Reflection 7-Hayley

After finishing up the next country brief for Bahrain, my group discovered some disturbing news. According to a CNN article, Bahrain has banned all public protests on claims that protesters are increasingly becoming violent. The governments hopes that violence will lessen after this ban. After reading another reflection, I got the idea to read the comments on this article, and see the differing sides of the American opinion.

The first few comments I read stated that the US would not intervene between Bahrain and its people. Currently, there is a US Naval Fleet headquarters on Bahrain, and commentators are suggesting that America does not want to lose its main headquarters in the Middle East.

As one Commenter said, "Bahrain plays a key strategic role in the Middle East and is home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet headquarters."

LOOOOL.... nothing major lol..... just having a massive fleet there and army bases and military stuff... nothing to see here.... just plain democracy, please move on to the next article... go watch the mainpage, there is probably something on syria.... hush about bahrain ;)"

Personally, I believe that  this comment is too harsh on America. Although I understand that this commenter believes that America is selfish when it comes to International Politics, and I partly agree, America also believes in human rights. Bahrain is violating its citizens rights, and I doubt that America will just ignore this, as Bahraini citizens are further limited by their government.

However, not all commentators agree that Bahrain is in the wrong. As another commented stated,"The ban is temporary and not permanent so what's the big deal! These demonstrations which are taking place on daily basis are very violent and unjustified and the government has the right to take such measures. What would the US and UK do if they had similar violent demonstrations on their streets? we are sick and tired of organizations such as Amnesty International looking at one side of the coin. The government of Bahrain should do what what it needs to do."

This comment is definitely biased. While one does have to respect that a government has a reason it makes tough decisions, I don't believe that all protests should be banned.  According to other sources, it is a select few who are turning protests violent, and many times the police are the first instigators of violence. In my World Politics class, we talked about "name and shame" which describes actions taken by NGO's to alert the world of countries who violate human rights. While these commentators have a lot to say, most of it is extreme, and must be taken with a grain of salt.

Structured Response 5

When comparing the United States to the MENA region in terms of democratization, I was actually quite surprised to find parallels. I assumed there would be very little in common, seeing as how one nation is fully democratized while the other region is mainly authoritarian. One parallel between the American democracy and MENA region is the focus on individual rights and government accountability. Through these aspects, the democratization by the civil society sector is enabled to promote democratic change. Though civil society has no real autonomy from regimes in place, groups and actors can argue and protest for changes that benefit society. Caratorta and Elananza propose that there are three steps to regime displacement- opening, breakthrough, and consolidation. This can be seen through many cases throughout history. Take for example the American Revolution: a group of unhappy citizens organized and broke through the regime, which later toppled and finalized a new ruling establishment. This process has the possibility for allowing change in the MENA region. Though currently stable in many areas, cracks must be found in MENA governments in order to democratize them. Once that occurs, the organized civil society groups can take charge and consolidate into a new form of government.  Social movements have influenced democratization in the US by allowing for change when the government ignored minorities. Through women’s rights, suffrage rights, civil rights, and now gay rights, social movements are/ have been the key to evoking real transformation of the system. Because of this, the potential role of social movements in the democratization process for the MENA area is quite possible. Social movements have the power to uproot governments and represent the people as they fight for democracy and freedom.

Reflection 7

After reading the clarification post regarding Orientalism, I then went to news articles about stories in the Middle East and did the dreaded: read the comments section. Though I expected to see many Arab stereotypes and anti-Islamism, I truly had no idea that so many people (in fact, the majority) expressed such Orientalist views. I know that most people who comment on these stories do so because they’re looking for controversy or to express a rather radical view, but I still was unprepared for some of the things I read. After skimming a few articles, I came across “'Heroic' Iran, 'resistive' Syria behind Sandy, pro-Assad group claims”- which I felt would have some interesting viewpoints. Even in the supposedly factual CNN article, there were tenants of Orientalism that could be traced. In essence, the article was about a pro-Syrian group that came out and declared that Sandy was due to “highly advanced technologies developed by the heroic Iranian regime that supports the resistance, with coordination of our resistive Syrian regime as punishment for whoever dares to attack Syria's (Bashar) al-Assad and threaten peace and stability." Yeah. It’s quotes like these and articles that exploit the voice of a few crazies that lead to such incorrect views of the MENA region in the West. Here are just a few of the comments from the first page (out of 30):

“Everything Islam has ever been involved in becomes a disaster, so they do have a point.”

