(Croissant and Merkel 2004: 2). Today, however, non-democratic regimes have made their way back to the center of research and academic debate (Diamond 2008; Levitsky and Way 2010; Márquez 2017).
Analyzing the ongoing global democratic recession, Diamond (2015) lists four trends that make up the renaissance of authoritarianism in the new century: The breakdown of formerly democratic regimes (e.g., Turkey, Venezuela, Philippines), the net recession of freedom in emerging-market countries (e.g., South Korea, South Africa, Mexico), the deepening of authoritarianism (e.g., China, Russia), and, last, the “decline of democratic efficacy, energy, and selfconfidence in the West” (Diamond 2015: 251). At the heart of these transformations seems to be a general disaffection with liberal democracy (Plattner 2017: 8) that is also noticeable in populist discourses, electoral outcomes, and public opinion polls worldwide.
The rather unexpected proliferation of non-democratic regimes in the twenty-first century furthermore inspires a shift of attention of scholars away from the focus on institutions and elites and toward the exploration of a broader set of actors, deeper societal structures, and discourses. Especially the increasing number of “hybrid” regimes, which combine formal democratic structures with deficits regarding political and civic liberties or the rule of law (Croissant 2002), is the starting point for this book, which emerged out of our research project on “Gender Relations in Authoritarian and Hybrid Regimes,” which ran from 2013–15 at the Center for European Gender Studies at Münster University (ZEUGS). The book highlights the necessity to look beyond or refine traditional approaches and offers innovative potential to bond gender, authoritarianism, and civil society in an auspicious way leading to insights into the whys and wherefores of the persistence of autocratic structures and gender inequalities worldwide. By focusing on the domains of non-institutional legitimation and power strategies, civil society comes in as a potential but so far [9] understudied actor in the analysis of the transformation but also the persistence of non-democratic regimes.
2. Civil society as an important actor in non-democratic settings
Qustions of if, how, and to what extent civil society might exist under non-democratic, deficient, or even authoritarian governments has only recently become highly visible on the political science agenda (Teets 2016; Cavatora 2015; Heuerlin 2010; Spires 2011; Pickel 2013; Wischermann 2013). There are many reasons for this. Social, economic, and political developments obviously have a strong impact on the social sciences in general and on political science in particular. The political concept and term “civil society” was rediscovered alongside the awakening of dissident movements, which at the end of the 1970s and early 1980s stood up against the power and inhumane ideology of the so-called socialist governments in the countries behind the Iron Curtain that cut off almost half of Europe from democratic rule (Havel and Keane 1985; Keane 1998). The dissidents in Poland, Hungary, and many other Eastern European countries referred to “civil society” as a democratic and participatory alternative to non-democratic authoritarian rule. Because they did not have freedom of expression nor the possibility to legally stand up against inhumanity and authoritarian one-party governments in Eastern Europe, the term civil society became a synonym for a democratic political program and progressive utopia. As such, the concept was increasingly placed in juxtaposition to the non-democratic and illiberal political reality under socialist rule.
The discussions that took place in oppositional groups in Eastern Europe and in other regions struggling with non-democratic regimes such as Latin America and Southeast Asia strongly influenced debates on the state of the art of democratic rule and governance in the so-called Western Hemisphere. As a consequence, during the 1980s and 1990s deliberation on civil society as a topic of political theory and political philosophy moved into the center of discourses on the deepening and further development of democracy (Cohen and [10] Arato 1997; Taylor 1991). Civil society was used as an approach to respond to the problems of post-modern societies by key scholars arguing in a classical liberal tradition such as Ralf Dahrendorf (1991, 1999); the concept was taken up by Jürgen Habermas, who highlighted the pivotal importance of civil society as a sphere of deliberation and reasoning (Habermas 1992); civil society was also to become a cornerstone of communitarian thinking (Etzioni 1994; Walzer 1992, 2003) as well as of various facets of participatory democracy such as associational democracy (Warren 2001) or strong democracy (Barber 2004).
Although the renaissance of the term and concept of civil society was triggered by real politics in Eastern Europe, and partially in Latin America, civil society as a concept and horizon of ideas has always been closely linked to political philosophy and political theory (Kneer 2000: 235–23; Adloff 2005). Without going into detail, there are numerous interpretations and readings of the meaning of civil society and its features. For the general public and the media, civil society stands for a better life in a fairer, more democratic, and participatory society. As such the term is linked to utopian political and societal ideas. For sure, opposition and critical voices are necessary for any democratic setting in order to keep things moving and to guarantee that critique as an alternative view on the state of affairs is taken seriously. Without a utopia in terms of how government and society are supposed to advance or how the current state of government and governance should be improved, democracy does not work and modern societies reach an impasse. Civil society is also associated with “civicness,” a term used to characterize societies or any human setting that is able to resolve conflicts peacefully through the acceptance of the strength of arguments. Civicness is usually supported and strengthened through the rule of law, a jurisdiction underwriting human and civil rights, and the peaceful resolution of conflict. Finally, scholars have identified the drivers of civil society action in a societal sphere that is populated by social movements, voluntary associations, initiatives, and groups, which is distinguishable from the market, the state, and the family (Kocka 2003). These groups, networks, movements, and veritable organizations constitute the infrastructure or backbone of civil society. As an ensemble, the organizations and groups form an intermediary sphere between the individual person, the society, and the [11] respective government. Again, many features are attributed to this intermediary sphere of societal activity. Organizations might work on behalf of members and/or the general public, they might be engaged in advocacy, or they might be involved in the production of social services for the general public or for specific constituencies.
Since the mid-1970s, a growing number of scholars from various disciplines have started to take a closer look at the organizational infrastructure of civil society. Various labels are used to categorize the organizations, e.g., third sector, nonprofit, nongovernmental, and civil society organizations. Each “label” highlights a different feature. The term “third sector” signals that the respective organization belongs neither completely to the market nor to the state (Zimmer and Priller 2007: 15ff.); “nonprofit” indicates that profit gains are restricted from being distributed to members or owners of those organizations; “nongovernmental” indicates that the organization is engaged in public affairs without being a state or government entity; and a “civil society” organization signals that the respective organization works on behalf of civicness as an enactment and simultaneous underpinning of participatory or strong democracy.
Sometimes, however, terms are only “sound and smoke.” This is particularly the case with the use of civil society in the general public and by the media. Lacking a refined definition, the term civil society has developed into a catchword that is referred to in many settings and circumstances. But, the popularity of the term in the media and general public significantly contrasts with its applicability and usefulness in empirical research. In other words, the very positive and democracy-friendly connotation of the term and concept of civil society might overshadow the very fact that the organizations that are populating the societal sphere characterized as civil society and situated in between the market and the state and serving as an intermediary sphere between the individual citizen and government need not necessarily be either democratic nor working on behalf of the strengthening of democratic government. It might be the case that these organizations are “under the thumb” of an authoritarian government if they are co-opted or live on public subsidies. Or, the organizations might be in accordance with authoritarianism, either in favor of
