The Evolving Relationship Between State and Civil Society

For most of political history, the state stood at the centre of public life as the supreme authority that made laws, enforced order, and shaped the lives of citizens. But that picture has shifted dramatically. A growing web of voluntary associations, advocacy groups, and non-governmental organisations now shapes governance from outside the corridors of power. This sphere, broadly called civil society, has become a powerful counterweight to state authority, demanding transparency, accountability, and a real say in how citizens are governed. Understanding how the relationship between the state and civil society has evolved is one of the most important questions in contemporary political theory.

Understanding the two spheres 🔗

To grasp how their relationship is changing, we first need clarity on what each term means. The state is the political community that holds a monopoly over the legitimate use of force within a territory. It makes binding laws, collects taxes, maintains order, and provides the legal framework within which everyone else operates.

Civil society, by contrast, refers to the sphere of uncoerced associational life that is distinct from both the family and the institutions of the state. It includes voluntary associations, trade unions, religious bodies, professional groups, advocacy networks, and NGOs. People join these freely, not because the law compels them but because they share common interests or causes. The defining feature is autonomy: civil society organisations operate independently of direct state control, even though they exist within the legal order the state provides.

How political theory has understood the relationship 🔗

The idea of civil society as a distinct sphere is not new. It has been debated for centuries, and different thinkers have understood the state-civil society relationship in strikingly different ways. These theoretical positions still shape how we interpret governance today.

Hegel and the state as the higher authority 🔗

The German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel was the first thinker to clearly distinguish civil society as a separate stage between the family and the state. For Hegel, civil society was the realm of competing private interests and economic activity. It was important but incomplete, marked by conflict and self-interest. Only the state, in his view, could rise above these particular interests to represent the universal good. Here, the state stands above civil society as the rational, unifying authority.

Tocqueville and associations as schools of democracy 🔗

The French observer Alexis de Tocqueville offered a very different reading. Studying democracy in early nineteenth-century America, he argued that voluntary associations were essential to keeping freedom alive. Tocqueville saw these associations as schools of democracy that promote civic virtue and protect individual liberty by counterbalancing the concentration of power. For him, a dense network of citizen groups was not a threat to good government but its foundation. This Tocquevillian view, where organisations actively monitor and check the state, is the one most visible in modern democracies.

Gramsci and the contest for hegemony 🔗

The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci added a more critical layer. He treated civil society as part of the arena where battles over ideas and cultural dominance are fought. Gramsci stressed the fluidity between the state and civil society, arguing that institutions like trade unions, the media, and religious bodies can either resist or reinforce dominant ideas about social life. In his account, civil society is not automatically a force for good. It can prop up existing power structures just as easily as it can challenge them. This insight reminds us that civil society is a contested space, not a neutral one.

The rise of civil society as a check on the state 🔗

Across the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the second understanding of civil society has gained ground: the view of public interest organisations and social movements that mobilise citizens to hold the state accountable. This role has become especially prominent in recent decades.

The relationship between the state and civil society is rarely equal. The state commands vastly greater resources, can change the rules governing civil society, and holds sanction powers that civil groups cannot match. Yet despite this imbalance, a robust civil society acts as a vital check on state power. It advocates for citizen interests, exposes wrongdoing, and contributes to policy in ways that strengthen democratic governance rather than weaken it.

This is the heart of the shift in contemporary political theory. The focus has moved away from treating the state as the sole or dominant actor. Instead, theorists increasingly examine the dynamic tension between state power and societal autonomy. Community participation, citizen engagement, and participatory democratic practices are now central concerns rather than afterthoughts.

Civil society in action: the Indian experience 🔗

Nowhere is this evolving relationship clearer than in the tools citizens use to demand accountability. Two mechanisms stand out: public interest litigation and the right to information.

Public interest litigation as a bridge to justice 🔗

Public Interest Litigation, or PIL, is one of the most significant legal innovations in independent India. Traditionally, only a directly aggrieved person could approach the courts, a principle known as locus standi. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer and P.N. Bhagwati relaxed this rule, allowing any public-spirited citizen to file a petition on behalf of those unable to seek justice themselves.

