3.3 The defining features of my conception of civil society
3.3.5 Self-interest and human rights
As the previous discussion of Rawls illustrates, Rawls contends that there is no single universal good. Instead, Rawls argues for a procedural concept of the good which he argues will result in two principles of justice: the Liberty Principle and the Difference Principle. Citizens can all pursue their own conception of the good, and Rawls suggests that citizens seek their own self-interest above the interests of others. There are two ideas to discuss from Rawls‟ argument in light of my conception of civil society. The first is the argument that all citizens are self-interested, and only act out of self-interest.
I suggest that citizens do often act out of self-interest, but that they do not always do so.
And even if they do, it is not inherent in their nature but a product of contemporary society that we should attempt to change. When it comes to economics, citizens do act in their own interest, and I think that that is justifiable. We cannot expect citizens who are living in a capitalist society not to act in their own economic self-interest in order to protect themselves and their families. Since economic issues directly affect the livelihoods of citizens, it is understandable that citizens should seek to prioritise this livelihood. The central consideration here is thus not whether self-interest is ever legitimate but whether or not it is legitimate to act always in your own self-interest. I wish to argue the second - that it is problematic for citizens and to democracy for rational self-interest to be the only consideration in decision-making. I concede that in the economic arena, rational self-interest will often triumph, but in political and social issues, we need to ensure that moral considerations are still taken seriously. The public realm needs to remain separate from the market domain to ensure that this self-interest is not transferred into issues of public interest. So while economic self-interest can be justifiable, it is important that this self-interest does not permeate every aspect of a
64
citizen‟s life. When in the market realm, interaction is governed by market principles of supply and demand – it centres on the needs and desires of the consumer. In the public realm, considerations such as duty and the interests of others need to be taken into account in decision-making.
A second aspect of Rawls‟ theory to discuss is his introduction of the right to basic liberties. These basic human rights are central to liberal democracy. As I have argued previously however, it is problematic that citizens tend to see these rights as their individual entitlement rather than a basic level of protection from the state. There is no doubt a necessity for human rights and the civil liberties that are protected within our democratic states and they remain an important aspect of my conception of civil society.
It is key to democracy that we are able to strike, regardless of the motivation behind striking, as it represents the ability of the people to voice their demands. Moreover, it is vital to have human rights, such as the right to dignity, to protect citizens from the state, and freedoms, such as free speech, to allow for a fully functioning civil society. These basic human rights that are afforded are central to democracy, but they are not enough to ensure a deep democracy, and increasingly seem to be misused as a first call of entitlement rather than a last call of protection from the state. The current emphasis on individual human rights has resulted in citizens feeling entitled to their rights and using them in all their interactions in the public domain. In the USA for example, citizens sue each other and the government on a regular basis as they feel their rights have in some way been violated. More concerting is that citizens are often afraid to „help‟ others for fear of being sued. What we find is that this immediate resort to rights has undermined the value of discussion in society. Citizens no longer engage with each other but seem to weigh up their rights against each other in order to determine how to proceed.
65
This chapter has illustrated that civil society is a central aspect of democracy as it allows for true representation and participation which is beneficial to both the citizen and to democracy. I suggest that it is important that we consider both past and present conceptions of civil society in order to ensure that we have a civil society that best serves to deepen democracy. Classical conceptions teach the value of duty in citizenship – it encourages citizens to participate because they see they have a moral duty to do so rather than to reach some particular end. In this way, citizens continue to participate even if they are not achieving their individual ends. In addition, many conceptions of civil society recognise the value in a common good and shared participation as a collective.
There are examples from both past and present conceptions of civil society that suggest that citizens should be other-regarding. Ferguson and Hutcheson argue that we should be other-regarding since we have a natural sympathy towards each other and Barber, Young and Pateman point out that there is value in being other-regarding both to ourselves and democracy. Importantly, contemporary conceptions of civil society, in practice, do not reflect these values. Rawls suggests we are all self-interested individuals who have certain human rights. I argue however that while we may be self-interested in some instances, it is not necessarily true, that we are always (or should be) self-interested in our decision-making. While human rights are valuable, we need to ensure that we do not always seek to use them to our own advantage but rather as they were intended: as a last call of protection from the state and from each other. I have established in this chapter that civil society can contribute to the strength of democracy but only when we have a conception of civil society that emphasises duty, other-regarding behaviour and shared goods. In the next chapters I will examine empirical examples in light of the conception of civil society that I have introduced. The analysis will question whether South African citizens‟ behaviour has shifted in the three ways I have suggested (moral to rational, duty to instrumental, group to individual) and what the influence of government has been on this behaviour.
66
Section Two: Illustration
Chapter Four: Case Studies
This chapter explores matters relating to bureaucracy, education, and the South African National Defence Force (SANDF). These discussions of various aspects of the civil service aim to illustrate the shifts in motivation that seem to be underlying citizens‟
behaviour. While duty used to be a critical aspect of the civil service, it appears that there are many cases in which contemporary civil servants are motivated not by duty but by instrumental and individual ends. These cases are discussed in the following sections on bureaucracy, education and the SANDF and are used to illustrate a concerning shift in citizens‟ attitude and behaviour and how the government‟s behaviour can be seen to have played a role in allowing these shifts to occur through their failure to encourage citizens by word and example of the importance of duty, shared goals and other-regarding behaviour.
67