With the debacle of the Soviet Union, as the old order of capitalism was re-imposed on the globe in the farcical garb of a new world order, a plethora of terminologies was introduced as well. It was fondly welcomed by the middle class that considers itself the enlightened intellectual base of any society. The fancy jargon and frivolous terminology advanced by the privileged class carry an irresistible temptation for the middle class. This vague and cumbersome vocabulary conceals a disguised ideology that in fact is a reflection of the relations of production prevalent in that society. Whether a given society has attained the level of maturity required for the application of this terminology and bear the consequences is neither in the nature of this class to explore nor does it have the qualification to do so. Civil society was one of such clichés that became a catchword in Pakistan during the movement for the restoration of the judiciary. It was used so impulsively and indiscriminately that the term was left standing on its head. It seemed as if supporting this movement would automatically elevate a person to a privileged club — civil society — while turning those in opposition into heretics, hence the excommunicated. Nothing can be more distant from reality than such an awry approach. The term ‘civil society’ carries many definitions. The one used by the London School of Economics Centre for Civil Society states: “Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective actions around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated.” A fuzzy, misplaced concept of civil society, akin to that in Pakistan, has almost always prevailed in one form or another in history. The Greek philosophers described it as a ‘good society’. Marcus Cicero introduced this concept of societas civilis in Rome where it was associated with ‘good citizenship’. For Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, civil society was a community that maintained civil life, though civil society and the state both belonged to the same realm. Hegel was the first to define it dialectically. He held that civil society was a product of capitalism. It appeared at a particular stage of its development to serve its interests linked to an individual and his private property. Since it belongs to the realm of capitalism, hence it is liable to develop contradictions and inequalities. According to Hegel, the state is the highest form of ethical life. Therefore, it has the authority to reform civil society. In Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, civil society includes economic relations and in this very sense Marx supported this thesis but refused to accept the state as an ethical entity since a coercive arm of capitalism, destined to wither away at a certain stage of historical development, can be anything but ethical. According to Marx, the state — political society — is a superstructure while at its base rests civil society where productive forces and social relations develop. Both of these societies being the product of capitalism, complement each other. Later, he preferred the term “mode of production” to civil society. According to Engels, the state is “by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it ‘the reality of the ethical idea’, ‘the image and reality of reason’”. Instead, “it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel.” In this conflict, in order to avoid the complete destruction of classes with conflicting interests and to restore a balance amongst them, a power arises out of society that places itself above society while alienating itself more and more from it — this power is the state. Antonio Gramsci is the only prominent Marxist scholar who has dealt with the idea of civil society in detail. According to him, contrary to the Catholicism that civil society is considered part of the political society of the state, it is in fact a political and cultural hegemony of a social group over the entire society as an ethical content of the state. For Gramsci, the state is simultaneously a political society, a dictatorship and a coercive apparatus that brings the people into conformity with the specific type of production and a specific economy — based on capitalism — at a given moment. Civil society functions to promote the dominance of the same ruling class over the people, exercised through the so-called private organisations such as church, trade unions, NGOs, schools, etc. It is precisely within the realms of civil society that the intellectuals operate, though sometimes they may find themselves in disagreement with one government or another. These intellectuals are of great significance for maintaining the political-cultural hegemony of the ruling class. As Gramsci explains, “The medieval communes failed to produce such representatives of their dominant classes. Such a failure consequently became one of the reasons behind their downfall.” Gramsci clearly discerned the civil society of the west from the east. In the case of the former, there is an established relationship between the state and civil society, hence a frontal attack on the state is not possible because of the resistance from civil society, which must be conquered before launching an assault on the state. In the case of the latter, with particular reference to Russia, Gramsci points out that due to a weak or absent civil society, a head-on collision with the state is possible. Where Gramsci describes the state in the west as an “outer ditch, behind which there [stands] a powerful system of fortresses and earthworks”, his concept seems enmeshed in a paradox where civil society appears protected by political society. However, he makes his point clear by declaring the state as the sum total of “political society and civil society” — a hegemony protected by the arm of coercion. Elsewhere, he describes it as a balance between political society and civil society. However, despite both being the tools of capitalism, they manage to keep their identities separate, sometimes discreetly and other times vaguely. Between the economic structure and the state with its legislation and coercion stands civil society that represents economic behaviour. Once the economic structure has changed, this economic behaviour — or in other words, civil society — must be radically transformed by the representatives of the state through coercion and control over it since it resists any change otherwise. Civil society is a product of capitalism, created out of necessity. It only signifies that the ruling class can now rule without the covert use of violence, though the threat of its use always waits in the wings. In a peripheral capitalist economy such as Pakistan, where the army with the collaboration of feudal lords rules the roost, such a species cannot take root. A society that believes in “arms” rather than the “criticism of arms” (Marx) and which considers reason its enemy and wants not to refute but exterminate, is neither a civil society nor a humane one. Whatever happened during the lawyers’ movement was a manifestation of social being with a hint of social consciousness. Religious fascism has eclipsed that rare shimmer too. The writer is based in Australia and has authored books on socialism. He can be reached at saulatnagi@hotmail.com