Images are unavailable offline.

Jason Kenney's United Conservatives discussed 'harnessing the power of civil society' in their election platform.

Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press

David Mitchell is the president and CEO of the Calgary Chamber of Voluntary Organizations.

In their election platform, the now-governing United Conservatives reintroduced an important term to the language of public policy with an entire chapter dedicated to “harnessing the power of civil society.” They used that phrase to reinforce a key part of their political philosophy: “One of the first principles of conservatism is that civil society should come before government, and that voluntary groups are generally more effective in preventing and reducing social problems than a big, bureaucratic state.” Furthermore, they promised to be champions “of civil society groups who take the lead in making Alberta a more compassionate society.”

At face value, this all sounds pretty good. But it leaves in its wake an open question: Who exactly are they talking about?

Story continues below advertisement

The term “civil society” has been in use for more than a generation, employed to describe both non-governmental and non-profit organizations, as well as individual citizens, who contribute to public life and the common good. They provide the glue that holds communities together.

By contrast, civil society is weak and even non-existent under authoritarian regimes such as Russia or China, which often lack credible and reliable intermediaries between citizens and a centralized state. Civicus, a global alliance of organizations and citizens, tracks and identifies these international trends in its annual State of Civil Society Report. Canada does very well in this analysis; the United States, on the other hand, has recently been in decline.

Around the world, the term is often used to help promote good governance, human rights and freedom of speech. Britain has even appointed government ministers explicitly responsible for civil society, and until recently, the country had been viewed as a model for developing related frameworks and strategies – a reputation that seems to now be diminished by government austerity, sharp rises in homelessness and child poverty, and the divisiveness resulting from political polarization and debates over Brexit.

Clearly, there is no single or best version of civil society. But in Canada, and perhaps especially in Alberta, we may have an opportunity to provide a prototype for others to learn from. But we can’t without agreeing on what we mean when we use the term – and what the implications of that definition might be.

Story continues below advertisement

This summer, as part of our qualitative research for Calgary Chamber of Voluntary Organizations’ annual report on the state of the Alberta non-profit sector, we asked professionals in every corner of the province to tell us what the term “civil society” means to them. Interestingly, we heard in interviews and focus groups that there was neither a strong consensus nor a clear definition. Most community leaders were familiar with the term. Some felt that they intuitively knew what it meant, but hadn’t done much thinking about it. And everyone believed that we need a strong and healthy civil society and that we’re all part of it.

But there’s one thing they consistently raised as a serious concern: A strong majority were worried that the provincial government might use the concept to offload responsibilities to community groups as part of a program of downsizing and reducing public spending. This fear has been bolstered by comments from the new government since the election about the apparent need for trimming the size and cost of government. Respondents to our research from across the province were apprehensive that the non-profit sector would be called upon to fill gaps created by possible government spending cuts, without the capacity to do so.

They also agreed that although the non-profit sector is a critical part of civil society, the concept, by necessity, is all-encompassing, and must consist of private-sector groups, public agencies and individual citizens, too. In other words, a truly civil society includes all of us.

Not all groups involved in civil society agree on policy issues. The Pembina Institute, an environmental think tank focused on energy and climate change, may be at odds with an industry group such as the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, but both are important parts of civil society. Likewise, LGBTQ groups and faith-based organizations may hold opposite views on some issues, but both are key constituents of civil society. And the entire enterprise is bound to function more effectively if we find ways to work together.

Story continues below advertisement

Government cannot sit this process out. It has a key role, especially in supporting and encouraging both respectful debate and collaboration, two key elements of a robust civil society. In our focus groups, we heard loudly and clearly from non-profits that government must not abdicate this responsibility.

Alberta’s history offers prime expressions of a civil society, including the collective action of barn raisings, when neighbours voluntarily banded together for the good of the community to help a family build or rebuild their property. In today’s complex world, that same spirit and community ethos is needed more than ever. And with the active support of all sectors – non-profit, private and, yes, public included – Alberta holds the promise of serving as a beacon for civil society. But we have to get on the same page, first.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.