A viable theme of political science and a plausible institution of the socio-political realm for the last several centuries, civil society denotes a stage in human evolution in which all civic institutions — right from family to the highly organised social and even religious groups — work in tandem for collective wellbeing of society on voluntary basis. Though the term has been in use since the Greek and the Roman periods, yet its present connotation developed in the Enlightenment era, and the subsequent Industrial Revolution in which social and political relationships drastically changed their shapes and nature, particularly with the conceptualisation of the Social Contract Theory by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. While the primitive tribal societies purely functioned at the dictate of brutal force, the Dark Ages had further shackled the weaker segments of society by lending divine legitimacy to oppression and exploitation at the hand of ruthless despots. Collusion between the state and the church had not only suppressed the weaker subjects but also decapitated society as the sole purpose of the existence of weaker segments was dogmatised to be the slavery of the rulers and the clergy. This class division had left human society totally unproductive and uncreative. As a result, human evolution remained stagnant with no invention or creation in sight for many centuries. Rather, the stagnation in human thoughts added to superstitions and obscurantism, which thrived under barbaric regression. The Enlightenment came on the heels of this tyrannical spell as a blessing for the human race. It not only exposed the real face of those exploiting human beings in the name of religion and divinity but also shattered the concept of divine powers of tyrant monarchs. Greek and Roman philosophers, like Aristotle and Cicero, had already laid the foundation by describing civil society as an political community, different from non-civilised or barbarian peoples. However, thinkers of early modern era, like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, blew up the very edifice of despotism by categorically stating that relationship between the ruler and the ruled was only based on social contract, and if kings enjoyed sovereign powers, it was subject to certain abiding terms and conditions. A ruler ceases to exercise his power the day he violates the social contract. This social upheaval gave birth to modern democracies, in which not only the rights of all members of society were manifestly defined but also each member was obligated to play active role in collective wellbeing of the state and society. Later, when the role of the state was restricted under the concept of liberalism and social democracy and a vacuum emerged between the individual and the state, a need was felt for promoting collective good by the individuals on voluntary basis and without the involvement of the state. This was the time when the concept of civil society organisations (CSOs) developed and numerous voluntary groups came into the arena to fill the gap. Later, terminologies of non-governmental organisation (NGOs) and international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) came in vogue during the last century. With the passage of time, the institutes of civil society and civil society organisations not only gained strength but also proliferated beyond state frontiers and evolved into gigantic regional and international groups, each working in specific fields and for the accomplishment of certain objectives. In the post-Cold War era, when polarisation engulfed world politics, international harmony and cohesion became its major casualty. Though a legitimate campaign for ensuring global peace and stability, the war on terror created a degree of mistrust between the West and the conservative segments in Muslim societies. True or false, the trumpet of the ‘Clash of Civilisation’ also added fuel to the distrust. Whatever gap was left was filled by the so-called Great Games of economic interests, the clash of trade and energy corridors, and global political ventures to change regional geographies. Besides other ills, the ensuing mistrust created scepticism about the role of international CSOs, particularly those funded by the Western powers. There have also been instances and accusations of international NGOs involved in underhand activities and even funding of non-state militant groups in the developing countries — a charge that can be shrugged off on the plea that anything is possible in the present messy state of affairs when terror groups and those abetting and financing militancy do succeed to infiltrate entities wherefrom they can function safely. While organisers of these groups ought to keep vigil on elements trying to misuse their set-ups, state security organisations also need to thoroughly watch movements in diverse fields. Prime need for all international organisations in the prevailing atmosphere of mistrust is to adopt a holistic, integrated, and ideologically viable approach for the betterment of all human beings. While focusing on human development indices, there should be a realisation to create a civilised and ‘diversified’ international order. Any attempt to alleviate poverty ought to propel sociopolitical awareness among local communities. The aim of any voluntary undertaking must not be merely the material wellbeing of local communities but also their voluntary integration into a global order. Misgivings of certain circles about the bias of international bodies towards particular religions, regions and nations need to be removed. Irrespective of the urgency to promote global ethical standards, there must be appreciation for national, religious, and cultural values of local communities. This would not only raise the stature and credentials of international organisations but also boost their clout in the eyes of the local communities. The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance journalist, and can be reached at hadimayar@yahoo.com