The United States, while founded with the ideals of democracy, took quite some time to reach that goal. Throughout our history, we have struggled with the definition of equality. With the women's rights movement of the 1920s and the Civil War, the United States has constantly questioned civil rights--right versus wrong. The main issues today are those of gay rights and the right for a woman to have an abortion; both are heated topics, and both address the issue of human rights.
Democratization in the MENA region is slowing happening today. As Cavatorta and Elanaza address in their work, these states must go through three steps: the "opening" of the regime, usually caused by a conflict of some kind and that begins to move the country toward democracy; the "breakthrough," in which the old regime collapses and is replaced by a new one; and the "consolidation of new institutions and the progressive substantiation of democracy," where the new regime becomes the new reality and therefore new norms are created. Many states in the region are just in the first stage, many as a result of the Arab Spring, and it may take them years and years to finally reach step three. It took the United States years to reform, and it even still continues to do so today. All states will; it's just a matter of reaching that first step and not letting go of the drive for democracy.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Structured Response: Week of 11/1/12
While this class is focused on social movements in the Middle East, it has helped me examine the massive impact social movements here in the US have had on our democratic system. If it weren't for several major social movements, only white, land-owning males would be voting next Tuesday, and certainly not for an African-American candidate.
Both the women's suffrage and civil rights movements had a major similarity with the Arab Spring that immediately pops out to me, is that they were movements to give specific groups of people rights that a relative minority already possessed. In the US movements, women wanted the right to vote, and African-Americans wanted desegregation of public places and the abolishment of restrictions on their voting. In the MENA region, the masses wanted (want?) a less repressive government, and more civil liberties.
The movements in the US succeeded because these minorities fighting for equality garnered the support of those either that had power, or could influence those who did. The movements in the MENA region are even more revolutionary, but still have this characteristic. For example, in Egypt, the police and army eventually took the side of the protesters, forcing the ousting of Mubarak even though they themselves did not have direct power.
Overall, I feel that it is difficult to say whether or not the movements will guarantee a democratic system. While many of these regime changes resulted in new elections, there's no telling if people will attempt to not vote in those who would just bring back these governments to totalitarianism.
Both the women's suffrage and civil rights movements had a major similarity with the Arab Spring that immediately pops out to me, is that they were movements to give specific groups of people rights that a relative minority already possessed. In the US movements, women wanted the right to vote, and African-Americans wanted desegregation of public places and the abolishment of restrictions on their voting. In the MENA region, the masses wanted (want?) a less repressive government, and more civil liberties.
The movements in the US succeeded because these minorities fighting for equality garnered the support of those either that had power, or could influence those who did. The movements in the MENA region are even more revolutionary, but still have this characteristic. For example, in Egypt, the police and army eventually took the side of the protesters, forcing the ousting of Mubarak even though they themselves did not have direct power.
Overall, I feel that it is difficult to say whether or not the movements will guarantee a democratic system. While many of these regime changes resulted in new elections, there's no telling if people will attempt to not vote in those who would just bring back these governments to totalitarianism.
Reflection: Week of 11/1/12
Looking through Al-Jazeera's articles this week did not give me much hope for an 'easy' reflection, as most of the headliners were just continuations of the same stories; Syria (unsurprisingly) is a popular topic article-wide. However, finally today one caught my eye, and honestly makes me rethink my opinions on US foreign policy.
According to a large Iranian medical charity, the massive sanctions against Iran are severely impacting the ability of Iran to import medical supplies, affecting the health of almost six million Iranians. These sanctions were imposed due to suspicions that Iran's nuclear program is for weapons manufacturing instead of medical uses, and are limiting the amount of foreign capital entering the country.
Now, I'm all in favor of preventing Khamenei from having a nuclear weapon, but at what expense? Those six million Iranians most likely don't wish to nuke Western nations, so why should they have to suffer because of the actions of several of their leaders? I believe as more of these side effects to the sanctions develop, policy makers will hopefully take more and more note of them.
According to a large Iranian medical charity, the massive sanctions against Iran are severely impacting the ability of Iran to import medical supplies, affecting the health of almost six million Iranians. These sanctions were imposed due to suspicions that Iran's nuclear program is for weapons manufacturing instead of medical uses, and are limiting the amount of foreign capital entering the country.
Now, I'm all in favor of preventing Khamenei from having a nuclear weapon, but at what expense? Those six million Iranians most likely don't wish to nuke Western nations, so why should they have to suffer because of the actions of several of their leaders? I believe as more of these side effects to the sanctions develop, policy makers will hopefully take more and more note of them.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Structured Response 28 October 2012
The issues mentioned in the master blog as social movements influencing democratization can be classified more narrowly than as "movements." Both the fight for women's suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement were more revolutionary than evolutionary. In both cases, there is a common pattern. First, the situation for the demographics concerned (women and blacks, respectively) had to essentially be as bad as it could get. For female suffrage, American women had no political voice for over a hundred years, despite avid movements during the mid-1800s, yet felt the same consequences for any political decision made. When the United States, under Wilson's hand, entered into the WWI conflict, women had reached the tipping point. They boldly picketed the White House and lobbied Congressmen, insensitive to the tense wartime situation. Eventually, they swayed the Congress, and the 19th Amendment was ratified.
Similarly, in 1950s America, the situation for blacks, especially in the South, was dire. Lynchings were far too common, and almost every public space was segregated. The African American community had been living as second-class citizens since the end of the Civil War, the disparity continually worsening over time. By the 1960s, the African American community had enough, so they came together and started a revolution that spread across the entire country. Their means of peaceful protest created a nation - and worldwide sense of empathy for the racial disparity in America, pushing the US government to change its ways.
The same can be said for the democratization process in the MENA region. If we look at the Arab Spring, we observe the same pattern: years of animosity built up as the autocratic regimes limit the rights of the people. Soon, the disparity became too much. And as soon as one Tunisian man set himself on fire, people throughout the region realized the need for change and took to the streets. Regardless of the geographical setting, this is clear - before the situation can improve, it has to hit rock bottom.
Similarly, in 1950s America, the situation for blacks, especially in the South, was dire. Lynchings were far too common, and almost every public space was segregated. The African American community had been living as second-class citizens since the end of the Civil War, the disparity continually worsening over time. By the 1960s, the African American community had enough, so they came together and started a revolution that spread across the entire country. Their means of peaceful protest created a nation - and worldwide sense of empathy for the racial disparity in America, pushing the US government to change its ways.
The same can be said for the democratization process in the MENA region. If we look at the Arab Spring, we observe the same pattern: years of animosity built up as the autocratic regimes limit the rights of the people. Soon, the disparity became too much. And as soon as one Tunisian man set himself on fire, people throughout the region realized the need for change and took to the streets. Regardless of the geographical setting, this is clear - before the situation can improve, it has to hit rock bottom.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Weekly Reflection, Week of 11/1
The first part of this week's question really threw me through a loop, what makes American democracy unique and relatable to the MENA region's democratic structures. More specifically is what makes American democracy relatable. At the superficial level, I really can't see anything relatable. Our current structure is a reflection of our history, and particularly many of the modern features of our present political state can be related to our recent excess consumer culture. American democracy today is a reflection of excess greed, excess spending, and an incredible concentration of power. Maybe at this point the American political structure can sound like other regimes around the world, particularly in developing democracies. The only difference I see in American politics is that America had the power of democracy, we had the power to shift our future, but the passive American consumer traded that power away for a more sedentary life style. In a time when people in the MENA region are fighting to gain these precious rights, it can be very harshly juxtaposed by the average American voter who on election day can be found....at home, watching TV.
Structured Response 10/29, week of 11/1
To find any similarities between the US democratic system and any other potential democracy world-wide (including MENA), we must break down and examine one of the basic components of a functioning democracy, Civil Societies. After examining this impact and the parallels we can then examine and compare the effect of these civil societies and social movements.
