
to the nation and accepting the position of a constitutional sovereign, with
Nubar as premier, Charles Rivers Wilson as finance minister, and de Blignières
as minister of public works.
Urabi Revolt and
exile[edit]
"The
ex-Khedive"
As depicted by Théobald Chartran inVanity Fair, May 1881
As depicted by Théobald Chartran inVanity Fair, May 1881
This control of the country was
unacceptable to many Egyptians, who united behind a disaffected
Colonel Ahmed Urabi. The Urabi Revolt consumed
Egypt. Hoping the revolt could relieve him of European control, Ismail did
little to oppose Urabi and gave into his demands to dissolve the government.
Britain and France took
the matter seriously, and insisted in May 1879 on the reinstatement of the
British and French ministers. With the country largely in the hands of Urabi,
Ismail could not agree, and had little interest in doing so. As a result, the
British, and French governments pressured the Ottoman Sultan Abdülhamid II to depose Ismail Pasha, and this was
done on June 26, 1879. The more pliable Tewfik Pasha, Ismail's eldest son, was made
his successor. Ismail Pasha left Egypt and initially went into exile toNaples, but was eventually permitted by Sultan
Abdülhamid II to retire to his Palace of Emirgan[8] on the Bosporus in Constantinople. There he remained, more or
less a state prisoner, until his death. According to TIME magazine, he died while trying to guzzle
two bottles of champagne in
one draft.[9] He was later buried in Cairo
المصادر والمراجع
حيث تم
زيارة الموقع 22/4/2015 فى الساعة 7صباحا
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_TIMEA.jpg){kind=link}
