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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)