Meghan G.

Maayo
Calilung
2PTC

Mr.

Froilan

Democracy has always been the ideal society in our world today. We
are the free men of the world. We have the right to receive education, no
matter what gender, the right to practice our religion, the right to be heard in
all sorts of medium, and many more other rights. However, is the structure of
democracy we live in today the ideal structure for our society? In the article
Institutions of Civil Society in Space of Democratic Politics by Zhuravleva,
I.V., it analyzed civil society organizations depending on the democratization
of political systems from three points of view, namely: Liberal Democratic,
Social Democratic and generalizing the first and second ones.
A distinctive feature of a democratic political system is the diversity of
society. Existence of border lines through classes ethnic groups, races,
religious communities, and professional associations promotes a culture of
agreement, a culture of mutual concessions, and gives people resistance to
the Bolshevik policy (it is necessary to win over opponents and completely
remove them from the political arena). Levin I.B. said that the important
characteristics of social components of the civil society are the priority of
moral regulators in relation to legal and political ones and mutual tolerance
of all social groups. These are sustainability indicators of the existing social
order. These same reasons helped America be the United States of America
that they are now.

For the liberal-democratic, freedom and equality are predominantly

valuable. Freedom exists by itself and does not tolerate any intrusion,
especially from the state. It was described as the non-appearance of classes
in the society, because America did not have any basic elements of class
differences that the socialist policy could develop (Hartz, L., 1993). However,
they did have systematization, which is the formation of factions or interest
groups that had structure, interests and a range of issues. The diversity of
religious, professional, family, and local associations increased and it
reduced the likelihood of the socialist tradition, which could unite the poor
classes under capitalism. The government responded to the requests of
these interest groups and in turn the interest groups responds to the
demands in the economy. In positive libertarian position, which is the
absence of internal limits or the capacity to, freedom is the freedom of
something we should be able to do, if we have the opportunity. The State
needs to provide help in order for the citizens to have the opportunity or the
chance to use certain resources to use their freedom. Democratic institutions
enabled the people to make the most use of freedom, in their sole discretion
and will.
In Social Democratic tradition, the civil society is the center of politics.
The State should not interfere with the formation of the cultural self-identity
of the people (A. de Tocqueville, 2008). Democracy in politics should come
from the democracy in people. In the aristocratic societies, there was no
system of values formed under the influence of the political center. Tyranny

of the major would prevail, society would have equalized and there would be
a uniform social panorama (A. de Tocqueville, 2008).
M. Walzer and A. MacIntyre in Spheres of Justice developed the
median approach to civil society. They said that the main root cause of
injustice and prejudice in complex societies leads to expansionism. M. Walzer
believes that the state does not have necessary knowledge and reserves for
democratic changes in any sphere of the civil society; he then determines
the role of the state as the mediating. The State, using certain control
measures, can constantly check on the wealth of the people to avoid
corruption and can limit the impact of economic inequality, which can greatly
harm the economy of the country and bring it down. It also says that the
State should not influence the inequality in the economy.
In my opinion, the most ideal type of democracy that was
explained in the essay would be the one generalizing liberal and social
democratic, which was developed by M. Walzer and A. MacIntyre. The States
role would be the mediator. This means that the State should not have any
relations to the economy. They are there to regulate and check the flow of
cash in order to maintain a good and stable economy. The people benefit
from this the most, because they get to enjoy their hard work and because of
that the economy gets better.
However, from what I understand, the State will not have any say on
how the country would progress. It says, M. Walzer believes that the state
does not have necessary knowledge and reserves for democratic changes in

any sphere of the civil society. Basically, the State is just there overlooking,
but not imposing power on the people. That might be a drawback to this kind
of democracy, because if the State is just overlooking, there might be no
progress in the country. It is however, the most beneficial type of democracy
to the people. Participants in the different spheres of social life have the right
to negotiate and determine voluntarily final destination of their joint work
and cooperation. Democracy is a use subordinate; its manifestation is
effective when organized by a human activity. People should still be the ones
to dictate how civil society will prevail because democracy is only effective
and noticeable when everyone works together for the betterment of the
society.
Applying the median approach to civil society in the Philippine setting, I
can see that it might be successful if we consider the fact that the elected
President of the Philippines is someone who is honest, trustworthy, and loyal
to the country. We really need a society where the people benefit the most,
because it is the citizens who run the country, technically. There are so many
people in the country working late nights to support their families only for
their salary to be cut in half because of taxes and then there are the elites or
the bourgeoisie who fail to file their taxes and not pay for it and still have the
nerve to steal from the people through their connections in the government.
From what I understand, the State as the mediator between the society and
the economy would reveal the injustices in the government. You would see
who the trustworthy people are, because in the median approach to civil

society, the state should not have any connection with the inequality in the
economy. It is exclusively up to the people to predict what will happen in the
economy, because they are the ones who are running it. If a fluctuation or an
unexplained decrease in the economy happens, the government or the state
will be the one who will be apprehended, because it means that they are not
doing their job properly. A good and stable economy would mean that the
country is doing well and that prices in the market would stay low. This would
benefit a lot of the Filipinos considering that the poverty incidence among
Filipinos has increased from 20% to 25.8% during the first half of 2014.
There is no perfect civil society considering there are so many external
and internal factors affecting everyone and the State. The most the state and
its citizens can do is to achieve the perfect civil society where everyone
benefits and there is no conflict among groups of people. Compromise and
tolerance would be a good way to start to achieve this civil society with the
help of a good government or state.

References
Zhuravleva, I.V. (2015). Institutions of civil society in space of democratic
politics. Procedia

Social and Behavioral Sciences, 166, 546-551.

n.a. (2015). Philippine poverty incidence rises in first half of 2014. Retrieved
from:
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/03/06/1430828/philippinepoverty-incidence-rises-first-half-2014.