Prof. Yutaka TSUJINAKA, Vice President for International Affairs, University of Tsukuba    In the “Tunisian revolution”, while Internet Technologies like Twitter and Facebook played a important role, the strength of the civil society resistance must be essential. Islamic civil society should be known in order to understand the recent political changes and its future. My Assumption : Civil society can be found under any culture and any regimes. The concept, civil society should be universal.  Civil Society occupies a public sphere in which neither government, market (company) nor family plays a enough role. Government Society Civil Society Market Family  Democratization: Role of Associations and Organizations ◦ The Third Wave: since 1974(Samuel Huntington (1991) ◦ Eastern Europe ◦ Former Soviet Republics  Who should be responsible for “Public-ness” and “public common goods”? ◦ Governments: employing neoliberal policies, under fiscal deficit: Retreating from public policies ◦ Large companies: providing less welfare for employees ◦ Families: declining roles of family members 4   Should “Tunisian revolution” be regarded as a new generation of Islamic Civil Society? There have been mature civil societies in the Islamic communities historically. ◦ Ex: From the tenth century, there were commercial and social networks which were not only independent from the royal authority but also beyond the bonds of family, tribe and locality in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, southern Mediterranean and so on (Eickelman 1996). ◦ Mahalla in central Asia and other Islamic societies    In order to build and sustain a social network which is beyond family, tribe and locality, Civil Society Organizations(CSOs) are often founded. CSOs not only supply various social services(education, welfare, information and so on), but also advocate civic and political actions Evaluating non-Western civil societies: Why to focus on CSOs? They Can solve the puzzles! Index① Total tax ratio as percentage of GDP, 2004 (OECD 30)  Japan 26.4%  Japan is ranked 4th from the bottom (after Mexico, Korea and USA 25.5%) out of 30 OECD countries.  OECD Average 35.9%  EU 15 average 39.7%  7 Tax Revenue % of GDP(OECD, 2005) 8 9   No easy answer, but let us consider Civil Society Organizations (CSOs). Because CSOs can contribute to the performance of government by ◦ forming both human capital and social capital (human network, trust, reciprocity), and supplying those capitals to government supporter groups. ◦ Reducing and lightening the government burden. ◦ Reservation：market, company/family may matter. 10     The term “citizen”: (translated by Y. Fukuzawa), “Civil society” relatively new after WWⅡ. Origins of CSOs: Predecessor in the Edo Era Waves of democratization emerged since Meiji revolution. The emergence of NGOs and NPOs 1970s: Citizen, Residents‟ movements 1980s: NGOs,1990s: NPOs (enactment of NPO law‟98)  The visible rise of Volunteers and Civil Society 1995: Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake and 2011  Civil society in Japan: Distinctive, and different from Western understandings (“Members without advocacy,” R. Pekknanen 2006.) 11    In order to grasp civil society free of Western bias, I started the world-wide CSO surveys in 1997. Until 2010, 13 countries (JPN, RK, USA, G, PRC, TR, R, Ph, Br, Bg, Uz, Est, Pol ), more than 55,000 assn. data collected in JIGS 1st and JIGS 2nd We did conduct more comprehensive surveys including grass-root NHAs (especially in Japan) since 2006. 