Civil Society Response

As we begin to explore the concept of civil society more in depth, it becomes evident that there is no clear “definition” of this institution. The original assumption of civil society is that all actors in it are “non-political” actors; that civil society is separate from politics in a country. However, if this is the case, then how are advocacy, lobbying, and monitoring groups “non-political”? This poses the question then, of whether specific lobbying groups or NGO’s are legitimate, “organic” parts of broader society. If these actors are “non-political”, then how will reform be created in order to improve civil society as a whole? I think this distinction between political and “non-political” actors definitely hinders civil society’s role in democratization. If these actors are not “legitimate” parts of society, change will be difficult to facilitate. The sole reason of these actors is to bring about democratic reform, and if they are not able to claim legitimacy, then democratization seems unlikely. It seems inevitable that these actors become political, because in order to democratize a country, democratic reform in the political system must be instilled. However, this then contradicts claims of civil society being strictly “non-political”. Nevertheless, without legitimate actors in society, whether it be in a civil society or in the political institution of a country, the democratization process will be slow and difficult. 

Reflection #2

This last week in class I'm finding myself becoming more interested in the class content. Getting to see images of actual grassroots projects has made me more engaged and I remember why I wanted to take this class. Proper regulation is the key to bringing countries in the Middle East towards democratization.  Being able to talk about this in class though, is difficult for me. I have not had much prior experience talking about issues in the Middle East and it makes it hard to know what to say that is relevant. I'm also getting confused with the responses and the reflections because for the last two weeks I was under the impression they were the same thing until a friend told me other wise. I get it now though.

Reflection 2

This week, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) convened in New York to debate the world's most pressing issues. Aside from dialogue surrounding the crisis in the Sahel region in Burkina Faso, the debate focused on various situations in the Middle East. Discussion ranged from familiar topics such as the crisis in Syria (with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon aiming a not-so-subtle disapproving statement at Russia's and China's continuous blocks on UNSC resolutions for UN intervention in the embattled country) to those less orthodox, such as the reaction to the Innocence of Muslims film in the Muslim World. President Obama addressed the UNGA about this issue.


In the beginning of his address to the Genreal Assembly, the President provided a context for the slaying of US ambassador Chris Stevens: "As America’s representative, he [Stevens] helped the Libyan people as they coped with violent conflict, cared for the wounded, and crafted a vision for the future in which the rights of all Libyans would be respected. And after the revolution, he supported the birth of a new democracy, as Libyans held elections, and built new institutions, and began to move forward after decades of dictatorship."  Here, Obama was referring to Chris Stevens' (and, as an extension, the United States') continuous efforts around the world to aid fledgling democracies in creating and sustaining  healthy civil societies. 

In our reading this week, Spruk stated there was no real definition for civil society (and then proceeded to list numerous examples) because scholars and political scientists disagree on whether civil society can exist completely outside of the state or whether civil society needs to work within the state structure in order to have legitimacy.  What Spruk did not touch on, however, was whether civil society can be grown organically while still being mostly aided from outside.  I think that as long as outside institutions (such as the US Dept of State or USAID) are sensitive to local practices regarding citizen participation and other traditions, growth of civil society can still be considered organic.  We saw the creation of civil society occur at the behest of Zionist institutions in Great Britain and United States at the onset of the settlement of Israel. However, Israeli civil society is no less legitimate today because of its history.  What do you think? Is civil society something that can only be grown from the inside?

Response 2

There were an abundance of topics to reflect on this week pertaining to the MENA region- revolutions, countries announcing political positions/ support, protests, and the United Nations General Assembly all played into a busy week. After watching the Piers Morgan and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad interview, I found myself very confused as to my stance on Iran. For quite some time, I was told and led to think that Iran was a terrible player in world politics and often took extremist sides. I was incredibly surprised to find myself frequently agreeing with Ahmadinejad. Perhaps he is a smooth politician, or perhaps I am just too naïve, but many of the points he made seemed to correlate with my beliefs. On the subject of nuclear development, Ahmadinejad said that their program was purely for peaceful purposes. While I first thought, “Yeah, sure. Peaceful nukes?”, I later realized that nuclear development has indeed led to peace. If the Soviet Union had not had the threat of nuclear power, the United States may have taken a more aggressive approach during the Cold War.

