Corporatism Beyond National Borders
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JRCA Vol. 20, No. 1 (2019), pp.247-296pp.〓-〓 247 TheThe Transnational transnational Civil civil Societysociety of NepaliNepali Emigrants emigrants andand thethe NepaliNepali Government:government: Corporatism beyond National Borders Taeko Uesugi Senshu University Abstract This paper examines the relationship between the transnational civil society and the State to investigate the transnational dynamics of civil society. The relationship between the Non-Resident Nepali Association (NRNA), a civil society organization (CSO) of Nepali emigrants, and the Nepali government is analyzed as a case study focusing on the Association’s campaign for the retention of Nepali citizenship by emigrants. I conclude that a corporatist relationship has formed beyond national geographical borders as a consequence of the close dealings between the NRNA and the government. This form of corporatism beyond national borders brought about economic privileges for the emigrant entrepreneurs compared to other foreign entrepreneurs, and it also allows the government to aim at economic development adapted to globalization. However, in contrast to the case of CSOs consisting of resident Nepali citizens, which have strengthened their power against the government as a result of democratization, the government holds a dominant position over the NRNA, which accepts the supervision and direction of the government. Thus, post-democratization Nepali civil society is characterized by its plurality of political cultures and the relationship with the 248 TheThe Transnationaltransnational Civilcivil societySociety ofof NepaliNepali emigrantsEmigrants 249 government, which has been generated by the emigrants’ activism beyond national borders. Key words: Corporatism beyond national borders, transnational civil society, Nepal, emigration, Non-resident Nepali Association (NRNA) Acknowledgments I greatly appreciate the cooperation of the members of the NRNA. However, I am solely responsible for the views and opinions expressed in this paper, and they do not reflect those of the NRNA unless differently specified. I am also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments. The Japan Society for the Promotion of Sciences supported this research (JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers: JP19401047, JP23520998, JP24320175, and JP15K03054). This paper examines the relationship between emigrants’ transnational civil society and the State, especially their country of origin with attention to its corporatist characteristic, as an attempt at clarifying the transnational dynamics of civil society. Here, referring to the definition of civil society by Hegel (1896:§182: addition; 1952: 266; 1991: 220) and Dunn (1996: 27) and that of transnational process by Kearney (1995: 548), I use the term “transnational civil society” to mean the transnational domain of relationships, which falls between the private realm on the one hand and a specific State on the other, across geographical national boundaries and where, through sociability, social values such as civility, mutuality, religiosity, and others are produced, as the 248 TheThe Transnationaltransnational Civilcivil societySociety ofof NepaliNepali emigrantsEmigrants Taeko Uesugi 249 government, which has been generated by the emigrants’ concerned people define them, and where activities whose main activism beyond national borders. purpose is profit seeking are not generally done.1 This type of civil society, which acts across geographical national boundaries, may Key words: Corporatism beyond national borders, transnational civil remind one of “global civil society” exemplified by the international society, Nepal, emigration, Non-resident Nepali Association non-governmental organizations (INGOs) (Kaldor, Moore, and (NRNA) Selchow eds. 2012; Keane 2003. See Introduction of this special issue about INGOs). However, global civil society is not bound with a specific State, and seeks or promotes more universal values. 2 Acknowledgments Therefore, transnational civil society is distinguished from global civil I greatly appreciate the cooperation of the members of the NRNA. society in terms of its anchorage in a specific State. However, I am solely responsible for the views and opinions expressed The relationship between civil society and the State, where civil in this paper, and they do not reflect those of the NRNA unless society sets its target or base, is not one of mere opposition (Pekkanen differently specified. I am also grateful to the anonymous reviewers 2006: 6). The State provides many elements of social order, from for their invaluable comments. The Japan Society for the Promotion property rights to infrastructures, which civil society needs to flourish of Sciences supported