12 13 Country Year 1.Japan '97 2.Korea '97 3.USA '99 4.Germany '00 5.China '01-02 '03-04 6.Russia '03-04 7.Turkey „03-04 8.Philippine '04-05 Data Source / Survey Method classified telephone directory/ mail classified telephone directory / mail classified telephone directory / mail classified telephone directory, organization directory / mail “Social Groups” officially registered at the Municipal or District/Country Civil Affairs Bureau / mail Registered Organizations （NGO） Database / mail Regional survey investigation based on telephone directory / interview Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Philippine Foundation Center (PFC) / interview Valid Populati Sample Response on (a) (b) Return Rate(%) (b/a) Regions (Valid Return Sample) Tokyo (1,438) Ibaraki (197) Seoul (371) Kyonggi (110) Washington, D.C. (748) North Carolina (752) 23,128 4,247 1,635 38.5 11,521 3,890 493 12.7 7,228 5,089 1,492 29.3 4,806 3,100 885 28.8 Berlin (643) Halle (154) 8,897 2,858 32.1 Beijing (627), Zhejiang(1,782), Heilongjiang (449) 2,974 1,500 711 47.4 Moscow (411) Saint Petersburg (300) 15,730 3,146 841 - Ankara ( 334 ) Istanbul ( 507 ) 44,051 5,172 1,014 18.5 Manila (855) Cebu (159) 9,536 14 Country Year Regions (Valid Return Sample) 275,895 2,609 2,014 77.2 29,528 5,915 1,509 25.5 Rajshahi (504), Dhaka (1,005) 91,101 91,101 15,791 17.3 '06-'07 Registered Organizationｓ（NGO） Database / mail 23,403 23,403 5,127 21.9 '06-'07 Registered Neighborhood Associations (MP)/ mail 296,770 33,438 18,404 55.0 '05-06 10.Bangladesh '06-07 11.a Japan (2nd) '06-'07 11.c Japan Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), organization directory / interview Return Rate(%) (b/a) Belem (193), Belo Horizonte (390), Brasilia (1,132), Goiania (115), Recife (170) 9.Brazil 11.b Japan Valid Data Source / Sample Population Response Survey Method (a) (b) Telephone books, Directories classified telephone directory/ mail Nationwide Survey Japan 15 Country 12. Germany (2nd) 13. Korea (2nd) Year Valid Data Source / Survey Sample Population Response Method (a) (b) Regions (Valid Return Sample) classified telephone directory / mail 4,657 2,660 497 18.7 Berlin (354), Halle (82), Heidelberg (61) organization directory (NGO)/ mail 13,717 1,899 312 16.4 Nationwide Survey Germany classified telephone directory/ mail 112,917 29,422 1,008 3.4 '07-08 Nationwide Survey Korea '08-09 organization directory (NGO)/ mail 14. China (2nd) Return Rate(%) (b/a) '09-11 “Social organizations,” “Nonprofit private enterprise,” “foundations” registered at the Municipal or District/ Civil Affairs Bureau / Mail/ conference 7,030 19,799 7,030 425 2500 more 6.0 Beijing (737), Zhejiang(1031), Heilongjiang(788 ) Still on going 16 Country Year '08-09 15. USA (2nd) ‟09-10 16. Uzbekistan 17. Estonia 18. Poland Data Source / Survey Method organization directory (NPO) / mail, web, phone organization directory (NPO) / mail, web, phone „07-08 organization directory / mail '09 classified phone directory / web '09-10 organization directory (REGON) Valid Sample Population Response (a) (b) 8,524 1,541 4,297 1,501 Return Rate(%) (b/a) Regions (Valid Return Sample) 34.9 Seattle, King County 3,300 571 17.3 1,541 400 26.0 D.C. (237) Maryland (133) Virginia (201) Nationwide Survey Uzbekistan 344 22,361 3,000 261 8.7 Mazowieckie (128) Lubelskie (56) Dolnoslaskie (77) 17 Survey Period Population Size On Social Organizations （JIGS） On Non Profit Organization On Neighborhood Associations On Local Governments February 2006 to March 2007 February 2006 to March 2007 August 2006 to February 2007 August 2007 to December 2007 91,101 23,403 296,770 1,827 (no. of samples by phone directories) (no. of accredited