Other stances Ahmadinejad voiced that I agree with are some of his views on Syria, Jews, and Palestinian statehood. While he is a friend of Al-Assad’s, whose policies I am not a fan of, Ahmadinejad agreed that the violence must end. "We do believe that freedom, the right to choose, the right to vote, respect and justice is the fundamental right of all people. All people must obtain these rights. No one has the right to restrict a people and nation, but we believe as a friend of nations, we must help the nations around the world to obtain these rights through peaceful paths, though peaceful actions." When asked if he would allow his children to marry a Jew, he responded that he would have to meet the person, but that love spanned across race. He declined to take a side on whether Palestine should be granted statehood, but instead said that it is a decision the people of Palestine must make for themselves. He went on to make some comments about homosexuality and the Holocaust that I very much disagree with, but overall, I was quite surprised with the overlap of thoughts. Though what he says sounds good, it’s possible that these are just words. I’m not particularly knowledgeable on corruption within Iran, but I know that their slate isn’t exactly clean. While I’d love for him to stick to his words- help end Syrian violence, encourage interfaith cooperation, and allow for democratic peace, I’m doubt they will come to fruition. However, this interview did change my opinion that Ahmadinejad was an entirely radical player. I’m certainly not saying that I agree with his policies, but his short speech, even if he didn’t write it himself, allowed me to see that my perceptions of Iran had been unjustly skewed.  

Reflection #2

It is nearly impossible to escape the escalating problems in the Middle East today. They are plastered on every news magazine, written about in every newspaper, and talked about on every news station. Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been receiving much press this week due to his interview on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight”. In his interview, the president mentioned his opinions on Israel that left me unsettled. 
When asked to clarify his statement regarding “wiping Israel off the map”, Ahmadinejad accused Israel of killing women and children, incarcerating the youth of Palestine, and imposing five different wars on her neighbors. He then followed up to ask if one would help a nation like that, or try to get rid of it. 
This response, although not so straight forward, still sends a powerful message to the Jewish state. Ahmadinejad clearly does not support Israel, and would easily do anything to rid the Middle East of Israel and to establish a Palestinian state. The fact that Ahmadinejad would even openly express his desire to exterminate Israel on national television disgusts me. I understand that there have always been problems between the two nations, but to be so blunt about a growing international problem in the height of Middle Eastern turmoil is shocking. 
In addition, he stated that if an Israeli attack on Iran were to occur, Iran would have the right to protect herself. That I agree with; any nation under attack should be able to defend herself and her people. Nevertheless, we know that there is some skepticism regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons production program, and if Iran were to strike back, a nuclear war would seem inevitable. 
In an event like this, the U.S. would have to take notice and make some extremely difficult and immediate decisions, especially because Ahmadinejad has made it clear that an Israeli attack on Iran would also be considered a U.S. attack as well. Therefore, the U.S. must watch Iran with careful eyes because we will most likely be dragged into this mess head first if Israel were to strike. 

Structured Post 1-Hayley

Civil society is a collection of actions by citizens to promote a healthy relationship between people and their government. To maintain that healthy relationship, a “limit on state powers” must be made (Spurk 4). This limit is to ensure that public opinion is acknowledged. Spurk has also mentioned that civil society is a public realm that connects the state, business, and family together. It is important to acknowledge that civil society is separated by the government by that fact that CS does not wish to be elected to office (Spurk 8). While the relationship is separated, it is important to notice that the relationship is a scale: when the power of the government is high, the civil society tends to be low, and vice versa. Civil society can be used to increase and develop political participation among citizens.

Civil societies can support the political participation among citizens in many ways. Social movements such as the 1960’s women’s liberation movement and the Arab Spring that affected many MENA countries are all results of civil societies. During the Arab Spring, social networks aided grassroots societies in spreading information. Spurk also reveals that civil societies can bridge social gaps and develop democratic practices within their own system, which supports democratic practices on a larger government scale. When civil societies increase discussion, they promote the desire to get involved politically. In some cases, civil societies are not as effective in promoting change.

