At least since the rise of the first city states in Mesopotamia, political power and economics have been the central concerns and sources of conflict in early states. While each society had its particular origins, environment, and dynamics, the interaction between State (politics) and Capital (business, economics) were a powerful constant. Further, because both forms of power -- political and economic -- sought control over limited resources, this interaction was often fraught with conflict, if not within each city-state, then between it and its neighbors. This dynamic has continued even as societies have grown in complexity up until today.

Yet there was always a third powerful player in the dynamics of cities and states -- Religion! Religion, especially in its organized forms, has played a number of roles in history. Because these roles have often been contradictory, it may at first seem difficult to place Religion in the scheme of things. If we focus, however, on the proper role of Religion within Society the picture becomes more clear. The proper role of Religion has been:

1) to provide a higher purpose and meaning to human life, one that transcends limited self-interest;
2) to counter-balance the disruptive tendencies of politics and economics with shared values able to hold society together;
3) to provide a moral structure in which human beings act (social ethics);
4) to stand up for and protect the "little ones," those who are marginalized and oppressed within the usual power schemes.

Whenever Religion has played its proper role, Society has been able to maintain a relatively peaceful balance and harmony among the generally disruptive and self-interested tendencies of politics and economics. Thus, the original role of Religion prefigures the idea that Civil Society is needed to balance and correct the competing interests of State and Capital in modern societies. Further, it points to certain functions that Civil Society must embody if it is to succeed. At a minimum, the four roles listed above are crucial for a healthy Civil Society.

We must note here that Religion has often failed to play its proper role. Worse, it has many times tried to usurp the powers of State and Capital. Such abuses, in fact, lead to the Protestant Reformation in Europe and the resultant secularization in Western societies that nowadays includes the Civil Society movement. Other cases, such as Siam (Thailand) in the decades of modernization and "development" since World War II and Harry Truman's famous speech have seen Religion marginalized and turned into a tool of the state or abused for economic purposes. (Note also the importance of the pseudo-religious funeral industry in Japan.) In such cases, including Siam today, the result is social confusion, disorder, and immorality, which penetrate to the heart of all social institutions, including those of Religion itself, not to mention Economic and Political institutions.

From one perspective, Civil Society can be seen as an heir of Religion in modern secular societies in which it is no longer possible for all citizens to unite under one religious tradition and authority. In that case, Civil Society must make sure that it inherits the full religious legacy. From another perspective, Civil Society must include a healthy, vibrant, and appropriate role for Religion. Religion may not dominate Civil Society as it did in times past, but it cannot be forgotten or marginalized. (Note that corrupt elements in the State and Capital sectors have endeavored to either marginalize or control it.)

This raises many questions for Thailand, and perhaps for other non-OECD societies, for example::

1) Are we a secular society like countries in the West? If not, do we need the same sort of secularized Civil Society? If yes, what is the degree of secularization here and what does this mean for the religions of modern Thailand?
2) Why is Religion generally ignored by the Civil Society movement?
3) What can we learn by comparing Indian & Thai history with what happened in Europe during the Enlightenment and Reformation, especially concerning the role of religion in society and viz-a-viz the other centers of authority?
4) How did the Wat -- both rural and urban -- lose its influence to Government and Market during the Thai development era and eventually fall under their power and manipulation?
5) What world view does the Civil Society movement offer the people of Siam? Does it evolve from previous world views or is it an abrupt imposition from above and outside?
6) What mechanisms does Civil Society have to foster the needed values and social ethic that Religion has traditionally provided? Does it have the needed fables and rituals that bind communities even today?
7) What are the dhammas (spiritual guidelines) needed so that "private for public",one way to conceive of civil society, becomes reality?
8) How can the Civil Society movement contribute to the liberation of Thai religion from control by the State and corruption by Capital, as well as from its own outmoded, corrupt, feudal structures?

Many more questions can be raised and details of the above perspectives explored, but space allows only this beginning and challenge. Needless-to-say, we must pursue these issues and questions systematically and rigorously, both for the health of Civil Society and for the health of Thai Buddhism and the other religions of Siam.

Santikaro Bhikkhu is Abbot of Suan Atammayatarama and on the Executive Committee of Phra Sekhiyadhamma, a nationwide network of socially concerned monks. For a number of years, he served as the English translator for Buddhadasa Bhikkhu.