“They said these people were nutjobs. I finally see it clearly now.”

“Middle eastern cultures have such a poetic way of displaying how beautifully intelligent, peaceful and advanced they are.”

“From camel and goat herders to secret impossible weather technology wow sure sounds like something out of the bible here LOL.”

One sane person:
“Shame on CNN for encouraging this anti-Muslim diatribe day in and day out, so that none of us can live in peace.”

Who was responded to by these lovely people:
“Your words are empty and false. The actions, or lack thereof  by Muslims speaks a whole lot clearer to the world. Proof of the violence and the silence of approval by Muslim leaders, clergy and the masses.”

“To be fair, the religion of Islam IS one of murder and terrorism. Sure, maybe what it has become was not the intention of Mohammed or the original creators of Islam...but that begs the question: Is the original purpose relevant if it has become something unstoppable and evil?”

Needless to say, I didn’t bother clicking to the second page of comments. I found it absolutely ridiculous that so many people say or actually think these things, and I believe something needs to be done in order to educate the masses and help lessen this ludicrous ignorance.

Response #7

It’s hard to consider the similarities between the United States, a clearly democratic nation, and the MENA region, a region labeled as unstable, violent, and oppressive. Yet, if you look at the process of democratization in terms of social movements and their influence on this process, both regions are rather similar. Without the women’s suffrage movement in the 1920’s, women today would not have the right to vote, and maybe even the right to hold office. In a broad sense, the women’s suffrage movement paved the way towards complete equality between women and men. 

Additionally, the civil rights movement during the 1950’s and 1960’s left an unforgettable mark on the United States. A race that was once dehumanized by the institution of slavery had a voice, and used it to fight for their rights to vote and to live a desegregated life. 

A social movement we see today in the United States is the fight for homosexual couples to have the right to marry. This is a fairly new social movement in my eyes, but has really grown in size and support over the last ten years. Citizens are pressing their congressmen and women to sign legislation in their states to legalize gay marriage, and states like Massachusetts and New York have already done so. This new issue on gay rights just proves that democracy in the U.S can still be improved, and social movements are playing an influential role in doing so. 

Although it may not seem apparent, the MENA region hosts similar social movements that are striving towards the same cause. As Professor Hardig mentioned in class a few times, the gay rights social movement in Lebanon is currently working towards the right for homosexual couples to legally marry. In addition, the women’s rights movement is slowly making headway in the MENA region, especially in Jordan and Pakistan. In Jordan, women have already been given the right to vote and hold office thanks to the National Committee for Women, created in 1996. In Pakistan, serious protection laws and women’s rights reforms are being put into place after the shooting of the young Pakistani girl by the Taliban. 

In regards to voters rights and representation, the MENA region has had considerable trouble with these issues in the past and present. Many of the protests during the Arab Spring were in response to faulty representation, voters rights, corruption, and an overall discontent with authoritarian regimes. Many social movements have tried to remove authoritarian rulings, putting into place more democratic ways of governing the countries in the region. Although the MENA region still has a long way to go before reaching the type of democracy seen in the United States, similar social movements are present in both regions that strive toward the same goal: democracy. 

Response #7

The United States was built on social movements, and it's interesting to think that we don't often see that connection between us and the MENA region. From the very beginning of when we created our government, we had movements and opposition groups against certain agendas and policies (i.e. Boston Tea Party in response to taxation without representation). The same can be said for the MENA region. They have held movements for and peaceful/and sometimes not so peaceful oppositions against rigged voting, suffrage rights, proper representation, etc. Social movements have shaped so much of the democracy the United States is today, and it is only a matter of time the MENA region fallows suit in their own way. They care just as much to have a proper working state as we do, and since the Arab Spring, it is obvious that they are working hard towards that, whether it's our cookie- cutter image of democratization or not.