At the root of any democracy, is the power of its civil societies. Cavatorta and Elananza make a critical point in their discussion of civil societies in democracies. To paraphrase, a weakening of civil society leads to a weakening of trust in democracy. This is one point that is true in the US or MENA. Many civil societies in the MENA region are seen as pillars reinforcing the authoritarian rule of the countries, because they offer such an unappealing alternative to authoritarian rule. As Prezeworski puts it, the survival of a regime is based on the appeal of its alternatives, and in countries such as Jordan the alternatives aren't very appealing. This concept is true in any democracy however, an incumbent first term president won't be pushed out of office unless the outside party can run up a strong candidate. This lesson can than be drawn to fledging democracies in the MENA region, it is of the utmost importance to always offer strong opposition in a democracy.
In terms of social movements themselves however, the chief ones that come to mind are the Civil Rights for African-American and Women movements of the past two centuries in the US. The most key factors of these movements is that they were able to draw from a wide range of the American political spectrum to obtain their common goal. They were, as Cavatorta and Elanaza put it able to form a "informal alliance against corruption" (573). This same concept can be drawn to movements in the Middle East. Particularly in the recent uprisings, the ones that were most successful were the ones that drew from the largest contingent of society. In this instance by studying the similarities between the US and MENA social movements, we can determine another lesson to be drawn, that the most successful movements are able to draw from a wide variety. We must be sure however, to formalize these alliances and make sure they do not fall apart once the corruption has been targeted, as was achieved in the US Civil Rights movements, and as is still struggling to be achieved in the MENA movements.
At the root of any democracy, is the power of its civil societies. Cavatorta and Elananza make a critical point in their discussion of civil societies in democracies. To paraphrase, a weakening of civil society leads to a weakening of trust in democracy. This is one point that is true in the US or MENA. Many civil societies in the MENA region are seen as pillars reinforcing the authoritarian rule of the countries, because they offer such an unappealing alternative to authoritarian rule. As Prezeworski puts it, the survival of a regime is based on the appeal of its alternatives, and in countries such as Jordan the alternatives aren't very appealing. This concept is true in any democracy however, an incumbent first term president won't be pushed out of office unless the outside party can run up a strong candidate. This lesson can than be drawn to fledging democracies in the MENA region, it is of the utmost importance to always offer strong opposition in a democracy.
In terms of social movements themselves however, the chief ones that come to mind are the Civil Rights for African-American and Women movements of the past two centuries in the US. The most key factors of these movements is that they were able to draw from a wide range of the American political spectrum to obtain their common goal. They were, as Cavatorta and Elanaza put it able to form a "informal alliance against corruption" (573). This same concept can be drawn to movements in the Middle East. Particularly in the recent uprisings, the ones that were most successful were the ones that drew from the largest contingent of society. In this instance by studying the similarities between the US and MENA social movements, we can determine another lesson to be drawn, that the most successful movements are able to draw from a wide variety. We must be sure however, to formalize these alliances and make sure they do not fall apart once the corruption has been targeted, as was achieved in the US Civil Rights movements, and as is still struggling to be achieved in the MENA movements.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Structured Response 21 October 2012
After years of fascist rule by the Israelis, the Palestinians had enough. With the guidance of the PLO and other grassroots organizations, the people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip launched an intifada. The goals of this nonviolent movement were to unlink the Occupied Territories from their dependence on Israel and to establish social structures that would set up the basic structure of the future Palestinian State.
Although the intifada didn't help the Palestinians secede from Israel, it did empower them in many other ways. It provided an outlet for Palestinian women to voice their opinions for the first time, striking a wave of feminism in the area. The movement also allowed the people in the Occupied Territories to gather collectively and display their opinions in a peaceful way. Unlike Hamas and other extremist organizations, the intifada was welcoming to all, establishing a basic social structure for the Palestinian people.
The intifada scared the Israelis immensely. Military forces didn't know how to react to the Palestinians peaceful protests; they certainly couldn't react with brute force without upsetting the entire world. In fact, any effort to suppress the people in the Occupied Territories would be regarded as oppressive and inhumane. Thus, the intifada led to peace talks between the Territories and Israel, with support on both sides. And although the movement didn't lead to a resolution of the conflict, it did show the world what the Palestinians were capable of doing.
Although the intifada didn't help the Palestinians secede from Israel, it did empower them in many other ways. It provided an outlet for Palestinian women to voice their opinions for the first time, striking a wave of feminism in the area. The movement also allowed the people in the Occupied Territories to gather collectively and display their opinions in a peaceful way. Unlike Hamas and other extremist organizations, the intifada was welcoming to all, establishing a basic social structure for the Palestinian people.
The intifada scared the Israelis immensely. Military forces didn't know how to react to the Palestinians peaceful protests; they certainly couldn't react with brute force without upsetting the entire world. In fact, any effort to suppress the people in the Occupied Territories would be regarded as oppressive and inhumane. Thus, the intifada led to peace talks between the Territories and Israel, with support on both sides. And although the movement didn't lead to a resolution of the conflict, it did show the world what the Palestinians were capable of doing.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Structured Response 10/26
The Palestinian Intifada of the late 1980's and early 1990's can be judged to have mixed success but is generally viewed as a failure. In addition to analyzing the failure or success of the Intifada, it can also be useful to examine its impacts on the Israeli and Palestinian communities.
The Intifada was a classic example of a non-violent movement, as explained by both Zunes and Dajani. The movement centered around the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza strip territories. A popular misconception in the West is that it was highlighted by violent actions (exemplified by the few and far between violent acts that actually occurred). This misconception over the Western misconception if Islam's violence can be traced back to the 7th century spread of Islam, which Westerns still view as a militaristic conversion process even though it was quite peaceful (Zunes 41). This misconception, along with a failure to understand the true meaning of Jihad (its actually a struggle of an individual muslim to improve himself, especially in terms of self sacrifice (Zunes 42). After realizing this we can then look at the actual Intifada. It was based around a four-point plan that was based in the Palestinian realization of a grand strategy against Israel : 1. Palestine has the advantage in numbers, 2. The best strategy is to make occupation unbearable, 3. Destroy the occupying morale, and most importantly 4. create sympathy for the Palestinian cause globally and within Israel. These methods were carried out quite effectively over a course of several years and brought Israel to the negotiating table. Ultimately they failed to get a two-state solution, but some would argue this goal is unattainable that the struggle will continue until Israel fully withdraws. In this view the question of whether or not the Intifada achieved anything then is a relative answer.
In terms of its impact on Palestinian society, some of the more notable aspects were the promotion of women's rights and a spirit of community. Women began to play an active non-violent part and question their own rights, they called themselves 'feminists' and endured the jeers of the religious extremists who blamed them for the Palestinian defeat. A strong spirit of community also developed amongst the Palestine territories at first, as neighbors were encouraged to work together in the spirit of non-violence. Non-violent protest is only effective in large numbers, and thus large numbers were required, entire communities even, and in this sentiment strong community ties were temporarily built.
Finally there is the impact on Israeli society. The Israelis were stunned and confused by the Intifada and certainly felt offset by the new non-violent actions. Any lingering effect of this was balanced out by the media promotion of the few isolated incidents of violence that did actually occur. Israel was put thoroughly on the defensive and forced to adapt to such a concept. There was also the actual cost of fighting the Intifada, which strained the Israeli budget and Israeli-Palestinian relations.
The effect of the Intifada has a relative answer, but for the most part the impacts of the first Palestinian Intifada can be palpably measured in both the Israeli and Palestinian communities.