NPOs) (by Ministry of Internal Affairs & Communication) (no. of those at the time of survey) Survey method Mailing method Mailing method Mailing & Placement method Mailing method No. of samples distributed 91,101 (Whole survey) 23,403 (Whole survey) 32,298 (Sample Survey) 1,827 (Whole survey) No. of samples collected 15,791 5,127 18,404 1,179 Return rate 17.3％ 21.9% 55.0% 64.6% 19 (1) Formation (year established)  (2) Composition of CSO sectors and types  (3) Geographical Range of CSO Activities  (4) Human Resource  (5) Experience to Success to influence policies  (6) Self-evaluated Political Influence  20 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 % 40.0 30.0 Turkey(2004) Bangladesh(2007) Uzbekistan(2008) NPO Japan(2007) Japan(2007) NPO Korea(2009) Korea(2009) NPO USA(1999) USA Seatlle(2009) NPO USA Washington D.C.(2010) NPO Germany(2000) Germany(2008) Associations Germany(2008) Interest Groups China(2010) Russia(2004) Philippine(2005) Brazil(2006) Estonia(2009) Poland(2010) 20.0 10.0 0.0 21 80.0 Turkey(2004) 70.0 60.0 50.0 % 40.0 Bangladesh(2006) Uzbekistan(2008) NPO Uzbekistan(2008) NHA Japan(2007) Japan(2007) NPO Japan(2007) NHA 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 22       Trace, discontinuity, or correlation: Regime change and wave of establishment of CSOs. War defeat, unification, regime change (liberation) .1989-91 divide in many countries (The global Associational Revolution). Only, war defeat and change in JPN JPN: Majority of Associations existing today are created between 1945 and the era of economic growth : Robust Postwar CSO Structure. How about Islamic Societies? And Tunisia? 23  Profit (market-CSOs, not including company) sector: Trade associations, labor unions, economic organizations  Non-profit (social service) sector: Organizations related law, accounting, education, welfare, medicine  Citizen (individual membership) sector:  Organizations where citizens can be involved in various activities related to politics, religion, sports, or hobbies Other: Those do not fit in the above three categories 24 (2) Composition: CSOs’ 4 Sectors’ Proportion (capital areas) Turkey(2004) 8.4 22.3 Bangladesh(2007) 62.8 28.6 Japan(2007) 34.3 39.3 Korea(2009) 11.6 USA(1999) 35.3 23.7 23.9 12.5 5.1 Brazil(2006) Poland(2010) 18.1 10% 1 Profit Sector 1.0 46.6 28.7 27.9 19.5 52.7 11.7 39.0 29.2 39.4 20% 14.0 50.2 19.7 Estonia(2009) 0% 19.1 36.3 7.7 21.1 27.5 19.1 30% 40% 2 Non-profit Sector 12.3 37.8 50% 60% 70% 3 Citizen sector 80% 4 Other 4.7 90% Profit Superiority (≒40%) Japan・China Non-P. Superiority (≒40%) US・Germany・ Estonia・Poland 21.2 28.0 47.8 Russia(2004) 12.7 15.5 36.7 China(2010) 24.3 40.4 7.9 1.8 43.2 22.9 Germany(2000) Philippines(2005) 6.5 100% Citizen Superiority (≒50%) Russia・Philippines (Korea・ Brazil) Balanced Bangladesh Other (≒60%) Turkey 25 Tokyo, Japan(2007) % .5 12.7 6.0 Agricultural Trade, Business or Commercial Labor Union or Federation 4.5 Educational 27.5 13.6 Governmental or Public Administration Social Welfare Professional Political or Public Affairs Civic Academic or Cultural 4.4 5.8 1.4 6.8 5.6 5.5 5.8 Recreation, Hobby or Sports Religious Others 26 1.5 Washington D.C., USA(1999) % 19.7 17.5 1.4 1.1 3.9 4.2 1.5 2.1 18.3 6.6 8.3 6.7 5.2 Agricultural Trade, Business or Commercial Labor Union or Federation Educational Govermental or Public Administration Social Welfare Health or Medical Academic or Research Political or Public Affairs Environmental Cultural Recreational, Hobby or Sports Religious Foreign Interest or Ethnic Other 2.0 27 Metro Manila, Philippines(2005) % .9 3.5 Agricultural .6 Economic, Business, commercial or employers 1.9 5.2 Trade (labor) union or federation Educational 28.5 7.1 4.0 Governmental or administration-related .8 Welfare Philanthropy Professional .7 1.1 .1 Academic or Research Political or public affairs People's organization or NGO Cultural 15.4 27.1 Recreational or hobby or sport Religious Foreign or international 2.5 .5 Others * If the “Religious” category is removed, Korea and Brazil are N.P. Superior. 