The Relationship Between Civil Society and State in Sustainable Development Discourse

Sustainable development is not just a government responsibility. It requires active participation from citizens, organizations, and movements that operate independently of state machinery. This space-commonly referred to as civil society-plays a distinctive yet deeply interconnected role with the state. Understanding how civil society and the state relate to each other, where they overlap, and where they diverge, is essential for anyone studying sustainability science, development policy, or democratic governance.

What is civil society and how is it distinct from the state? 🔗

Civil society is often described as the space that exists outside the family, the state, and the market. According to CSIS, the most widely accepted definition comes from CIVICUS, which characterizes civil society as the arena created by individual and collective actions, organizations, and institutions that advance shared interests-separate from the domains of government, business, and kinship. This includes social movements, independent trade unions, advocacy groups, NGOs, faith-based organizations, professional associations, and even loosely organized grassroots networks.

The key distinction is this: civil society actors are not seeking political power (like parties or politicians), nor pursuing profit (like firms), nor operating on the basis of family or ethnic ties (like kinship communities). Instead, they rely on what theorists call the communicative mode of action-engaging through language, shared norms, public debate, and collective purpose. Their goal is to shape the public sphere and influence how societies understand and respond to common challenges.

This distinction matters because it determines how we evaluate civil society’s impact on development. If we conflate it with the state or the market, we lose sight of its unique contribution: fostering open deliberation and holding power accountable without directly wielding that power.

The linkage between civil society and state power 🔗

While civil society operates outside the state, it does not exist in isolation from it. The two are deeply interdependent. The state creates the legal and institutional framework within which civil society functions-freedom of association, freedom of speech, the right to assembly. Conversely, civil society shapes state behaviour through advocacy, scrutiny, and the mobilization of public opinion.

As a Community of Democracies study notes, cooperation between governments and civil society is essential for sustainable development. Governments cannot achieve the Sustainable Development Goals alone; they must work with civil society and the private sector to ensure proper implementation. At the same time, civil society must form coalitions and open dialogue with state institutions to make this partnership productive.

This dual relationship-of distinction and linkage-is what makes the civil society-state dynamic so theoretically rich and practically important. Civil society needs the state for legal protection and resource access; the state needs civil society for legitimacy, local knowledge, and accountability pressure.

Boundaries that require clear understanding 🔗

To properly assess civil society’s role in development, we need to draw clear boundaries between four domains: the state, the market, civil society, and community (primary affiliations based on kinship, ethnicity, or religion). Each operates by a different logic. The state operates through authority and regulation. The market operates through exchange and profit. Community ties are sustained through identity and tradition. Civil society, in contrast, operates through voluntary association oriented toward public purposes.

When these boundaries blur-for example, when NGOs become extensions of the state (sometimes called government-organized NGOs or GONGOs) or when social movements become vehicles for ethnic mobilization rather than public deliberation-the developmental potential of civil society is compromised. Clear theoretical understanding of these distinctions is therefore not just an academic exercise; it directly affects how we design policy, channel resources, and evaluate outcomes.

Civil society’s communicative mode of action 🔗

What sets civil society apart from other spheres is its primary reliance on communication rather than coercion or commerce. Drawing on sociological theory, particularly the work of Jürgen Habermas and Jeffrey Alexander, civil society actors engage in the public sphere through persuasion, norm-setting, and the framing of issues.

This communicative orientation means that civil society’s influence is exercised differently from that of political parties or businesses. A social movement does not pass laws. An advocacy group does not generate profits. Instead, they shape how issues are understood, what gets onto the policy agenda, and what standards of behaviour are considered acceptable. Research published in Environment and Planning C shows that civil society influence on intergovernmental processes works through three channels: framing how issues are defined, shifting state positions during negotiations, and shaping the actual formulation of goals.

This is why civil society is sometimes called the “conscience” of a society-it provides the space where moral arguments and public reasoning take place, separate from the calculations of power and profit that drive the state and the market.

Civil society and the foundation of democratic legitimacy 🔗

Political philosophers from Aristotle onward have recognized that legitimate governance depends on more than institutional structures. It requires an active, deliberating citizenry. Civil society provides the arena where such deliberation occurs.

As Patrick Heller of Brown University notes in his comparative study of democratic deepening, even Aristotle conceived the public political community as the space where ethical life was realized through political action and public reasoning. This tradition has continued through modern political theory, where thinkers like John Elster have argued that deliberation-not just voting-is what makes democratic rule legitimate.

This connection between civil society and democratic legitimacy becomes even more significant when we consider Amartya Sen’s conception of development as freedom. In his landmark work Development as Freedom, Sen argues that development should be understood not merely as economic growth but as the expansion of the substantive freedoms people enjoy. These include political freedoms, economic opportunities, social arrangements for education and healthcare, transparency guarantees, and protective security.

For Sen, public deliberation is not just a nice addition to development-it is constitutive of it. Freedom is both the end and the means of development. Civil society, as the space where public discussion and collective reasoning happen, becomes essential to this reconceptualization. Without a vibrant civil society, the deliberative foundations that Sen considers indispensable for genuine development simply cannot exist.