The Intifada was a classic example of a non-violent movement, as explained by both Zunes and Dajani. The movement centered around the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza strip territories. A popular misconception in the West is that it was highlighted by violent actions (exemplified by the few and far between violent acts that actually occurred). This misconception over the Western misconception if Islam's violence can be traced back to the 7th century spread of Islam, which Westerns still view as a militaristic conversion process even though it was quite peaceful (Zunes 41). This misconception, along with a failure to understand the true meaning of Jihad (its actually a struggle of an individual muslim to improve himself, especially in terms of self sacrifice (Zunes 42). After realizing this we can then look at the actual Intifada. It was based around a four-point plan that was based in the Palestinian realization of a grand strategy against Israel : 1. Palestine has the advantage in numbers, 2. The best strategy is to make occupation unbearable, 3. Destroy the occupying morale, and most importantly 4. create sympathy for the Palestinian cause globally and within Israel. These methods were carried out quite effectively over a course of several years and brought Israel to the negotiating table. Ultimately they failed to get a two-state solution, but some would argue this goal is unattainable that the struggle will continue until Israel fully withdraws. In this view the question of whether or not the Intifada achieved anything then is a relative answer.
In terms of its impact on Palestinian society, some of the more notable aspects were the promotion of women's rights and a spirit of community. Women began to play an active non-violent part and question their own rights, they called themselves 'feminists' and endured the jeers of the religious extremists who blamed them for the Palestinian defeat. A strong spirit of community also developed amongst the Palestine territories at first, as neighbors were encouraged to work together in the spirit of non-violence. Non-violent protest is only effective in large numbers, and thus large numbers were required, entire communities even, and in this sentiment strong community ties were temporarily built.
Finally there is the impact on Israeli society. The Israelis were stunned and confused by the Intifada and certainly felt offset by the new non-violent actions. Any lingering effect of this was balanced out by the media promotion of the few isolated incidents of violence that did actually occur. Israel was put thoroughly on the defensive and forced to adapt to such a concept. There was also the actual cost of fighting the Intifada, which strained the Israeli budget and Israeli-Palestinian relations.
The effect of the Intifada has a relative answer, but for the most part the impacts of the first Palestinian Intifada can be palpably measured in both the Israeli and Palestinian communities.
Structured Response 10/25
The Palestinian Intifada, occurring in the late 1980s to
early 1990s, was a widespread movement of rebellion against Israeli occupation
by the Palestinian people. Although public
reactions to occupation had occurred since its beginning, this time period
marks the years when the protests were the most widespread and best
organized. The protests were generally
non-violent, and were caused by the severe conditions the Palestinians were
living in. Because the Israelis had
driven the Palestinian people into pockets in the West Bank where conditions
were much less than optimal, they certainly felt as though they had the right
to fight back. Unfortunately, the Intifada
did not gain independence or better conditions for the Palestinian people. It did however leave other lasting effects.
The
Intifada did achieve an increase in international attention to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. This was important to the
Palestinians, many of whom believed that the injustices put upon them would be
condemned by the international community.
The United States did become more involved because of the Intifada,
organizing peace talks between the clashing peoples. Large impacts were experienced by both the
Israelis and the Palestinians. Israel reacted
to the protests by tightening their grip on the occupied territories, including
restricting freedoms to the Palestinian people and utilizing collective
punishment to deter rebellious action.
The Palestinians on the other hand became more unified against the
increasing control of Israel. The
Intifada also resulted in a rift among the Israeli people between those who
wanted to end the occupation and those wanting to increase control against the
rebellious groups. Although agreements
were made between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, the Intifada resulted in
a more severely divided conflict in the West Bank.
Reflection
At the moment I am writing a paper on constructivism and how it applies to a current event in my world politics class. To find a topic, I went to the Aljeezera website and found an article on child marriage in Pakistan. In light of the whole Malala incident, it was interesting to compare a recent case in which 13 young girls were pawned off from tribe to tribe to settle a dispute. How can such ridiculous practices still occur? Pakistan even signed a UN Convention of Rights for Children, yet 30% of marriages are qualified as "child marriages."
Pakistan is facing many issues today, yet the most basic, seemingly obvious ones--those of human rights--are still left unresolved. Malala was just the tip of the iceberg; who knows what else is going on in furthest corners of the country?
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/10/2012101792934276587.html
Pakistan is facing many issues today, yet the most basic, seemingly obvious ones--those of human rights--are still left unresolved. Malala was just the tip of the iceberg; who knows what else is going on in furthest corners of the country?
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/10/2012101792934276587.html
Weekly Reflection 10-25-12
Browsing both al-Jazeera and the BBC, I found an interesting article on the conflict in Syria. The Syrian government has agreed to a four day ceasefire during the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha; they reserve the right to respond to attacks from the insurgents and to prevent terrorist groups from arming themselves or getting reinforcements.
This really got me thinking about the state of Middle Eastern conflicts. For months, all we've heard is of this unceasing, unrelenting conflict between various forces in the Middle East. However, this may be a start to peace not only for the conflict in Syria, but throughout the region. The UN-Arab League envoy that negotiated the peace also believes that this can be the beginning of regional peace. The UN also promises to send aide if the ceasefire is successful, another beacon for a successful resolutions to regional conflicts.
- Bryce
This really got me thinking about the state of Middle Eastern conflicts. For months, all we've heard is of this unceasing, unrelenting conflict between various forces in the Middle East. However, this may be a start to peace not only for the conflict in Syria, but throughout the region. The UN-Arab League envoy that negotiated the peace also believes that this can be the beginning of regional peace. The UN also promises to send aide if the ceasefire is successful, another beacon for a successful resolutions to regional conflicts.
- Bryce
Weekly Reflection 10/25
With the Reform and Development brief next on our list, I am interested to hear about our countries' differences in current reforms. Since we have chosen from these countries because they have not had major revolutions in the Arab Spring, I am curious about perhaps what reforms these governments are putting into place now, or have in the past, that has kept relative peace. Of course, it is important to mention that by no means am I assuming that major revolutions will not occur elsewhere in the MENA region. It is an area of immense change, and it is hard to see the momentum of reform slowing. I suppose the question then is whether the regimes in control are willing to change with the rest. With reports that Syria's fighting is creeping ever closer to Lebanon and Turkey (both have been heavily represented in the BBC World coverage of the Syrian conflict, and Middle East region in general), the momentum is clearly surging forward.
The presidential debate on Monday, as well as the others, have unfortunately been less focused on foreign policy than one would like to see if attempting to predict how a change in the White House would affect our affairs abroad. This is understandable in the sense that undecided voters are probably more likely to vote based on differences in economic strategies or social issues. I understand that is a big assumption. But I think that foreign policy can certainly affect these issues domestically, with our economy being troubled by foreign wars a clear example. We should keep in mind the ideas of reform and development when considering the policies of our own nation as well.
The presidential debate on Monday, as well as the others, have unfortunately been less focused on foreign policy than one would like to see if attempting to predict how a change in the White House would affect our affairs abroad. This is understandable in the sense that undecided voters are probably more likely to vote based on differences in economic strategies or social issues. I understand that is a big assumption. But I think that foreign policy can certainly affect these issues domestically, with our economy being troubled by foreign wars a clear example. We should keep in mind the ideas of reform and development when considering the policies of our own nation as well.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Weekly Reflection 21 October 2012
For the first time since this class started, I didn't find a significant event to reflect upon. This isn't because things aren't happening in the MENA region right now, because they are. It's more about the stagnancy of the stories presented. Throughout the week, I read Al Jazeera, hoping to find an interesting article. However, the news hasn't changed. In Syria, the government and the rebels haven't stopped fighting, and innocent civilians keep dying. The Israeli-Palestinean conflict is still a stalemate, as newly-reported attacks have equal casualties on both sides.
I think this is news in itself. Even though things are happening, nothing is really changing in the MENA region. And people (like me) are starting to lose interest.
I think this is news in itself. Even though things are happening, nothing is really changing in the MENA region. And people (like me) are starting to lose interest.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Weekly Reflection, 10/25
Coming back from doing preliminary research work with my group for this week's country brief got me thinking about reform and development in a broader sense. I know the purpose of this class is to intensely study concerns and issues surrounding MENA social movements, but I think as SIS students we need to be able to apply these lessons to any situation around the world, including America's. Seeing the struggle for reform in Bahrain, and reading of the just open and innate corruption implicit in that struggle really makes me appreciate the American process. It may not be the best that it possibly can be, but it could also be a lot worse. That sounds like a fifth graders description of American politics, I know...but sometimes the youth are the wisest amongst us.