28 1.4 1.8 .4 Dhaka, Bangladesh(2007) Agriculture and farmer related 3.4 Economic or business 20.2 13.8 Labor union or federation Education and research related Government or administration-related Social welfare 6.7 8.0 Professional Citizen NGO 3.6 7.3 Cultural .2 2.8 Islamic Religious Religious other than Islamic Recreational or sports related 3.7 26.9 Others 29 30 (3) Geographical Range of CSO Activities (Capital Areas) Turkey(2004) 39.7 Bangladesh(2007) 35.9 45.7 Japan(2007) 15.7 21.0 13.4 Korea(2009) 1.2 6.1 Philippines(2005) 15.7 35.3 43.9 28.0 24.8 28.6 15.6 21.7 29.2 29.3 Estonia(2009) 23.3 Poland(2010) 3.1 10.0 1 Local 30.0 2 Regional 12.6 19.6 3.0 8.7 56.0 10.4 20.0 9.7 9.4 32.0 0.0 2.6 3.8 32.7 4.6 21.2 78.0 Brazil(2006) 3.2 11.4 38.3 16.1 Germany(2000) Russia(2004) 1.9 2.5 16.6 52.7 8.0 23.9 16.6 13.5 6.9 36.0 USA(1999) 5.3 40.0 3 State 7.2 6.3 35.2 50.0 4 National 60.0 5 EU 70.0 6 International 12.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 31 (3) Range of CSO Activities(Capital Areas) Islamic Countries & Japan (including NPO) Turkey(2004) 39.7 Bangladesh(2007) 35.9 45.7 Uzbekistan(2008) NPO 5.3 21.0 13.5 64.5 Japan(2007) 15.7 Japan(2007) NPO 13.4 6.9 30.3 0.0 10.0 1 Local 12.9 20.0 2 Regional 30.0 40.0 3 State 11.5 50.0 4 National 16.6 3.2 6.5 70.0 Turkey, Bangladesh & Uzbekistan (Capital Areas): Local Based Japan(Tokyo): National Based 11.4 31.5 60.0 2.5 16.1 52.7 13.8 16.6 12.8 80.0 90.0 100.0 6 International 32 (4) Human Resource: 60 CSOs’ Individual members (capital areas) 50 Individual members - Turkey(2004) 40 Individual members - Bangladesh(2007) Individual members - Japan(2007) Individual members - Korea(2009) % 30 Individual members - USA(1999) Individual members - Germany(2000) 20 Individual members - China(2010) Individual members - Russia(2004) 10 Individual members - Philippine(2005) Individual members - Brazil(2006) Individual members - Estonia(2009) 0 Individual members - Poland(2010) 33 (4) Human Resource: CSOs’ Full-time employees (capital areas) 80 70 Full-time employees - Turkey(2004) 60 Full-time employees - Bangladesh(2007) Full-time employees - Japan(2007) 50 Full-time employees - Korea(2009) Full-time employees - USA(1999) % 40 Full-time employees - Germany(2000) Full-time employees - China(2010) 30 Full-time employees - Russia(2004) Full-time employees - Philippine(2005) 20 Full-time employees - Brazil(2006) Full-time employees - Estonia(2009) 10 Full-time employees - Poland(2010) 0 (1) 0 (2) 1 (3) 2 (4) 3,4 (5) 5-9 (6) 10- (7) 30- 29 49 (8) 50- (9) 10099 34 (4) Human Resource: CSOs’ Volunteers (capital areas) 80 70 60 50 Volunteers - Bangladesh(2007) Volunteers - Japan(2007) % 40 Volunteers - Korea(2009) Volunteers - USA(1999) 30 Volunteers - China(2010) Volunteers - Russia(2004) 20 Volunteers - Estonia(2009) Volunteers - Poland(2010) 10 0 35 (5) Experience of Success to influence policies(%): Enact, Modify or Stop Policies(capital areas) Estonia(2009) Korea(2009) NPO USA Washington D.C.