Reflection #7

I thought Professor Hardig’s blog post clarifying civil society and political participation was extremely helpful and insightful. Personally, even after reading and researching civil societies in the MENA region, I feel as though I only understood the broad definition of the concept. At a basic level, I knew civil society consisted of grassroots organizations and associations that work towards improving some aspect of life for citizens in a country. This is only a baby definition of civil society, though. Throughout this course, we were taught that civil societies can (and have) played an influential role in democratization in the MENA region. Whether these civil societies are successful or not is a different story, however. When Hardig explained civil societies as a “space where various struggles take place”, I was able to understand the concept more clearly. Civil society is not just a “gateway” toward democratization. Sure, it can help the slow process toward democracy in the region, but that’s not what civil society fully entails. Like Hardig said, civil society is a “panacea for democratization”, and a place where “struggle takes place”; where actors make decisions and moves that will either negatively or positively affect the process democratization all together. 

Response #6

In this weeks readings, the Intifada that occurred in Palestine did not bring any form of 'peace' between themselves and Israel. Instead, it brought more paranoia and suppression against the Palestinian people from the Israelis. Whether economically, politically, or socially it seems the Israelis were highly threatened by the movement and reacted in the way they thought best: buckling down. While Intifada was meant to bring positive change and conflict resolution between the two actors, it only brought up more suspicion of one another and tore down any progress that might have been there before. In the end, this led for the Palestinians to feel frustrated and over powered and the Israelis put on the defense. This was probably one of the most highly covered back-firings of social movements ever.   

Structured Response 4

Though the main function of the intifada, to establish Palestine as a free individual nation, failed to occur, it did bring about many other impacts. The intifada consisted of strikes, boycotts, tax refusals, occupations, and blockades that eventually forced Palestine Liberation Organization to take action (like writing a new Declaration of Independence). However, this didn’t give Palestine independence; it actually backfired- and now Palestine will fight authoritarian control for the land they were born on. Some of the negative impacts of the intifada in Palestinian society include: challenging social relationships and behaviors, creating strain and conflict within society, faction infighting, increased violence, backlash against women, and an increase in subjection to violence and repression. One positive aspect is that Palestinians were given a sense of power as they learned to manipulate Israelis through nonviolent methods. This gave them a strong feeling of having a voice, and even though they were unable to accomplish the main goal, they had accomplished something important.

The impact on Israeli society was more destructive. The actions they took against Palestine ended up backfiring and took away from their safety and land. There were moral and economic costs to the army and civilians, but also a reemergence of over 50 Israel peace groups. Although the uprising didn’t cause Israeli withdrawals from the Occupied Areas, the intifada did incur some direct and indirect costs to Israel. The structure of relations between Israel and Palestine were altered, and now the fight for territory and independence will continue to persist. 

Reflection 6

Season 3 of the popular Showtime series Homeland aired earlier of this week.  If you’ve never seen Homeland, I would whole-heartedly recommend watching it. It’s an American narrative of the War on Terror based on the Israeli show Hatufim (Hostages) that focuses on the story of Adrian Brody, a US Marine who was held captive by Al-Qaeda for eight years. Upon his return, the CIA is led to believe that he is a danger to US internal security.   Homeland has received many awards (such as a 2012 Emmy for best drama series) and is among Barack Obama’s and David Cameron’s favorite shows.  Despite it being an incredibly entertaining and thrilling show, many critics (including myself) argue it promotes, according to one Al Jazeera column, “American and Israeli fantasies of anti-Muslim American multiculturalism.