One other side story I came across in my Bahraini research, was of an American law firm being paid 30K a month to be kept on retainer by the Bahraini royal family to assist them in repressing the 2011 uprisings. They also paid a DC PR firm 240k over a 6-month period to help promote their image in the states. Others speak of the negative influence of the US in their countries and how Americans are always meddling foreigners, I know its become the hegemonic norm to shrug these accusations off in the spirit of a fading pax-Americana, but cases like this really make me sit up and take notice and evaluate just how fallible our positions in world politics can be.
One other side story I came across in my Bahraini research, was of an American law firm being paid 30K a month to be kept on retainer by the Bahraini royal family to assist them in repressing the 2011 uprisings. They also paid a DC PR firm 240k over a 6-month period to help promote their image in the states. Others speak of the negative influence of the US in their countries and how Americans are always meddling foreigners, I know its become the hegemonic norm to shrug these accusations off in the spirit of a fading pax-Americana, but cases like this really make me sit up and take notice and evaluate just how fallible our positions in world politics can be.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Structural Response
Both the revolts after Nassar's regime and during the Arab Spring were similar in that they were both lead by educated young people. What kept Nassar's regime from experiencing revolt until after his death is exactly what led to the Arab Spring revolts in the first place; his regime catered to this educated young people in ways that the modern regimes did not.
Nassar's government was almost built around keeping this young people satisfied, and giving them no reason to oppose an otherwise totalitarian government. Being a qualified young person in Nassar's Egypt meant you were guaranteed a free university education, but a guaranteed job in the government, alleviating many concerns among Egypt's youth. Additionally, Nassar's incorporation of propaganda into university curriculums almost guaranteed the conversion of the young to his rule, if only in the short term. Soon, culminating in the ousting of Nassar as Egypt's leader, more and more concessions were needed by the government to prevent student riots, which eventually did take place to overthrow the military government.
In the Arab Spring times, the same student group again took charge in radically adjusting the Egyptian government, among other Arab nations. At the (newly minted) polls, Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood are dominating Arab politics, for several reasons. For example, Mubarak's regime was seen as very pro-West and almost Western controlled; a political group now putting down Western influence on Egyptian politics is gladly welcomed. Additionally, previous regimes were seen as secular, viewing Islam as just a cultural aspect instead of a political one. These Islamist groups are rejecting that stance, bringing people to their side that are fed up and want the opposite of past regimes.
Nassar's government was almost built around keeping this young people satisfied, and giving them no reason to oppose an otherwise totalitarian government. Being a qualified young person in Nassar's Egypt meant you were guaranteed a free university education, but a guaranteed job in the government, alleviating many concerns among Egypt's youth. Additionally, Nassar's incorporation of propaganda into university curriculums almost guaranteed the conversion of the young to his rule, if only in the short term. Soon, culminating in the ousting of Nassar as Egypt's leader, more and more concessions were needed by the government to prevent student riots, which eventually did take place to overthrow the military government.
In the Arab Spring times, the same student group again took charge in radically adjusting the Egyptian government, among other Arab nations. At the (newly minted) polls, Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood are dominating Arab politics, for several reasons. For example, Mubarak's regime was seen as very pro-West and almost Western controlled; a political group now putting down Western influence on Egyptian politics is gladly welcomed. Additionally, previous regimes were seen as secular, viewing Islam as just a cultural aspect instead of a political one. These Islamist groups are rejecting that stance, bringing people to their side that are fed up and want the opposite of past regimes.
Structured Response
Gamal Abdel Nasser was extremely effective in "silencing opposition" among the educated youth in Egypt while in power. He was able to do so through repression, redistribution, and resocialization of this demographic. The first of these steps was achieved through state control over all mosques, schools, media, and universities. Government control over these public institutions limited contact between opposition groups and the mass Egyptian public, making anti-regime mobilization difficult. The latter two steps go hand-in-hand. Under the Nasser regime, funding was disproportionally distributed to the urban youth, primarily by providing a free university education to any qualifying student. This redistribution of government wealth under resulted in the resocialization of young, educated Egyptians; there was no need to revolt against an autocratic regime if the people most likely to protest were satisfied with their government.
The recent Islamist success at the polls in the MENA region is not explained as simply. On one hand, there is widespread hatred about any secular movement, since secular governments in the past were autocratic and repressed the common person. Also, most people in the MENA region identify as Muslim. In a time of great upheaval (the Arab Spring) people want stability, and Islam serves as a common characteristic that can provide continuity among the citizenry. Finally, in many of the countries where the Arab Spring resulted in democratization, the most prominent candidates were either of the old regime or of Islamist background. Especially in the case of Egypt, many voted for Morsi because the other main candidate was Ahmed Shafik, the Prime Minister under Hosni Mubarak. The goal of the protests in Tahrir Square was to oust the Mubarak regime, so why would people vote for his right hand man? If the people wanted to bring change, it required new leadership, and the only qualified candidates were Islamists.
The recent Islamist success at the polls in the MENA region is not explained as simply. On one hand, there is widespread hatred about any secular movement, since secular governments in the past were autocratic and repressed the common person. Also, most people in the MENA region identify as Muslim. In a time of great upheaval (the Arab Spring) people want stability, and Islam serves as a common characteristic that can provide continuity among the citizenry. Finally, in many of the countries where the Arab Spring resulted in democratization, the most prominent candidates were either of the old regime or of Islamist background. Especially in the case of Egypt, many voted for Morsi because the other main candidate was Ahmed Shafik, the Prime Minister under Hosni Mubarak. The goal of the protests in Tahrir Square was to oust the Mubarak regime, so why would people vote for his right hand man? If the people wanted to bring change, it required new leadership, and the only qualified candidates were Islamists.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Reflection Week of 10/18
This week's readings really put the issues in a new perspective. Thus far we have been muddling through academic articles each week, learning underlying aspects and factors to social movements and MENA interactions, relationships, and history. The Wickham ad Cook readings really change this I feel. Wickham's in depth analysis of the Nasser regime really puts the current Egyptian situation into a fresh context for me. It allows the issue to be examined from an intensive study of Nasser's regime but at the same time I found Wickham's writing style to be very inviting and simplistic. These two aspects combined allowed me to glean a fresh insight into a hot button issue in the MENA region. Cook takes this aspect to an even greater length, with his first person narrative aspect. It seemed more enjoyable to be told a story and abstract the surrounding situation from that as opposed to being straight up told facts. I don't know, maybe I'm still stuck in a non-collegiate mindset, but to me its still more enjoyable to be told a story and analyze the story for facts than to just be straight up told facts.
Reflection
Malala....continued.
I have been keeping up with the Malala story as it gains publicity and attention. It has been interesting to hear from political leaders, such as Rubina Khalid, a senator from the Pakistan Peoples Party, who states that she is shocked and ashamed of Malala's death; she feels that Malala was fighting a war that was not meant to be fought by her, and that the government should have stepped up and spoken against the Taliban. Marium Fatima Khan, from the Pakistan Human Rights Organization, agrees with Rubina and states that the government should protect its citizens and families.
It was also interesting to read more about the ongoing campaign against the Taliban in the Swat Valley (where Malala is from), something that I had not thought about before. The Taliban in the area has been targeting prominent people, such as elected officials, despite having been driven out of the area by militia in 2010. Malala's case has only served to fuel the already built up anger of the Pakistani people--and hopefully given them more power to finally finish the Taliban in the area.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2012/10/20121011725105524.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/10/20121017154411586582.html
I have been keeping up with the Malala story as it gains publicity and attention. It has been interesting to hear from political leaders, such as Rubina Khalid, a senator from the Pakistan Peoples Party, who states that she is shocked and ashamed of Malala's death; she feels that Malala was fighting a war that was not meant to be fought by her, and that the government should have stepped up and spoken against the Taliban. Marium Fatima Khan, from the Pakistan Human Rights Organization, agrees with Rubina and states that the government should protect its citizens and families.