(2010) NPO Russia(2004) Japan(2007) NPO Germany(2000) Korea(2009) Japan(2007) Poland(2010) Philippine(2004) Uzbekistan(2008) NPO Bangladesh(2007) Brazil(2006) China(2010) Turkey(2004) 56.25 54.87 51.90 48.18 41.36 37.64 30.15 29.91 23.44 20.35 17.14 15.32 8.04 6.48 5.69 36 (6) Self-evaluated Political Influence: Average of 0=No Influence ~ 4=Very Strong (capital areas) 3.00 2.74 2.60 2.50 2.00 2.51 2.36 2.25 2.23 1.83 1.52 1.50 1.46 1.46 1.34 1.26 1.00 0.50 1.20 0.82 0.41 0.00 Even if CSOs cannot influence policies directly, Influences of their grass-roots activities can be evaluated highly. 37 38   The “global Associational Revolution” since 1990s Western(Europe & USA) Non-Profit Priority & Eastern(Japan & China) Profit-Priority  Local Based Activities in Islamic CSOs  Moderate Human Resources In Islamic CSOs  Influence of Lobbying & Grass-root Activity on politics Civil society organizations, old or new, are the key, to stabilize democratic regime, and to sustain good governance. Especially, local grassroot CSOs are so.  In any culture and any regimes, CSOs are important for citizen life.  Thank you so much!    1.Civil Society Organization Map ２．Neighborhood Association in Japan Public Trust(578) [2006] Authorized Special Public Trust : Concept in terms of legal status : Concept in terms of tax policy Limitedliabilitycompany (605)[2006] Areas in which interest associations, NGOs, and private NPOs exist Private School Corporations (7,875) [2006] Social Welfare Corporations (18,258) [2005] Special Promotion Corporations Incorporated Foundations (12,321) [2006] Incorporated Association (12,572) [2006] Private Organizations with a place of business (42,000) Private Organizations without have a place of business (43,000) Authorized Public Corporations (1,800) [2007] Labor Unions (61,178) [2005] Government al Corporations Public Good Corporations, Etc. Commercial Union Community Based Groups (296,770) [2003] Authorized Community Based Groups (22,051) Management Unions of Condominium Commercial Society (2,734) [2004] Unlimited Partnerships (5,781) [2006] Specified non-profit Corporations (33,389) [2007] Limited Partnerships (32,2001) [2006] Limited liability company (605)[2006] Cooperative Societies, Etc. Consumer Cooperatives (1116) [2004] Mid-sized & Small Busines Cooperative Societies (38,733) 969） [2004] For the Public / Public Good Joint-Stock Corporations (2,490,748) [2006] Agricultural Cooperatives (3,239) [2007] Credit Unions Etc. Other (56,494) [2006] Voluntary Unions Union-type Political Parties / Political Organizations (75,558) [2004] Medical Foundation (396) [2006] Medical Medical Societies Societies 41,324[2006] 41,324[2006] Public Religious Corporations (182,796) [2005] Chambers of Commerce (524) [2004] Regular Corporations Foundation-type Organizations Organizations Nonjuridical Organizations Corporations having a special semigovernmental status (35) [2008] Private corporations set up under special laws (37) [2007] Independent administrative institution (102) [2007] For Profit These figures are mainly for 2007 or the latest. Information regarding the positionin g of groups and organizations was based on the National Institute for Research Advancement's Report No. 980034, Research Report on the Support System for Citizen's Public-Interest Activities, (in Japanese), 1994, p.27. The author has 42 revised all figures used to represent the number of each type of organization. 42 Definition：voluntary groups whose memberships is geographically limited, and whose activities are multiple and are centered on that same area. （Pekkanen 2006）  300,000 groups exist all over Japan (Totally 98.9% covered by our survey) for social service for local residents and bridge bet. Administration and residents. Essential for local residents.  