It would take pages and pages to catch the show’s inaccuracies and racist and xenophobic undertones. However, one incident really sets itself apart as an almost-too-clear example of Said’s thesis is Orientalism.  In Season 1, Brody converts to Islam during his captivity (this is central to the CIA’s suspicion that he is a threat) as somewhat of a spiritual escape. When he is shown praying in Arabic, his pronunciation of Arab words is not quite correct. This would not normally be an issue, however, linguists have noticed that he “seems to have an Israeli Ashkenazi, even a Benjamin Netanyahu, accent and not a typical American one,” according to one scholar.  It turns out that the actor who plays Brody was tutored by Ashkenazi Jews (of which I am one).  This is a stark exemplar of our inclination to portray the Middle East as an exotic and foreign place through the lens of an American-Israeli partnership in the region.  That being said, this is a fantastic show that I cannot recommend highly enough.

Reflection 6

Like many others in the class, I was disappointed that the final presidential debate failed to focus entirely on foreign policy. It seemed like both candidates used the questions as an opportunity to discuss domestic issues- but nevertheless, there was one quote on international relations that I found particularly interesting. When discussing Syria, Romney said, “And the mantle of leadership for the -- promoting the principles of peace has fallen to America. We didn't ask for it. But it's an honor that we have it.” After hearing this, I wasn’t exactly sure how I viewed this perspective. How did America become the frontrunner of promoting peace- did we achieve this? Is it because we have such a great track record? Or was this quote simply Romney speaking in the heat of a debate hoping to inspire Americans with the rhetoric of peace?

Honestly, I don’t believe America is the mantle of leadership for peacebuilding, particularly in the MENA region. Romney made this statement after discussing how we should have been more aggressive in Egypt and Syria in attempting to oust the authoritarian regimes, and followed it by talking about what a great military we have. I understand the concept of ‘peace through strength’, but I don’t think it’s one that the US could effectively use in some the Middle Eastern states. As much as all of us would love to see peace in the MENA area, I don’t think that the United States is going to be the one to bring it (particularly singlehandedly, as Romney kind of suggested). Romney seems to think that if we send troops to these politically tumultuous regions, we will be the harbingers of peace. However, I do not think that America is in a position to attempt to reform Middle Eastern government, and that we most certainly are not the leaders in promoting world peace. 

Structured Responce 5-Hayley

The purpose of the Intifada was to grant freedom to Palestine from Israel. Although the Intifada did not accomplish its main goal, it did have some positive and negative consequences. One benefit is that women gained more attention. In Palestine, the role of women as activists increased as they fought for attention to their rights. After the Intifada ended, women continued to focus on advocating for their rights. The global image of Palestinians has also become more legit because of the non-violent movement. Unfortunately, Palestine did not gain freedom, and heavy sanctions imposed by Israel forced many into extreme poverty.
In Israel, soldiers felt conflicted, as some did not enjoy inflicting violence upon a mostly peaceful people. However, when Palestinians started to become violent, soldiers and Israeli civilians were more comfortable with the use of force.This also gave the Israeli's a negative image for being violent against the Palestinians.

Today, Palestinian/Israeli relations remain relatively the same. There are clashes everyday and violence continues. However, Palestine has kept its hope for a free future, at the same time that Israel remains firm on its hold over Palestine.

Response #6

As we have learned, not all non-violent social movements throughout history have been successful. Specifically in the MENA region, we have seen the Green Party in Iran fail, as well as the first Palestinian Intifada. In his work, Souad Dijani explains the struggles and successes of the Palestinian Intifada against the Israeli occupation. The Palestinian Intifada had two main goals: to eliminate Israeli governance in the Palestinian territories, and create new institutions and “social structures” that would eventually help establish a Palestinian State. 

The first goal of the intifada was proven hard to reach, however. Not only were Palestinian municipalities replaced by Israeli officials, the Israeli military had a large presence in the Palestinian territory and held authority over legislative and administrative processes. Therefore, the intifada had little success in influencing and changing politics in the region. Nevertheless, Palestinians did have success in preaching their struggles and cause for change in Israel. Over 50 Israeli peace groups announced their support for the Palestinian intifada and helped to end the Israeli occupation. The intifada was even successful in rendering support from Zionist groups, because Zionists believed that the Israeli occupation was not beneficial for the growth and reputation of Israel. That being said, the intifada influenced Israeli society by gaining support for their cause and making their struggles more noticeable. Additionally, many Israeli soldiers denounced the occupation in the Palestinian territories, and opted out of being stationed there. 