It was also interesting to read more about the ongoing campaign against the Taliban in the Swat Valley (where Malala is from), something that I had not thought about before. The Taliban in the area has been targeting prominent people, such as elected officials, despite having been driven out of the area by militia in 2010. Malala's case has only served to fuel the already built up anger of the Pakistani people--and hopefully given them more power to finally finish the Taliban in the area.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2012/10/20121011725105524.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/10/20121017154411586582.html
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Weekly Reflection
I understand that this class was structured so that our readings would coincide with the research on our specific countries. But this week in particular I found it to be very true. Reading about Nasser and his ability to make peace with the young, educated urbanites reminded me of what I had read about Bouteflika in Algeria. He too, in order to circumvent the spreading of the Arab Spring revolts into Algeria, had pandered to those most likely to protest. Bouteflika, as I believe was shared in our first brief, had worked to decrease unemployment for young Algerians and work towards bettering education. The increase of funding to other social services, and the increased importance on civil rights, also can help to explain Algeria's general lack of protesting (which parallels Nasser's Egypt). Who knows how long the parallel will continue.
BBC World published a surprising and intriguing article just a few hours ago. The city of Jerusalem has been taken over. By over 2 million feral cats.
BBC World published a surprising and intriguing article just a few hours ago. The city of Jerusalem has been taken over. By over 2 million feral cats.
Structured Response
Nassar was very successful for a rather short period of time. All of his political strategies and social implementations were meant to give the appearance of working in favor of the middle class, but were essentially working to ensure the survival of his regime.
By making higher education free and guaranteeing white-collar jobs after graduation, the middle class grew in both size and power. This was part of Nassar's goal, because it gave his regime the support and loyalty of the middle class. In addition, he used social conditioning to gain their support, using what can almost be called propaganda. Nassar made certain that students, in all levels of education, were taught Arabic and Islamic values, socialism, and nationalism. This was meant to increase the students' pride of their country and understanding--and therefore approval--of Nassar's regime.
Such forms of conditioning and almost bribing gave Nassar the power to silence opposition. However, costs caught up with him, the unemployment rate rose again, and the Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations still gathered underground. Carrie Rosefsky Wickham rightly states, "By indoctrinating a generation of educated youth in the ideas of anti-imperialism and socialism, the Nassar regime had created the very cadres that would ultimately turn against it"; in other words, Nassar's plan backfired. All that he had conditioned the youth to believe went against his very regime, and they did not fail to recognize it.
Islamists today may have succeeded in gaining support due to the touting of traditional and national values, just like those that Nassar conditioned students to feel. By joining the population under one identity, one set of values, Islamists gain popularity. However, also like Nassar, these strategies will not prove to be successful forever.
By making higher education free and guaranteeing white-collar jobs after graduation, the middle class grew in both size and power. This was part of Nassar's goal, because it gave his regime the support and loyalty of the middle class. In addition, he used social conditioning to gain their support, using what can almost be called propaganda. Nassar made certain that students, in all levels of education, were taught Arabic and Islamic values, socialism, and nationalism. This was meant to increase the students' pride of their country and understanding--and therefore approval--of Nassar's regime.
Such forms of conditioning and almost bribing gave Nassar the power to silence opposition. However, costs caught up with him, the unemployment rate rose again, and the Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations still gathered underground. Carrie Rosefsky Wickham rightly states, "By indoctrinating a generation of educated youth in the ideas of anti-imperialism and socialism, the Nassar regime had created the very cadres that would ultimately turn against it"; in other words, Nassar's plan backfired. All that he had conditioned the youth to believe went against his very regime, and they did not fail to recognize it.
Islamists today may have succeeded in gaining support due to the touting of traditional and national values, just like those that Nassar conditioned students to feel. By joining the population under one identity, one set of values, Islamists gain popularity. However, also like Nassar, these strategies will not prove to be successful forever.
Weekly Reflection 10-17-12
This week I've had to think about a topic for my Religion and Globalization class for our Media Analysis paper, where we analyze the media's view on a news story related to religion. I decided to follow the riots in Egypt across several different news sources, both foreign and domestic, to see how the media treats events like these.
Just looking at a few articles I've noticed that the news source is extremely important in the how the article is presented. Sources closer to the event, such as Al-Jazeera, seem more objective and sympathetic to the rioters in this case, while sources farther away (especially in the US) are, in my opinion, often much harsher against the rioters. While I don't think this is due to ignorance of the issues at hand, as I would hope journalists would be educated on the topic, I do think it is because of the lack of understanding of the situation. I feel as if journalists took the time to research some of the backstory to these riots and demonstrations, as we are in this class, they would have a better understanding of them.
Just looking at a few articles I've noticed that the news source is extremely important in the how the article is presented. Sources closer to the event, such as Al-Jazeera, seem more objective and sympathetic to the rioters in this case, while sources farther away (especially in the US) are, in my opinion, often much harsher against the rioters. While I don't think this is due to ignorance of the issues at hand, as I would hope journalists would be educated on the topic, I do think it is because of the lack of understanding of the situation. I feel as if journalists took the time to research some of the backstory to these riots and demonstrations, as we are in this class, they would have a better understanding of them.
Structured Response 10/17
Nasser’s Egypt was built upon the solidity of a one-party
system. His regime controlled all
aspects of Egyptian government and policy.
Historically, this system of government has led to the formation of
opposition towards the ruling party, often considered to be oppressive and
undemocratic. However, Nasser was able
to keep Egypt in a state of peace, without rebellion, much easier than his
fellow autocrats. An obvious reason for
this is the illegalization of opposition parties, anti-party movements, and
political dissidence. Many groups of
opposing beliefs were purged or driven deep underground. Nasser’s regime differs from other one-party
rulers, however, in the way it used reformation to quell protesting as
well. Nasser identified the key
demographic that was prone to opposition, the young, educated, urban lower and
middle classes. These students and
former students were intelligent enough to question their government and
uncomfortable enough to want to. Nasser’s
party poured money into the higher education system, eventually eradicating
tuition and in many cases, all fees associated with university life. Most importantly, he gave every graduate of
university an opportunity to be employed by the government. This transitioned the university campus from
a breeding ground of political dissent into a factory churning out educated party
supporters.
Many
of the opposition parties organizing now in the Middle East and North Africa use
the teachings of Islam as the background of their political platforms. These organizations want their nations to
follow the Quran closely, and use it as a governmental tool. Algeria has seen this historically and in the
present day. When the nation’s first
open elections showed signs that the Islamists would be the nationalist party
that gained its independence, the military shut down the voting process and
took control of the country. Today, the
Islamic party holds the 2nd most seats in the Algerian
parliament. I believe that Islamist
movements have gained support throughout the MENA region because the teachings
and culture of Islam act as a unifying factor to the diverse populations of
these nations. The citizens of nations whose borders were drawn by European imperialists
may have trouble connecting with their citizens as nationalists, but they can
easily relate to each other as Muslims.
To that accord, Islam provides the unity that citizens can embrace.
Weekly Reflection 14 October 2012
Before I took this class, I had never heard of Al Jazeera. Now, I don't know what I would do without it. No other news station adequately covers the crisis in Syria quite like they do. Recently I watched a story online about a Syrian fighter pilot who was captured by rebel forces in al-Bab (northern Syria). In an exclusive interview, the pilot said he didn't know he was bombing Syrian citizens. He claimed he was told by his commanders he was bombing terrorist factions, and he got his only information from Syrian state TV.
This is shocking. I find it hard to believe a soldier would be so oblivious to what's happening in his own country. Then again, if any country would be able to convince its armed forces of an alternate reality, it would be in Syria. So what's the truth?
