А. Г. Берестенников студент 5 курса
ИЮИ (ф) А ГП РФ The contemporary view of civil society Many times it has been said that Russia is far away from civil society, and that it’s currently going forward but there are a lot of things to be done. Undoubtedly the so called civil society is a subject which has been being manipulated in Russia during the last twenty years; so it is high time we answered the question “What is civil society?” with absolute clearance, and were ready to stay long upon it. My personal experience of the above mentioned problem as short as you know it could be summarized as follows: the contemporarily magazines, newspapers, scientific and scientific-like articles, books, internet sites, and so on ad infinitum are coherent in their prophesying that civil society is the symbol of freedom, truly vital world, justice, prosperity and democracy. Sometimes a term 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"777. That is why the politicians are vying to tell us the important role that civil society will play in the world of tomorrow. But the soaring rhetoric does not give us a critical answer which could throw light on all the pros and cons civil society is about. It is good, the possible options are pernicious, tertium non datur.
Under much consideration I allowed myself to be cajoled into the following explanation of the capital problem. It is absolutely nonsensical to jettison a point that a model of civil society is mainly taken up by the West: this field is being consecutively tilled by western media, it is paid by western taxpayers, and exalted by western politicians thereunto. How much does the field give us seeds, and how much thorns? In words it gives us only seeds. In reality is must be treated as a catalog of a half good and a half bad.
Let us start with the essentially important positive sides of it. Civil society is based on human liberty; this supposition might be disputed and even scourged to ignominy, but it is dubious to claim that it is not so, and that all the freedoms are not guaranteed. They may and sometimes should be restricted, but they more exist than being declared. Civil society provides a high level of safety for its citizens where the law-enforcement agencies and courts efficiently maintain public order778. Sometimes accidents happen, but they are thought to be accidents only. Civil society provides a high-developed material background which is kept up by the mean of unquenchable consumption – if you work and paid there you can afford much more than anywhere on earth. And finally civil society offers abundance of social organizations, from charity to political parties – you can choose whatever matches your wishes. This is what a common slice of western life is all about.
In the set order let us continue with the negative ones. Even taking into account some circumstances of the last ten years it is eligible to claim that civil society has been becoming a model which ordains the absence of spiritual life of its members. In the world where the church is consilient with same-sex marriage and adoption of children by such couples, where everybody is claimed to be unique and indefectible, there is no church. It is not occasionally because every confession establishes directly or indirectly that figuratively speaking people should lay their treasures up to the heavens – it mortally contradicts consumption for the consumption’s sake. That is why civil society is a highly secularized society by its nature where morality is actual until it goes against the law of supply and demand and low instincts of human nature. That is why civil society is based upon the fear of cravings. That is why the members of it are accustomed to live in prosperity and voluptuousness.
Civil society is organically linked with democracy. That is why it is been claimed that everybody is equal in his rights to determine the future of his country. It is true until the future is connected with … democracy. Democracy is not seriously criticized; truly sometimes it’s said to be the worst form of the government but except the others which have been tried. Instead of changing you are imitating changing in their social organizations. So can you seriously determine the future of your country if democracy is an icon? Not at all. You can choose between democracy and democracy while they are talking with magniloquent voice about your influence on the world of tomorrow. Hypocrites!
Finally civil society is not so peaceful is it is painted. The peace is good, but the money better. The superfluous examples of it are Iraq, and Libya, and Syria.
And shall we find our road to Damascus in civil society, shall we occupy this stage with all our hearts and souls, the pages of history must show. And now it is time to think over whether we are going in a right direction, and how the future we choose today will “sum our counts and make our old excuse” tomorrow.