Increase of unofficial complaint on the decay or castration of the neighborhood associations. ➢Need to study the reality by nationwide survey.  43   3 Functions in Civil Society １）Building Social Capital ２）Providing Social Services ３）Public Support for groups: Advocacy Neighborhood associations: expected to carry out the above 3 functions in Japanese local societies. 44 Less than 20 20-39 40-59 60-79 80-99 100-119 120-139 140-159 160-179 180-199 200-219 220-239 240-259 260-279 280-299 300-319 320-339 340-359 360-379 380-399 400-419 420-439 440-459 460-479 480-499 500-519 520-539 540-559 560-579 580-599 600-619 620-639 640-659 660-679 680-699 700-719 720-739 740-759 760-779 780-799 800-819 820-839 840-859 860-879 880-899 900-999 1000-1099 1100-1199 1200-1299 1300-1399 1400-1499 1500-1599 1600-1699 1700-1799 1800-1899 1900-1999 More than 2,000 associations No. of Neighborhood 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 No. of households joined 45 １）Social Capital ２）Links with other associations Networks formed In and out of Neighborhood association 3 ）Activities for social services ４）Cooperation & links with local governments ５）Political participation Straddling civil society （civic society mediated by administration） 46 Traditional Rural (%) New rural (%) Traditional urban (%) Modern urban (%) All (%) Cleaning and beautification 87.1 89.3 88.3 91.0 88.5 Residential road management 86.7 79.3 91.0 89.4 87.2 Festivals 74.3 62.4 82.1 74.5 74.6 Support for the elderly 66.4 60.4 78.6 78.6 70.9 Garbage disposal 67.2 68.6 70.9 73.1 69.5 Ceremonial events 73.2 61.2 66.2 68.0 68.9 Sports and cultural events 58.7 63.9 72.6 74.5 65.8 Cooperation with school education 60.9 53.2 70.8 69.3 63.8 Meeting hall management 66.8 55.3 64.7 60.8 63.5 Fire prevention 60.2 50.8 65.0 59.1 59.8 Disaster prevention 50.9 48.4 62.8 62.5 55.7 Traffic safety 49.7 46.4 63.8 55.8 53.8 Crime 42.2 50.0 64.7 66.3 53.4 Youth development 45.5 46.9 62.5 61.7 52.9 Bulletin board management 36.6 45.2 62.1 67.8 50.0 47 Rural Nonurban/new Urban/old Urban/new Total Senior citizen club Community works association 78.6 72.6 61.1 74.8 85.9 83.7 79.3 84.9 78.1 78.0 Kids club 74.1 74.6 83.5 82.0 78.0 “JICHIREN” 59.2 68.8 82.7 85.4 71.3 PTA 65.5 60.8 76.8 73.4 69.1 Fire brigade 72.5 53.5 73.6 60.5 67.8 Crime prevention 47.8 52.8 71.1 69.7 58.4 Athletic association 53.3 50.4 62.8 55.5 55.6 Other Neighborhood association 44.9 50.4 57.7 60.5 51.8 Women`s association Police station 53.7 38.3 37.4 45.1 55.5 61.5 44.1 63.3 50.0 49.7 Fire Station 36.0 41.2 59.4 59.2 46.9 Guardian diety group” 52.8 25.4 50.9 26.1 43.3 Unit: % 48       High participation rate Main members are retired elderly men Cooperation with children clubs, senior citizens' clubs and social welfare councils Conducting cleaning and beautification, residential road management and support for the elderly Rotating message board, distributing PR magazines and fund-raising (cooperation with local government) Requesting activities to local government officials 49 Legislature2)/Congress Administration Court Japan (JIGS1) 14.5 35.7 6.5 Japan (JIGS2_Social Assn.) 31.5 64.4 4.5 Japan (JIGS2_NPO) 29.6 70.5 2.7 Korea 12.1 62.5 3.2 USA 38.4 24.9 2.8 Germany (JIGS1) 8.7 15.9 7.6 China 4.5 18.5 2.4 Russia 11.4 13.9 12.9 The Philippines 15.8 40.4 6.2 Turkey3) 7.5 28.7 66.2 Brazil 8.8 9.6 9.2 Bangladesh -- -- -- Notes: l) Percentage of the first choice 2) In China, this is the National People’s Congress. 3) In Turkey, we asked whether these areas are effective as a lobbying target. The respondents were allowed to choose more than one area. 50