The first intifada also had a large affect on Palestinian society as well, both beneficial and costly. At first, the intifada was extremely disorganized and failed to create plans for the future for unexpected actions by the Israeli government or military. In addition, because little political progress was being made, fighting and violence began to break out, despite the image of the intifada being a non-violent social movement. Nevertheless, big advancements in the role of women were created through the intifada. Women were able to play a prominent role in the fight against the Israeli occupation, especially in grassroots organizations. This struggle for Palestinian independence also influenced the desire for equal women’s rights, helping feminism flourish in the MENA region. Specific grassroots committees were created during the intifada that gave Palestinians an opportunity to participate in the movement. Grassroots committees were key in the Palestinian intifada to spread support. 

Despite these advances in Palestinian and Israeli societies, the first Palestinian Intifada never met their main goal of eliminating Israeli occupation in the territories, and still struggles today to gain statehood. 

Reflection #6

      Today my class visited the Pentagon for a tour, and of course, they showed us where the hijacked plane crashed into the building. This made me think about everything that we have learned over the past few weeks, and made me wonder what people would have said during the time when those horrific attacks happened in response to our discussions that the MENA region is not a crazy, backwards region thirsting after American blood. I know I, myself, would have been skeptical. At least now I can say that the concerns of my second grade self have been put to rest and that I have a more educated understanding to some of these crazy things that happen in our world. I do, however, now feel another layer of sadness. Initially, I think of the innocent women, men, and children who lost their lives  to a regime's obsessive goals, but then I also think of the innocent women, men, and children who have had to pay dearly for a regime's actions that didn't really represent their nation. There has been so much politics and rather messy strategies of states trying to get what they want, and it makes these non-violent social movements/resistances all the more necessary. I just hope we can get to a point in the world where that necessity becomes a commonality.

Reflection #6

This morning I read an article on JPost reporting that Hamas, a Palestinian terrorist group took responsibility for rockets fired toward Ashkelon in Israel. Since Tuesday night, a total of 80 rockets were launched into this area by Hamas. Only 8 rockets were intercepted by the IDF’s Iron Dome Missile Defense System. Although Hamas took responsibility for these rockets, they claim the rockets were in response to an Israeli airstrike. After the Israeli airstrike, the IDF also launched a tank fire at targets in southern Gaza. 

Every time I read an article regarding this violent Israeli-Palestinian struggle, I cannot help but become skeptical of the sources of information. It seems to me that every article I read, there is some bias toward either nation. This article was the first one I’ve read that has given clear facts that both sides are engaging in military operations. Most news articles I have read either subliminally support Hamas’ efforts or Israel’s efforts; there is no bipartisan opinion on the matter. Of course, me being Jewish, I have found I tend to support Israel more strongly in this struggle. Nevertheless, I try not to turn a blind eye to the inhuman treatment of Palestinians. Many people I have talked to on this issue seem to have a very bias view and are too stubborn to see the opposition’s side, whoever that maybe. 

I think the media is to blame for this. Like I said before, many newspapers and news shows tend to have a bias regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, making it sometimes difficult to figure out if the information we are given is actually factual. I think JPOST, even though it is a Jewish newspaper and website, did a great job in leaving out a bias regarding this issue. I have seen countless images of cruel and inhuman treatment of Palestinians and Israelis, and for me, it seems hard to distinguish which one is true. Of course both of them could be true, considering both sides are in a constant violent struggle. However, the media likes to create drama, and tends to exaggerate the truth in order to raise interest in their stories, especially ones involving violence. 

Reflection 6-Hayley

I recently read an article titled "Sudan to report Israel to UN over air strike" on Al-Jazeera. Although I don't I don't know much about this news source, it seems to be unbiased. According to the article, an air strike from Israel hit a car in Sudan, killing the two drivers inside. Some claim that one passenger was an arms dealer/smuggler for Hamas. Sudan denies this claim, and plans on making a complaint to the U.N Security Council. Israel acknowledged the attack, and stated that the mission to kill wanted men was a success. Still, sources claim that the alleged Hamas member is still alive, thus implying than an innocent man was killed.