Friday, October 12, 2012
Structured Response
Social movements are important everywhere, especially in the MENA region. Social movements bring communities together under a common cause, under a common identity. The drive for these also occur everywhere; however, many countries in the MENA region limit the possibility for movements to actually mobilize, to plan, or to spread.
Strict countries all throughout the MENA region have laws against any form of democratic change or movement. Magda touched on the law against women driving in Saudi Arabia. The government is quick to suppress any such movement, putting women in jail and fining them for such offenses (those punishments are, I'm sure, not the worst). There have been numerous occasions in which women gather and collectively protest and drive, defying the law and calling for democratic reform. This is a very radical example of how some MENA states suppress social movements, yet it does provide an idea as to how against democratic reform many countries are. Such domineering states do not want to lose their control over their population, and do not have a very developed civil society--or a very influential one.
Strict countries all throughout the MENA region have laws against any form of democratic change or movement. Magda touched on the law against women driving in Saudi Arabia. The government is quick to suppress any such movement, putting women in jail and fining them for such offenses (those punishments are, I'm sure, not the worst). There have been numerous occasions in which women gather and collectively protest and drive, defying the law and calling for democratic reform. This is a very radical example of how some MENA states suppress social movements, yet it does provide an idea as to how against democratic reform many countries are. Such domineering states do not want to lose their control over their population, and do not have a very developed civil society--or a very influential one.
Structured Response 10/12/12 - Mike Friel
Social movements in the MENA region have a history of mixed success. Recent publicity surrounding the Arab Spring uprising has brought much more focus to this history. If we are to understand or fully examine the success and failure of these social movements and what potential they hold as functioning avenues of democratic participation in the region, then we must examine the success and failure of these movements through their relationship to the states and the actors surrounding and incorporated into these states.
First there is the question of what kind of state will allow for a successful social movement, is it better to be a larger or smaller state? One that has a weak or loose bureaucracy? According to Lisa Anderson these are two of the central questions regarding Middle Eastern statehood, the "construction of the state" and the "modern form of its bureaucracy". While neither Anderson nor Weldon offer any sort of answer as to what specific kind of state will best promote a social movement, it can be inferred that a small one with a loose bureaucracy would most be most effected by a social movement and allow for democratic participation, as there would be less people to organize efficiently and a weaker resistance by the government. On another note though, a state with a stronger bureaucracy would probably be more favorable for a social movement that means to take control of the government, for it would enable a pre-existing system to have been established to run the daily affairs of the country.
In terms of specific opportunities or challenges that social movements wishing to function as an avenue of democratic participation in the MENA region may experience there are several to consider. First is the the challenge presented by the general lack of contact legislators tend to have with their constituents. If participants in a social movement become accustomed to constant interaction with those in charge and the powers that be, then they will be mightily upset when their former leaders become the powers that be and do not maintain such contact. Secondly there is the challenge of a lack of electoral response fo marginalized groups within a social movement. Social movements tend to start as a formation of a marginalized group within a society, but once they become active and gain a goal and a means, they tend to marginalize other groups that do not fit with their goals, causing potential problems for democratic representation down the line. There is one opportunity presented with social movements as democratic representation. As previously stated, social movements generally tend to start as marginalized groups organize themselves. While there is the potential for marginalization within these movements, there is nothing to stop these freshly or re-marginalized groups from starting their own social movement (after all they just had a first hand example of how to conduct such a movement!).
Democratic representation in the MENA region is a touchy subject, and with the rise of social movements in the region, they are a force that must be reckoned with to fully grasp this subject and provide a suitable answer.
First there is the question of what kind of state will allow for a successful social movement, is it better to be a larger or smaller state? One that has a weak or loose bureaucracy? According to Lisa Anderson these are two of the central questions regarding Middle Eastern statehood, the "construction of the state" and the "modern form of its bureaucracy". While neither Anderson nor Weldon offer any sort of answer as to what specific kind of state will best promote a social movement, it can be inferred that a small one with a loose bureaucracy would most be most effected by a social movement and allow for democratic participation, as there would be less people to organize efficiently and a weaker resistance by the government. On another note though, a state with a stronger bureaucracy would probably be more favorable for a social movement that means to take control of the government, for it would enable a pre-existing system to have been established to run the daily affairs of the country.
In terms of specific opportunities or challenges that social movements wishing to function as an avenue of democratic participation in the MENA region may experience there are several to consider. First is the the challenge presented by the general lack of contact legislators tend to have with their constituents. If participants in a social movement become accustomed to constant interaction with those in charge and the powers that be, then they will be mightily upset when their former leaders become the powers that be and do not maintain such contact. Secondly there is the challenge of a lack of electoral response fo marginalized groups within a social movement. Social movements tend to start as a formation of a marginalized group within a society, but once they become active and gain a goal and a means, they tend to marginalize other groups that do not fit with their goals, causing potential problems for democratic representation down the line. There is one opportunity presented with social movements as democratic representation. As previously stated, social movements generally tend to start as marginalized groups organize themselves. While there is the potential for marginalization within these movements, there is nothing to stop these freshly or re-marginalized groups from starting their own social movement (after all they just had a first hand example of how to conduct such a movement!).
Democratic representation in the MENA region is a touchy subject, and with the rise of social movements in the region, they are a force that must be reckoned with to fully grasp this subject and provide a suitable answer.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Reflection #4
Today in World Politics we listened to a BBC segment on the young girl, Malala Yousafzai, who was shot within the last day by a Taliban gunman. Of course, this story caught my attention immediately due to the fact that a fourteen year old girl was targeted. As you all may remember, I am interested in women's rights, especially in the MENA region. Malala was shot at because she advocates for education for girls, a right that every one should have. Education is the key to the future, and not educating half a country's--even half the world's--population can only impede our advancement as a society. For the life of me I cannot comprehend how this is not understood, how people stuck in their traditional ways cannot see how powerful and important girls are to the survival of their country and of the world.
I have been watching the documentary Half The Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide, a documentary that portrays the horrible conditions that women and young girls find themselves in every day, and that also portrays what activists have been doing to change it. This film is very moving--I recommend it to all of you--and it helped broaden my understanding of the how far this oppression reaches. I was recently offered an internship with iLIVE2LEAD, an organization that educates girls from all over the world, ages 15-19, on how to become a leader in their community back home. Upon learning more about this organization, I learned that one of the young girls (16 years old?) featured in Half The Sky is actually an 2011 alum from iLIVE2LEAD. Mentors from this organization taught this young woman, Srepov Chan, a Cambodian who was forced into prostitution and whose eye was gouged out by her pimp, how to educate men on the importance of using condoms to protect forced prostitutes, as well as to educate young girls and to help them out of their horrible situations. It is amazing to learn that this organization did so much to help her, and that her experience there actually made a difference.
I know that Malala has influenced many girls like Srepov has, and I hope that she makes a full recovery from her wounds. Our planet needs girls like these, girls who can work together to change the opinions of millions.
I have been watching the documentary Half The Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide, a documentary that portrays the horrible conditions that women and young girls find themselves in every day, and that also portrays what activists have been doing to change it. This film is very moving--I recommend it to all of you--and it helped broaden my understanding of the how far this oppression reaches. I was recently offered an internship with iLIVE2LEAD, an organization that educates girls from all over the world, ages 15-19, on how to become a leader in their community back home. Upon learning more about this organization, I learned that one of the young girls (16 years old?) featured in Half The Sky is actually an 2011 alum from iLIVE2LEAD. Mentors from this organization taught this young woman, Srepov Chan, a Cambodian who was forced into prostitution and whose eye was gouged out by her pimp, how to educate men on the importance of using condoms to protect forced prostitutes, as well as to educate young girls and to help them out of their horrible situations. It is amazing to learn that this organization did so much to help her, and that her experience there actually made a difference.
