Crafting Democracy. Civil Society in Post-Transition Honduras

Civil society is frequently singled out as one of the most important factors in the democratization process, but existing research is often imprecise with regard to civil society’s relation to democratic development. This study analyzes how, and under what circumstances, civil society can contribute to democratic development in newly established democracies. A conceptual framework is outlined that draws attention to civil society’s multiple democracy–building functions and how they are constrained by the political context, the impact of development assistance and the degree of democracy within civil society. The empirical focus here is on a newly established democracy – Honduras – a country that initiated a transition to democracy in 1980. The present study shows how civil society organizations initially played a relatively limited role in the regime-controlled transition, but eventually reacted against the worsening human rights situation. In the post-transition period, civil society has emerged as an important agenda setter that has drawn attention to democratic deficits, as an educator for civic education of the mass public as well as the political elite, as a source of new political alternatives that has managed to bridge the gap between political society and civil society, and finally, as a counterpart of the government, particularly in development-related areas. Whereas civil society’s function during the transition is best described as a countervailing power that can, if it is democratic in its orientations, promulgate a democratic orientation of reforms, the functions in the post-transition period are best conceptualized as a complex mix of state-supporting and countervailing powers. The study concludes that the political context is crucial for our understanding of civil society’s democracy-building potential. Through different mechanisms, the Honduran state has managed to control civil society organizations, something that has a negative impact on civil society’s countervailing power, and this tendency has been visible during authoritarian rule as well as after the transition to democratic rule. Thus, examining the historical state-society relations can improve our understanding of civil society and its democracy-building potential. The attempts to control or co-opt civil society can be reinforced by the donor community’s efforts to strengthen civil society. Democracy-promoting strategies can, consequently, result in an undermined countervailing power of civil society.