Why deliberation matters for sustainability 🔗

In the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, civil society’s deliberative role is particularly important. The SDGs cover a vast range of interconnected targets-poverty, health, education, climate, justice, inequality. Tackling these effectively requires input from diverse perspectives, including those of marginalized communities who are least likely to be heard through formal political channels alone.

Civil society organizations bring citizen-oriented data, local expertise, and the voices of the poorest into spaces where decisions are being made. As Transparency International has highlighted, CSOs also produce parallel reports on national progress, identifying governance shortcomings that official reports may overlook. This supplementary role strengthens the overall quality of democratic governance and development planning.

Uneven citizenship and Global South challenges 🔗

The relationship between civil society and the state becomes more complex in developing democracies where deep social inequalities persist. Countries like Brazil, India, and South Africa have all successfully consolidated representative democratic institutions-regular elections, constitutional governance, separation of powers. But the formal existence of democracy does not automatically translate into effective citizenship for all.

Patrick Heller’s comparative research demonstrates this gap clearly. He argues that all three countries are marked by a fundamental disjunction between formal political equality and actual social inequality. The capacity to participate effectively in political processes-through organizing, advocating, and mobilizing-is unevenly distributed across social groups. At the institutional level, the introduction of universal suffrage has not made the state consistently responsive to the demands of subordinate groups.

Divergent trajectories of democratic deepening 🔗

Heller identifies distinct patterns across these three countries. In Brazil, a wide range of associational forms and movements developed autonomous organizational capacity from the 1970s democracy movements onward. Social movements were central to Brazil’s re-democratization, and the Workers’ Party (PT) emerged as a vehicle for translating civil society demands into party platforms. This led to significant institutional innovations, including participatory budgeting and decentralized governance structures.

In India, Heller describes a process of involution, where associational life has become increasingly defined by caste, religious, and ethnic categories. This results in highly particularistic and competitive political conflicts rather than broad-based democratic deepening. In South Africa, despite the strong civil society formations that emerged from the anti-apartheid struggle, these groups have been largely sidelined as politically consequential actors-a process he terms containerization. In both India and South Africa, civil society has been increasingly subordinated to political society, with democratic practices being eroded and subordinate groups becoming progressively disempowered.

The problem of associational autonomy 🔗

In contexts of high inequality and limited rights access, the very ability of civil society to function autonomously is under threat. When subordinate groups lack the resources, education, or legal protections needed to organize effectively, citizenship itself becomes questionable. A country may hold regular elections and maintain a democratic constitution, yet large segments of its population may remain unable to exercise the rights that citizenship nominally guarantees.

This challenge is compounded by what the CSIS analysis identifies as a growing trend: governments becoming more sophisticated in limiting the operational space for civil society organizations, particularly those focused on democracy and human rights. Tactics include restrictive NGO registration laws, funding constraints, and even the creation of government-organized NGOs designed to infiltrate and monitor independent groups.

The result is a paradox: the countries where vibrant civil society is most needed for democratic deepening and sustainable development are often the same countries where civil society faces the greatest constraints. This is especially true across much of the Global South, where democratic crises are increasingly linked to the unresolved problem of incorporating popular classes into meaningful political participation.

Why this matters for sustainable development 🔗

The relationship between civil society and the state is not an abstract theoretical question. It has direct implications for whether sustainable development goals are achievable. A thriving civil society produces better policy outcomes through accountability pressure, translates complex development data into actionable public knowledge, ensures that marginalized voices are included in decision-making, and provides service delivery in areas the state cannot reach.

Conversely, when civic space is restricted, the consequences for development are severe. Service delivery suffers, corruption increases, social conflict intensifies, and scarce resources are allocated inefficiently. The Community of Democracies report makes this connection explicit: closing political space for civil society has a direct negative impact on sustainable development by excluding large sectors of the population and feeding a sense of disconnection between institutions and citizens.

Understanding the civil society-state relationship is therefore foundational to sustainability science. It determines who participates in shaping development trajectories, whose knowledge counts, and whether the ambitious targets of the 2030 Agenda can be realized in practice-especially for those who have historically been left behind.

What do you think? Can representative democracy truly deliver sustainable development without a strong, autonomous civil society pushing it forward? And in countries where deep inequalities persist, what would it take to transform formal citizenship into effective, substantive citizenship for all?

References

1. https://www.csis.org/analysis/concept-and-definition-civil-society-sustainability
2. https://community-democracies.org/app/uploads/2016/09/Study-Enabling-Environment-and-SDGs.pdf
3. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399654419884330
4. https://www.patrickheller.com/uploads/1/5/3/7/15377686/democratic_deepening_in_brazil_india_and_south_africa_yale_present.pdf
5. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/development-as-freedom-9780198297581
6. https://www.un.org/en/desa/civil-society-plays-critical-role-deliver-sdgs
7. https://www.transparency.org/en/news/civil-societys-crucial-role-in-achieving-the-sdgs
8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333411009_Divergent_trajectories_of_democratic_deepening_comparing_Brazil_India_and_South_Africa
9. https://home.watson.brown.edu/research/research-briefs/parties-civil-society-and-democratic-deepening-comparing-india-brazil-and-south