I know that Malala has influenced many girls like Srepov has, and I hope that she makes a full recovery from her wounds. Our planet needs girls like these, girls who can work together to change the opinions of millions.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
As weekly reflection time rolls around once again, I
again thank BBC World for keeping me updated on events I certainly wouldn't hear about from half paying attention to the news in the lounge or the embarrassing
“news” on Yahoo when I check emails.
Last week I wrote about a very recent occurrence, shells from Syria
exploding on the Turkish side of the border.
Since that article was published, I have noticed three different articles
about continued conflict between the two nations. This includes today’s that tells how a plane
from Syria was searched upon a forced landing in Turkey because it was suspected
to be carrying arms. Could Turkey play a
role in ending the Syrian conflict?
Their influence internationally could certainly help stir involvement. BBC World also has an article about the Pope
addressing a group of Middle East Christians making a pilgrimage to the Vatican
in Arabic.
To
speak more closely to our class, I’m excited to chat with the Middle East
activists tomorrow. I think there will
be an enormous advantage to having specific questions answered, especially
about the mindsets and sentiments of the people there. Also, I have been thinking hard about a Star
Wars-themed moniker for these individuals and am having trouble. I think we should discuss this in class
tomorrow.
Weekly reflection 10-11-12
While going through the Al-Jazeera app on my iPad, I came across a story about a protest in Cairo for the one-year anniversary of a police massacre of 27 Coptic Christians during the Arab Spring revolts. It was reported that over 1000 demonstrators had gathered in the neighborhood of Shobra, a predominately Coptic Christian neighborhood, to the neighborhood of Maspero. Their march echoes the march of the killed Copts, who were part of a group marching to protest the burning of a church in Aswan.
For a long time, I thought that the bulk of the Arab Spring revolts were beginning to wane and leave the world's collective consciousness; the last month has clearly proved me wrong. While these new revolts and attacks are occurring, people have not forgotten the beginning of these movements, and the atrocities committed. I find it very interesting, and oddly heartwarming, that people not only remember those lost in all of the violence but are actively reminding the world of the brutality being committed. So, no matter what some Tea Party politician says, Middle Easterners are just as much people as we are, and are being traumatized by these events.
Weekly Reflection 7 October 2012
Recent articles from Al Jazeera report the progress of the rebels in Syria. As of yesterday, the rebels took Maarat al-Numan, "a key town on the highway to Aleppo." The degree of casualties or brutality of the fighting has been unconfirmed, but there has been speculation that Syrian government warplanes bombed Maarat al-Numan in the process.
Also, new developments report the heightening tensions between Turkey and Syria, as the possibility of a UN-backed Turkish invasion increases. Both Turks and Syrians have already died from cross-border artillery fire.
This situation is a lot more difficult than I thought it was. I think it's going to be hard to determine a "winner" and a"loser" in this war. The well-equipped Syrian government isn't giving up anytime soon, but even if the rebels "take" the majority, or even all of the country, will the government relinquish power? What will it take for the establishment to cede power to the civil society? And more importantly, what will come of Syria if it's new government derives from the violent coup preceding it?
Also, new developments report the heightening tensions between Turkey and Syria, as the possibility of a UN-backed Turkish invasion increases. Both Turks and Syrians have already died from cross-border artillery fire.
This situation is a lot more difficult than I thought it was. I think it's going to be hard to determine a "winner" and a"loser" in this war. The well-equipped Syrian government isn't giving up anytime soon, but even if the rebels "take" the majority, or even all of the country, will the government relinquish power? What will it take for the establishment to cede power to the civil society? And more importantly, what will come of Syria if it's new government derives from the violent coup preceding it?
Weekly Reflection #4 10/10
A few hours ago (as of this writing), the US mobilized and sent forces to Jordan to help re-affirm the country's security with regards to the rising struggles in Syria. Before starting this course, I felt (along with what I think is most of the media) that the US' best option was direct military involvement in Syria. Now however, I can see there are many more factors to consider in the Syrian conflict (studying Historical Materialism and Constructivism in World Politics has also led to me to ponder and question everything, particularly in terms of the relative history of the issue). We have yet to study the Syrian conflict in depth in class but every week the readings opens my mind more and more that every state in the region holds varying internal characteristics. Reflecting upon this I realize that my opinion has changed, I am not in the American mindset to shoot first and ask questions later with regards to Syria. We can no longer play the role of the knight in shining red, white, and blue armor that rides into fight and saves the 'good guys' from the 'bad guys', every issue, particularly in MENA.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Weekly Reflection 10/3 - Mike
Looking back upon this week, I found myself swamped with work from other classes and unable to stay up to date on issues in the middle east, but I find that this class swamps my mind more than almost any other. I was discussing the emergence of different regions in the world with some of my friends from World Politics, and found myself defending the MENA region as an emerging force in the world. After listening to all of Professor Hardig's lectures I find myself thinking more and more of MENA as crucial to IR, and I wish more people could sit in this class and get this insight. After getting over the high level of readings and work, this class really grows on you, and I'm s happy and feel so fortunate to have taken it and have this opinion shifting opportunity presented to me.
Reflection, 10-4-12
One of the major events, in my opinion, that caught my eye this week was the decision of King Abdullah in Jordan to dissolve parliament in light of (relatively peaceful) protests for election reform. A short article on the BBC news website, last edited this morning, wraps up the issue very nicely. The protests have been for more control for the people in how the country is run and a decrease in corruption. The protesters have also said that the new voter laws have not gone far enough in these goals. In response, the Islamic Action Front, the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, has said it will boycott the polls.
This really got me thinking. I agree that the Jordanian electoral system needs reform, to be more free and subjected to the will of the people. However, that is not the only issue in the electoral process. It's all fine and dandy if the people elect a Parliament that actively represents their interests, but King Abdullah (or any Jordanian monarch for that matter) still has the power to dissolve it at any point! Granted, I doubt a monarch wishing to stay in good standing would dissolve a widely popular Parliament, but the chance is still there.
In essence, until the monarchy is separated more from the legislative body, little reform can be highly effective.
This really got me thinking. I agree that the Jordanian electoral system needs reform, to be more free and subjected to the will of the people. However, that is not the only issue in the electoral process. It's all fine and dandy if the people elect a Parliament that actively represents their interests, but King Abdullah (or any Jordanian monarch for that matter) still has the power to dissolve it at any point! Granted, I doubt a monarch wishing to stay in good standing would dissolve a widely popular Parliament, but the chance is still there.
In essence, until the monarchy is separated more from the legislative body, little reform can be highly effective.
Reflection #3
For my reflection this week, I would like to talk about my experience at the internship fair.
First of all, I felt pretty cool getting all dressed up and walking around with a folder of my slightly-lacking resumes (full of only my high school awards, activities, grades, and accomplishments). I felt much less experienced than most of the people there (my only jobs consisting of working at Dairy Queen and washing laundry for a spa business), and I felt like my knowledge on what I want to study was, and most definitely is, much shallower than those upperclassmen there. However, as I stood in line at each table, introducing myself to representatives of PLAN, iLive2Lead, Prevent Human Trafficking, the U.S. agency for International Development, and a few others, I felt proud of myself to be there in the first place--even more proud when they spoke about their work with civil society (hey, I know what that means now!).
Speaking with these representatives, I was also struck by my passion for human rights. While I may not know exactly what I want to do with my life, I knew that I was in the right place. When speaking to reps about women's and children's rights internationally, I felt a small tug.
This class (while I may sometimes struggle with the readings, keeping up with the news, coming up with things to contribute, etc.) has still been a great influence. I feel like, as the classes go on, I am able to relate more and more to the readings and to the discussions. I feel like I'm learning!
First of all, I felt pretty cool getting all dressed up and walking around with a folder of my slightly-lacking resumes (full of only my high school awards, activities, grades, and accomplishments). I felt much less experienced than most of the people there (my only jobs consisting of working at Dairy Queen and washing laundry for a spa business), and I felt like my knowledge on what I want to study was, and most definitely is, much shallower than those upperclassmen there. However, as I stood in line at each table, introducing myself to representatives of PLAN, iLive2Lead, Prevent Human Trafficking, the U.S. agency for International Development, and a few others, I felt proud of myself to be there in the first place--even more proud when they spoke about their work with civil society (hey, I know what that means now!).