In the case of Palestine, civil society has had many challenges. One reason that civil participation is weak is because a lack of knowledge by Palestinians about creating new societal and developmental ideas. Without information, a group of people cannot develop new ideas to increase democracy. Another issue is that informal societies, like grassroots groups, are fighting for power with groups who wish to focus on policy makers instead of the people. Over the years, the power switches between the two, thus making it difficult for civil societies to accomplish goals. Palestinian civil societies tackle challenges like oppression from the Palestinian government, Israeli occupation, and NGOs who receive donations from large nations.  NGOs may receive more support locally, because they are backed internationally, and have the support that local civil groups do not. Although there are many problems facing civil society in Palestine and Israel, it is possible for the civil society to rise in importance and affect change is an area struggling with violence.

Reflection 2- Hayley

As class is beginning to speed up, I have noticed a few things. Although I found the civil society reading this week to be interesting, I have found many of the previous readings difficult to comprehend. They tend to be lengthy and not very informative. I have discovered that the news articles I've been reading have been more beneficial because they prepare me for the discussions in class. I've noticed that cultural differences are creating a problem globally. Although the world is becoming more connected through media, and cultural tolerance is increasing, there seems to be small groups of people who wish to decrease cultural tolerance. The call for action against America for the film about the Prophet Mohammad is not decreasing as I had hoped. Perhaps people are angry because the film threatens, in some way, the Islamic way of life.

Earlier this week, I discussed women's inequality in Middle Eastern countries from the point of view as an American. I wondered why women in other countries did not have the same rights as me, and how they must feel. My opponent responded by stating that the MENA region has a different belief system, and that culturally, women should be treated differently then men. I pondered about how to respond, because all I could think of was that it wasn't right to not be allowed out of the home without a chaperone. I couldn't see how a different belief system is completely different. To some in the more religiously strict countries, these societal beliefs were the norm. It is necessary to view a culture through it's own eyes. If I viewed my society from the Islamic point of view, I would understand why many abhor the US. Celebrities, which are the focus of American society, sometimes behave very inappropriately, which may upset conservative religions.

Response #2

Civil society is a heavily layered relationship between the person(s) and the state, and while many philosophers have different views as to how a modern civil society should be created, they agree that there should be a division between society and the state. It is also unanimously agreed upon that civil society changes over time in regards to its 'modernism', thus leading to different groups, organizations- layers, essentially- coming into the fold of society and having a say. It is in that respect that the MENA region does not fit.

I'm not saying that the MENA region is barbaric, they are very much involved in this century. In fact, I believe they are the one region that has exercised what their civil society is capable of in the last fifty years alone, though maybe not is as refined a way as possible. The MENA region has not been able to fully stretch its societal muscle because they have regimes that are not only capable of stopping any movement towards change in societal rule, but practice it as well leading the people of state to fall back to the one acceptable alternative, tradition. While tradition is a beautiful, rich characteristic of a state, it does not leave room for transition. In the sense of transition towards a more 'modern' civil society, political participation becomes a greater actor. In other states, like the United States, Eastern Europe, and Western Europe, all groups in society have had a chance in the spotlight, allowing the people the chance to be more active in their society's policies and how they're run. Due to this stunted growth in the MENA region, people in states like Egypt, Lybia, etc. have only just gotten the ability to use their voice through force, ushering them into a the current form of 'modern' civil society. 

In the sense of the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, the issues of the state have had a major impact on the society. Multiple failed peace talks and numerous uprisings have brought down the public morale, making the people more apathetic about their politics in the sense of not seeing things ever changing. This is case is a clear example that the civil society has not been groomed in as healthy of a manner in the MENA region because groups and organizations have not been each given an equal amount of attention. If each group were given its due attention, compromise could be a more likely possibility, but because certain factions have had center stage all to themselves, other groups have been in the dark and not been able to grow properly- eluding the MENA region from becoming a fully functioning 'modern' civil society.    

Response #1

Bellin's article is absolutely right about illiteracy, weak institutions and the government having most control over the economy being the reasons why the MENA region us is resistant to change towards democratization. However, I think the geological location of the MENA plays the larger factor. As I believe Bellin mentioned, the MENA is so far away from any healthy model of democracy. That is why the powers they have in government have become so strong and capable of moving the people to get what they want. The Arab Spring was a complete change since it was the actual people who tried to make changes in their country, and some even succeeded. However, Bellin's arguments about the MENA region are still true because nothing of reform except for the change in elections has happened. The bad habits of the MENA region are still winning.

