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.
No comments:
Post a Comment