this research (JSPS KAKENHI Grant (Pekkanen 2006: 6). Numbers: JP19401047, JP23520998, JP24320175, and Two major trends in thought have developed regarding the JP15K03054). relationship between the State and civil society. One is the Tocquevillian idea that the confrontations among voluntary This paper examines the relationship between emigrants’ organizations in civil society contribute to democracy (Tocqueville transnational civil society and the State, especially their country of 2002). The other is the Gramscian idea that these organizations are origin with attention to its corporatist characteristic, as an attempt at co-opted into State systems as a strategy to ensure hegemony over the clarifying the transnational dynamics of civil society. Here, referring 1 to the definition of civil society by Hegel (1896:§182: addition; Comparing transnationalism with globalization, Kearney states that transnational processes are anchored in and transcend one or more nation-states, 1952: 266; 1991: 220) and Dunn (1996: 27) and that of whereas global processes are largely decentered from specific national territories transnational process by Kearney (1995: 548), I use the term and take place in a global space (Kearney 1995: 548). As an example of “transnational civil society” to mean the transnational domain of transnational process, he takes up transnational corporations which operate worldwide but are centered in one home nation (Kearney 1995: 548). relationships, which falls between the private realm on the one hand 2 One may be reminded of the European Union or the United Nations as and a specific State on the other, across geographical national institutions which function beyond national geographical borders. However, boundaries and where, through sociability, social values such as they consist of States and do not rest between discrete individuals and the State. Therefore, these institutions are not regarded as civil society organizations civility, mutuality, religiosity, and others are produced, as the (CSOs). 250 TheThe Transnationaltransnational Civilcivil societySociety ofof NepaliNepali emigrantsEmigrants 251 publicgovernment, (Gramsci 1999).which Foucaulthas been contri generatedbuted to by the thesecond emigrants’ viewpoint by activismproposing beyond that civilnational society borders. is not naturally available, but that it correlates with emerging governance technologies (Shinkai 2009: 56-57).Key w ords: Corporatism beyond national borders, transnational civil These two society,trends Nepal,do not emigration, contradict Non-resident each other. Nepali They Association express opposite extremes(NRNA) on the spectrum of the various forms of relationship between civil society and the State. Edwards (2014: 24) states that, if that relationship becomes “too close and cozy, then governments can be capturedAckn obyw leparticdgmeularnts interests in civil society, Iand greatly civil appreciatesociety cannot the cooperationplay its watchdog of the rolemembers on the of government.” the NRNA. However,On the other I am hand, solely if responsible the relationship for the is views aloof, and civil opinions society expressedcould be inpeople’s this paper,fortress and for resistthey ancedo notto the reflect government. those of the NRNA unless differently Further, specified.there is a Iconcept am also called grateful “corporatism” to the anonymous that can reviewers mediate forbetween their theinvaluable Tocquevillian comments. idea Theand theJapan Gramscian Society forone. the Corporatism Promotion ofis definedSciences by Wiardasupported as follows: this research (JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers: JP19401047, JP23520998, JP24320175, and JP15K03054).A system of social and political organization in which major societal groups or interests (labor, business, farmers, military, ethnic,This paper clan examinesor patronage the relationshipgroups, religious between bodies, emigrants’ caste transnationalassociations) civil are societyintegrated and into the the State, governmental especially theirsystem, country often onof origina monopolistic with attention basis to or its under corporatist state guidance, characteristic, tutelage, as an and attempt control, at clarifyingto achieve the transnationalcoordinated dynamicsnational ofdevelopment. civil society. (WiardaHere, referring 2015 to (1997):the definition ix). of civil society by Hegel (1896:§182: addition; 1952: 266; 1991: 220) and Dunn (1996: 27) and that of transnational Although corporatismprocess by hasKearney been link(1995:ed to 548),fascist Ior use authoritarian the term regimes,“transnational the conceptcivil society” has become to mean useful the transnationalalso for describing domain and of analyzingrelationships, a States’which fallspost-World between Warthe privateII politics, realm onunder the onethe handlabel