Speaking with these representatives, I was also struck by my passion for human rights. While I may not know exactly what I want to do with my life, I knew that I was in the right place. When speaking to reps about women's and children's rights internationally, I felt a small tug.
This class (while I may sometimes struggle with the readings, keeping up with the news, coming up with things to contribute, etc.) has still been a great influence. I feel like, as the classes go on, I am able to relate more and more to the readings and to the discussions. I feel like I'm learning!
Structured Response: Civil Society
Well, before I read this article, I thought I had had a pretty clear definition of civil society; a sphere that connects all other forms in society (the political sphere, the familial sphere, and the economic sphere) and one that includes organizations, associations, and social movements, of which are not usually political. However, how can these social movements (say, for an amendment to the law to allow women to vote) not be considered political? It is impossible to stay away from politics, and that is why the lines have become blurred. In addition, is civil society that which includes only family and communal societies (the traditional al-mujtama' al-ahli ), or does it consist of the modern society (the civil al-mujtama' al-madani)?
After reading the different opinions put forth by Kawtharani and Jabiri, and then reading that of Ghalyun (the hybrid al-mujtama' al-hajin), I find that I seem to identify more with the hybrid form. I do not understand why civil society has to be one or the other; I think that both balance each other out, despite their contrasting structures and. In order to have a modern society, you must have the organic roots to grow from, those of the traditional civil society. You must have some version of civil society to build up from. Again, this is where the lines blur.
Back to the question of political v. non-political: this dilemma only serves to slow the process of social movement and reform, and the search (most often) for democratization. It is important to have a strong civil society in order to reach democratization; so how do we move past silly definitions and actually achieve this? How do we reach reform?
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Weekly Reflection 10/4
I must admit, and I am sure that many in this class agree,
that current events in the international realm have sort of taken a back seat
this week. The news is inundated with
domestic politics, considering the first Presidential debate that occurred this
evening. Not to mention the work that
this and my other classes demand.
Although my country group has worked very cohesively thus far, there was
some added work in being named the head of this particular brief. But, as always, BBC World came through with a
thorough article on recent fighting across the Syria-Turkey border. If such events continue, I believe it could
mark a turning point for the fighting in Syria.
The article has mention that Turkey officials have contacted NATO and
the UN about this issue. An increase in international
work about the conflict could have some quick and decisive results. I’d bet that NATO would not stand by if killings
continue to occur in one of their nations.
It’ll be interesting to see how international organizations will respond
to these occurrences.
Weekly Reflection 30 September 2012
Today, while I was reading the Washington Post, I stumbled across an article about recent bombings in Syria. Three suicide bombers detonated car bombs in the main square of Aleppo, killing 33 people, leveling buildings, and trapping survivors in the rubble. The article goes on to say Aleppo has been free of the violence between Syrian rebels and the government until just recently. For almost two years, Syria has been in a constant state of violent conflict, and at this point, there doesn't seem to be an end to it.
After responding to this week's question, I started thinking about the legitimacy of the Syrian civil society. Perhaps it's the violent intercourse between the people and the government that is holding Syria back from democratization. Maybe if the protests were peaceful, Syrian civil society would gain legitimacy among its people and in the international sphere. In my opinion, some of history's most successful movements have been the peaceful ones. This may not be a perfect conclusion, but the coups in Egypt and Tunisia were relatively peaceful, and the democratization processes in those states are already underway. Or even in the United States - one of the reasons the Civil Rights Movement was so successful was due to widespread peaceful protest. When the government responded towards these nonviolent protesters with force, people everywhere were appalled. These protesters, met with brutality for speaking out against the norm, became martyrs for civil rights. If the Syrians stopped fighting their government with guns and used their words instead, it's possible their efforts, like the Indian Independence Movement under Ghandi, or the Civil Rights Movement under Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., could yield the desired results with fewer lives lost.
After responding to this week's question, I started thinking about the legitimacy of the Syrian civil society. Perhaps it's the violent intercourse between the people and the government that is holding Syria back from democratization. Maybe if the protests were peaceful, Syrian civil society would gain legitimacy among its people and in the international sphere. In my opinion, some of history's most successful movements have been the peaceful ones. This may not be a perfect conclusion, but the coups in Egypt and Tunisia were relatively peaceful, and the democratization processes in those states are already underway. Or even in the United States - one of the reasons the Civil Rights Movement was so successful was due to widespread peaceful protest. When the government responded towards these nonviolent protesters with force, people everywhere were appalled. These protesters, met with brutality for speaking out against the norm, became martyrs for civil rights. If the Syrians stopped fighting their government with guns and used their words instead, it's possible their efforts, like the Indian Independence Movement under Ghandi, or the Civil Rights Movement under Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., could yield the desired results with fewer lives lost.
Structured Response #3
Legitimacy in civil society is difficult to define, since there is great variation in the definition of civil society. Broadly, CS in the MENA region consists of “voluntary, nongovernmental associations, such as trade unions, professional syndicates, voluntary societies and clubs, pressure groups, and political parties, which are said to act as conduits for the peaceful expression and organization of members’ rights and demands vis-à-vis the state” (Browers 92). The most important term in this definition is “peaceful.” Each of the scholars’ views in the most recent reading describe civil society in different ways, whether it be the association of different parts of society congealing to supervise the state (Kawtharani), the established urbanites who regulate social, economic, political, and cultural life (Jabiri), or a combination of the two (al-Falih). Regardless of their views, violence is not mentioned in any of their descriptions.
In the view of broader human history, popular violence towards the state prolongs conflict, destroys the infrastructures of states, and breaks up the populations into factions. Often, this produces polarity and tension throughout an entire nation, and, in effect, reconciliation between the government and its people is difficult to accomplish. However, when civil society acts peacefully, the state’s reaction can only put CS in a positive light. It can listen to CS’s demands and act to engender them. It can ignore the demands altogether or demonize the CS actors, resulting in wider anti-government sentiment. And finally, it can respond with force, in effect painting civil society protestors and actors as martyrs. Thus, civil society can only really be legitimate if it acts non-violently.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Structured Response, Question #3
It is clear that political movements around the world
seek a claim of legitimacy in order to aid in their persuasion of others to
their cause. In seeking democratization,
the legitimacy of the civil society is very important to the movement’s
success. This can be seen by the
democratization of the Western world both in recent times and centuries
ago. There is debate, however, about the
civil societies in the countries of the Middle East and North Africa reason
over what can be claimed as authentic.
The political theorist Kawtharani believes that civil society actors
based on traditional systems, known as al-mujitama’
al-ahli, have the best claim to legitimacy,
for they are based upon important aspects of Arabian culture: the village, religion, etc. Kawtharani states that these values lead to
the creation of a social contract that connects all citizens. Another stance on this issue is that a civil
society disconnected from tradition is truly legitimate. The theorist Jabiri makes this claim based
off of the belief that since traditional societies are born into, they aren’t
truly representative of the ideals of an individual. Civil societies that are created based off of
mutual interest, or al-mujtama' al-madani, are more legitimate in his opinion because
they are volunteer-based.
The issue of legitimacy is able to hinder
democratization because it changes the role of civil society within the
political system. The mainstream model
of democratization places a powerful civil society as a key factor. It is possible that an “artificial solution” could
lead to democratization. However, the
article made the claim that the states of the Middle East and North Africa
region are attempting to interpolate themselves within civil society in order
to quell the possibility of losing some authority. As the bureaucracy becomes more involved in
civil society, it becomes increasingly more important for civil society actors
to claim legitimacy. And therefore, the
debate about legitimacy becomes more important.
With the emergence of “hybrid” civil societies that have widespread
appeal, perhaps more citizens can accept their legitimacy, strengthening their
civil society, and make progress towards democratization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)