This change transformed access to justice. PIL became an instrument to promote the rule of law, demand fairness and transparency, fight administrative corruption, and enhance the overall accountability of government agencies. It gave civil society a direct route to keep state power under check through constitutional means. Landmark cases have addressed everything from environmental protection to the rights of undertrial prisoners, showing how citizen-driven litigation can compel the state to act where it had failed.

PIL is not without criticism. Concerns about frivolous petitions and the misuse of the mechanism for personal or political ends are real. Courts increasingly need to balance necessary judicial intervention with respect for the domains of the executive and legislature to maintain the separation of powers. But the underlying principle, that ordinary citizens and organisations can hold the state accountable in court, remains a cornerstone of the relationship between state and society.

The right to information and demands for transparency 🔗

Alongside PIL, the demand for transparency found legal form in the Right to Information Act of 2005. This was itself the product of sustained civil society pressure, particularly from grassroots movements campaigning for the rural poor’s right to know how public funds were being spent. The RTI Act empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities, promoting transparency and accountability in the functioning of government agencies. Together, PIL and RTI represent civil society’s success in reshaping the state into something more answerable to the people it governs.

The global dimension 🔗

The era of globalisation has accelerated this transformation. Civil society no longer operates only within national borders. International NGOs, transnational advocacy networks, and global movements on issues like climate change, human rights, and corruption now influence governance across countries.

This emergence of a global civil society challenges traditional ideas about the state. Civil society organisations are increasingly described as new, border-free expressions of political community that challenge territorial sovereignty as the exclusive basis for political identity. When environmental groups coordinate across continents or human rights bodies pressure governments through international forums, the state finds itself accountable not only to its own citizens but to a wider community of actors.

This does not mean the state is disappearing. It still holds the legal authority, the resources, and the coercive power that civil society lacks. Rather, the relationship has become more interactive and more negotiated. The state increasingly governs alongside civil society rather than entirely above it, sharing space in policy formation, service delivery, and the monitoring of public conduct.

A relationship of tension and cooperation 🔗

It would be a mistake to see the state and civil society purely as adversaries. The relationships between civil society and the state are not mutually exclusive and do not necessarily compete with one another. At different moments, civil society can oppose the state, supplement its work, or partner with it. An NGO might litigate against a government department one year and collaborate with it on a welfare programme the next.

What political theory now recognises is that healthy governance depends on both spheres remaining strong. A state without an active civil society risks drifting toward unchecked power. A civil society without an effective state lacks the legal framework and resources to turn its demands into reality. The quality of democracy, in the end, rests on how well these two forces hold each other in balance.

This is why the evolving relationship between state and civil society sits at the centre of contemporary political theory. The growing prominence of autonomous organisations, participatory practices, and citizen demands for accountability reflects a deeper change in how we think about power itself. Authority is no longer assumed to flow only from the top down. It is increasingly understood as something negotiated between the governing and the governed.

What do you think? Does the rise of civil society genuinely deepen democracy, or could an overreliance on unelected NGOs and litigation weaken the accountability that comes from elected institutions? And as global civil society grows stronger, how should the state balance its own sovereignty against the demands of a borderless network of advocacy?

References

1. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34325/chapter/291333099
2. https://sgpjournal.mgimo.ru/2019/2019-4/the-conceptual-relationship-between-the-state-and-civil
3. https://civilpedia.com/the-role-and-significance-of-civil-society-in-modern-democracy/
4. https://devpolicy.org/civil-society-and-development-moving-from-de-tocqueville-to-gramsci-20150817/
5. https://banotes.org/political-theory/state-civil-society-relationship-navigation/
6. https://legalguideindia.in/public-interest-litigation-pil-in-india/
7. https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/public-interest-litigation2711/
8. https://www.theedulaw.in/content/articles/53/Public-Interest-Litigation-in-India:-A-Democratic-Tool-for-Justice
9. https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2312546.pdf
10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341832066_Relationship_between_State_and_Civil_Society_Theoretical_Review