With that, I believe that Bellin would look at the violent actions in Egypt and Tunisia and find them to be not unusual. Because of this coerciveness of the regimes and governments that have swept through the MENA region and the region's lacking characteristics like high literacy, the MENA region is just following down the same belligerent path it always has.

Reflection #1

Last week’s lecture touched on the concept of regimes and the dichotomy of a regime as it is described in theory and a regime as it is described in practice.  In class, we learned that a state’s regime not only refers to its government type, but also to its collective ideology, the rules by which everybody plays, and the structuring of the polity.  Armed with this knowledge, we can draw more accurate conclusions on whether or not the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings were significant regime changes or merely changes of the guard.

Considering the buzz surrounding the Arab Spring uprisings being replaced with the hysteria surrounding the most recent round of protests in MENA, it is evident that the international community has changed its lens with which it views the region.  Now, we see CNN tickers containing the words Islam and violence more often than they read regime and protest.  But I do not think we can allow ourselves to forget the root of the issue, and that is still regime.  The lack of substantive regime change in most countries in which Arab Spring uprisings occurred allowed for old or new (I would argue it does not much matter) political leaders to take advantage of a seemingly universally Muslim and seemingly violent reaction to Mr. Nakoula’s “film” in order to win some political points.  For example, witnessed Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi make a mild rebuke of the violent rioters.  When studying the current situation in MENA, we should not be tempted to alter our thinking to terms of anomic radical rioters from regimes.

Reflection

     Like many others in the class, I have found the topics discussed extremely interesting and extremely dense. I’ve been introduced to so much new information and have gained knowledge not just on the area, but how to think and comprehend multiple aspects to many situations being faced in MENA. Entering this class, I thought I was pretty well informed on the region. I read Al-Jazeera and BBC almost daily and could spout off headlines of what was happening on command. However, I never truly thought about what I read. I took at it at face value and didn’t consider the stimuli and reactions of each story. After the first few discussions in class, I came to the realization that perhaps I wasn't quite as well informed as I originally thought. It was almost embarrassing to sit in class and not know the answers to questions about current events. Though it’s a lot to take in, I love the topics discussed in this class. They are relevant to the world events currently happening, and I can make connections between the readings and information to real life situations. It’s been a busy few weeks in the Arab world, and the opportunity to discuss and listen to other’s ideas about these proceedings has proven very beneficial for me. 

Structured Response #1

In the MENA region, I think it is a fair statement to say that the environment is a bit unstable. Whether economically, politically, or religiously, changes are constantly occurring and shifting different aspects of the area. One statement pertaining to democratic reform from Bellin’s reading really struck me: “To a large degree, order is prior to democracy. Democracy cannot thrive in chaos.” (38) When I generally picture chaos, I imagine utter pandemonium running rampant through a market-like street with people knocking over stalls and chickens squawking. However, in this sense, chaos can be used to define a more broad idea of instability. Political regime changes, protests of the government, and the slow progression of civil society could all be considered as part of MENA’s “chaos”. With these instances, setbacks occur and further impede the process of democratization.

       Bellin argues that democratic transition can only be carried out when the state's coercive apparatus lacks the will or capacity to crush it (34). Authoritarianism has been exceptionally robust in the MENA region because the coercive apparatus in many of the states has proven that it can destroy reform attempts. Low income, disparity among social strata, and subpar education access can compromise people's commitment to democratic reforms. If civilians are focused on where and how they will learn to read or write, they will have less time and effort to devote to furthering democratic reconstruction.  MENA's heavy Islamic focus is also a powerful argument used to explain the region's failure to democratize. Islam is the basis of how many governments are run, such as the Iranian and Saudi Arabian governments, and therefore people are unwilling to change a system that reflects their religion.

       I think Bellin’s argument holds a certain amount of truth. Civil society in MENA is still developing, and in many states, it is not particularly strong. However, the opposite can be argued as well. In Egypt and Tunisia, civil society actors were able to speak out and evoke real democratic change. They were able to come together, and as Bellin might suggest, took action because of the failure of the coercive apparatus. Again, I believe that Bellin’s statement regarding civil society as weak and ineffective in the region is partially, but not entirely, accurate. In many MENA states, civil society is just beginning or still waiting to develop. In others, it has risen and fought for democratic revolution successfully, such as the past events in Egypt. Overall, civil society is progressing slowly in the MENA region, but has the possibility to uproot authoritarian regimes and construct a democratic society.  