This article was quite interesting to me. I didn't know that Israel could just send air-strike planes into different countries to kill suspected terrorists. Although I admit the US has done things like this, America does not accept responsibility for the attacks, they keep them clandestine. It was a shock to learn that Israel has done this in the past. After quickly browsing Google, I found multiple news articles of supposed attacks by Israel onto countries like Sudan. American news hides this, perhaps so that Americans do not learn that Israel does not play as nice as it seems. While I knew that Israel and Palestine frequently exchanged fire, I did not know that Israel used missiles and air strikes through out the area. I would love to have a discussion about the right of Israel to attack, because I find these attacks 'iffy'. Why does Israel have the right to kill international criminals without the permission of the country? Yes, I understand that the US invaded Pakistan secretly to take down Bin Laden, but I would like to understand if Israel's situation was unjustified, or if the two situations really are the same. I would love to learn more about this debate.

Response #5

    Nasser kept his opponents silent through a preemptive strategy of combining repression, redistribution, and resocialization in as subtle a way as possible. By having complete state control over every form of media, organization, and institution Nasser was about to monitor and put the lid on any sort of opposition that appeared during his time as leader. Not only that, but he was able to get different sectors of society to support him by giving them incentives for joining his regime.

    Now in response to the 'post- Arab Revolts', the Islamists have been doing very well in the ballots, and a possible reason for that is opposition. For groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, that have so long been considered almost a terrorist group, they have been speaking the words that people of the opposition groups have been waiting for. Many people haven't been happy with their governments, and this 'opposition' group is giving people the chance for something new, something that opposes the current, not popular government.

Response #5

Nasser successfully silenced opposition by means of repression, redistribution, and resocialization. According to Carrie Rosefsky Wickman, Nasser essentially stripped the rights and freedom of the Egyptians to prevent any threats to his power. In the 1950’s, all political parties were banned from Egyptian politics. The government then took control of the media, schools, and mosques to censor any anti-regime rhetoric by its opposition. 

Using bribery, Nasser created a “social contract” in which he traded goods and services to the Egyptian citizens in return for political support for his regime. This contracts main purpose was to represent economic distribution among all Egyptian citizens, making it seem like Nasser was concerned with the standard of living of all his people, regardless of economic class.

In addition, Nasser attempted to sympathize with the “educated youth”. He made a series of reforms to higher education, such as a lowering of university tuition and an expansion of eligibility for university scholarships. With these reforms, not only did Nasser gain more supporters, fields such as engineering, agriculture, and veterinary medicine, were able to acquire better educated and skilled workers. 

Regarding the Islamists in the ‘post-Arab revolts’ environment in the MENA region, I believe most of their success can be derived from creating a national identity that all Islamists can relate to. By creating an identity for themselves as “the oppressed”, Islamists are able to gain mass support across a country. Additionally, the general desire for democracy in the MENA region has proven to gain much support for Islamists. The Islamists’ essential goal is democracy, and the desire for freedom, fair elections, and a non-dictatorship, is shared by most in the region. 

Reflection 5

Our discussion with Professor Hardig’s friend and civil society activist in Lebanon gave us quite a bit of information to think about. I was most interested in his organization’s consulting work with various civil society actors. After skimming over Lebanese media outlets for stories, I was able to find an SCO that seems to be right up his alley. The Civil Campaign for Electoral Reform is a broad alliance for pro-democracy civil society associations in Lebanon. According to its website, “The Campaign aims and calls for reforming Electoral systems in general, focusing mainly on the Municipal and Parliamentary ones. Since 2006, the Civil Campaign for Electoral Reform has been able to introduce the electoral reform concept into the political life.”

