Carlyle A. Thayer's 'Vietnam and the Challenge of Political Civil Society' (abstract) in Contemporary Southeast Asia Vol.31 No.1 is focused on our ASEAN neighbour but his attack on the academic bifurcation of civil society and politics has wider currency; like war, civil society activities, surely, should be understood as a continuation of politics (defined broadly) by other means.
For the spectrum of Civil Society Roles, Thayer draws on Joseph Hannah's 2007 University of Washington PhD dissertation on 'Local Non-Government Organizations in Vietnam: Development, Civil Society and State-Society Relations'. On the left-most side of the spectrum is 'Public Resistance to the Regime' through practices of civil disobedience and mass demonstrations; the CSJ part of the supply chain if you will.
Next is 'Opposition' through its press and media arms (I think PAS's Harakah as an example of relative success) and other forms of 'public criticism of policies and/or the regime' - there's still a room for distinction between attacking policies and the regime itself as well as whether fluffy/detailed policies are offered as 'alternatives' and/or 'constructive criticism'. It could be argued that the post-JBJ Worker's Party occupies the part of this part of the spectrum that is closer to the right/middle.
This is followed by 'Watchdog' organizations that monitor state effectiveness (or the lack thereof) and exposing corrupt officials or practices. There is a literature on how environmental, labour and women's NGOs were instrumental in the democratization of Eastern Europe and Taiwan but I don't have the relevant books with me at the moment. That cluster of research could prove to a rich vein to draw linkages in theory and empirical material to generalize Hannah's spectrum. Right of the watchdogs are those Lobbying for policy change, followed by Advocacy for constituents, changes in policy implementation and 'secondary beneficiaries'.
It seems to me that watchdog, lobbying and advocacy often come as a package of mutually reinforcing assumptions and practices. In an anti-regime formulation, such groups could chip away at the regime, within the scope of its own implicit norms and explicit rules, through repeated persistent and organized requests/demands for information, raising sensitive issues justified on the basis of long-term national interest, holding the regime and its functionaries to account (not to international 'standards' but to its own written rulebook and espoused aspirations).
Right on the right of the spectrum are those Implementing State Policy with welfare, social services provision, anti-poverty measures. Those are often categorized as regime collaborators or even part of the regime's patron-client network. Yet the note about it being a potential 'shadow state' reminds one of how political movements seeking to challenge entrenched powers can achieve success through works that fall under this category - providing health care, education, professional advice - in essence, a demonstration of both organizational acumen and of care, concern and service to the wider community.
My thoughts, though, now wonder to how, from a regime perspective, one could propose a matching framework to trim the shrubs of civil society under the banyan of the party/regime/state - surely, not just with the blunt shears of an Operation Spectrum.