Response to Bellin Article

Democratization in the MENA region has proven to be a long-lasting transition. Although many countries in the region have adopted democracy as their form of government, still many countries remain resistant to democratic reform for many reasons. 

Although civil society has proven to be a gateway to democratization in some situations, Bellin claims that it is not entirely effective. Many MENA countries lack strong, credible business associations. Nongovernmental organizations are without strong bases to expand, and most importantly, there is rarely a cohesive civic culture that can be used as a launch pad for democracy. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t go so far as saying that the region’s civil society is “weak and...an ineffective champion of democracy” (Bellin 2005: 22). In Libya, oppressed citizens have spoken out in hopes of destroying the authoritarian regimes under which they were governed. Although its civil society cannot necessarily be considered stable, it has called attention to the need for reform in that region. 

Aside from civil society, some problems in the MENA region that prevent democratic reform are economies, poverty rates, and the presence of a Islam. The economy in the MENA countries poses a threat to the expansion of democracy. When the economy lacks stability and is run solely by the state, there is little room for democratic expansion. According to Bellin, “MENA states rank in the bottom half of the UN’s human development index despite the enormous wealth of several MEAN countries”. (Bellin 2005: 23). Concerned with these conditions, many MENA countries put democracy on the back burner. In addition, Islam does not only influence the daily lives of the citizens in the MENA region, it influences the way in which government is run. That being said, Islam is another key factor in why the MENA region is so resistant to democratic reform. 

As I observe the Arab Revolts during 2011-2012, I think Bellin’s argument proves satisfactory. Democratization has not yet taken full effect in the MENA region, and has only encountered setbacks with current revolts and uprisings. Although many of these revolts are in response to oppression from autocratic rulers, I don’t necessarily think they provide clear opportunities for democratization.The events that have happened in Syria, for instance, have provoked little to no reform, and the country faces many other problems that resist democratization.

Regarding Tunisia and Egypt, I believe their situations were fairly different. Although both countries were revolting in response to corruption and oppression from authoritarian regimes, they were willing to embrace democratic reform. Both countries wanted human rights reform, economic reform, labor reform, and so forth. In my opinion, Bellin’s argument doesn’t quite fit these situations. Although those regions still remain unstable, reform was created after the revolts, and elections were even held in Egypt for a new president. Although the process of democratization in these regions remains slow, it is not completely resisted by all of the MENA region. 

Reflection #1

     As some have already mentioned in their reflections this week, taking this Freshman Seminar proves to be extremely helpful when observing the turmoil throughout the Middle East throughout this past year. Much has happened regarding the United States' relationship with Israel, the upheavals in Libya and Egypt, Iran's continued nuclear production, and the oppression in Syria.

     I found last Thursday's discussion to be especially interesting. I hadn't thought about the possibility of Netanyahu using his deteriorating relationship with the United States to manipulate the presidential election. Similar to Netanyahu, Romney has made some particularly snide remarks regarding Obama's position with Israel in order to gain more Jewish votes. Although Romney says he is a strong supporter of Israel, I believe his recent decision to support a two-state solution will only prove counterproductive to his plan to gain more Jewish voters. 

     In general, being able to discuss in detail, the current events taking place in the Middle East is very helpful. Most of us watch the news, so we come to class knowing only one view of these current events. In addition, many of these news stations have a biased view on the news they display. That being said, being able to discuss our own opinions in class, and to listen to other peoples opinions in class is not only interesting, it provides us with a way of looking at the dynamics of the Middle East in a  way we haven't been able to before taking this class.

Hayley Reflection 1

The events concerning the film that mocks the Prophet  Mohammad these past two weeks have frightened me. Although I can't say I didn't see the reaction coming, I wish things were different. Violence is escalating in the Middle East, and spreading to other areas such as Asia. Some US embassies had to be evacuated for fear of further riots.  I believe that the sole purpose of the film was to spark hatred towards Americans and Israelis. While the creator's plan is working, something should be done to control the riots. I have read articles about peaceful protests from people who realize that America is not at fault for the film, and I believe that these should continue.The Muslims who are currently angry must realize that it is not America's fault, though it is possible that they really hate American's and they just need a reason to attack. Hopefully, the hostility will fade as time moves on, and relations between Muslims in the Middle East, and Americans of all religions can improve.

test post

test post