On October 29, the CCER is sponsoring a “people’s parliament” session to discuss reforming Lebanon’s electoral system and the law that governs it, and will be setting up shop in Beirut’s Martyrs’ Square.   They will be conducting a model parliament session called a “people’s parliament” in which they will engage in a discourse encompassing electoral reform issues such as proportional representation, an independent committee to manage and organize elections, campaign finance reform, decreasing the gender gap in Lebanese politics, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 and the candidacy age from 25 to 22, and allowing soldiers to vote.  I’d reckon there’s a fair amount of us in this class who have participated in something similar (like a Model Congress event) in high school.

The CCER’s event is a reflection of popular disappointment with the current electoral system in Lebanon.  This is a great example of the relationship between civil society organizations and social movements. Though it might not be fair to say this event is a social movement in and of itself, it is definitely a singular event within the larger context of a growing discontent among the Lebanese people.  Civil society actors organized the event and are training its participants to create a protest that is sophisticated and legitimate.  Though this may not have a large enough effect on the Lebanese electoral system to create substantive reforms by the 2013 parliamentary elections, I believe it is events like these that can create lasting and legitimate change. Just imagine if on 1^st Street NW, right outside of the Capitol Building, there was a model congress actually passing legislation!

Structured Response 3

Nasser’s regime effectively silenced the opposition to their power. He successfully silenced opposition through “A preemptive strategy combining repression, redistribution, and resocialization… and by playing economic, political, and ideological games”. He banned independent political groups, thereby threatening criminal charges on anyone who dared to voice opposition and create change. Surviving civil society groups were driven underground and not able to do much good. His regime controlled most major state institutions, such as schools, the media, and mosques. By asserting power over these everyday establishments, Nasser had power over the public. Even universities were under state control, and student unions were banned- thus silencing the voice of young, educated students.

Islamists have yielded such success at the ballot box due to the need for a change demanded by the people. Egypt was trapped in a pathological-like state of authoritarianism, and something dramatic needed to happen in order to break the nondemocratic order (Cook). Secularism had a bad reputation in the region partly because the dominant form of authoritarian state post-independence was fiercely secular. To quote Professor Hardig, “Arguably, a significant reason why Islamist movements have seen a rise in popularity is because they can point to the failures of the oppressive secular regimes.” Hassan believes that a peaceful emergence of an Islamic state would lead to democracy, and that was a widespread view among Egyptian citizens that has led to Islamists’ success.

Structured Responce 4-Hayley

Nasser, who reined from 1954-1970, ran Egypt without much opposition. Many wonder why his regime was not widely opposed, and Wickham has the answer. "Repression, Redistribution, and re-socialization" she says were the key ideas of keeping opposition away (pg21). Nasser repressed any groups who disagreed with him by banning all opposition groups, and by monitoring places these groups would frequent. Though at first the Muslim Brotherhood was not banned, as it was a religious, not political group, Nasser saw their dissent for his regime, and sent it underground. For over ten years, Nasser was able to catch most of the resistance before it could grow.

In order to stop more members from joining the resistance groups, Nasser focused on the younger generation. He realized that the middle and lower middle classes were the most likely candidates to join opposition groups, so he gave more attention to them. Nasser increased education opportunities by lowering or removing the cost to attend school. He even enacted a law that would grant all university grads a government job. A government job was the quickest way to increase one's social standing, so many took the opportunity to better themselves. Thus, the youth of Egypt sought a higher education to ameliorate their lives, and supported Nasser. Because so many went to school, Nasser used schools to teach students about socialism. By re-socializing students in school, many allowed Nasser's regime to continue unopposed.

By the late 60s, educated young adults could not find a good job. Nasser had tried to employ everyone, thus, government jobs lost the esteem they once had. Many people had to work multiple jobs to make enough money for their family. The youth began to revolt, and by 1973, an uprising occurred. The regime of Nasser ended.

All while this is occurring, Islamic groups were increasing power. Islamists probably gained power through the ballots because Islam as a political power had been slowly gaining popularity through the years. The Muslim Brotherhood has been around for almost a hundred years; even when it was underground, the group had been gaining support. Eventually, the people of Egypt were sick with the previous regimes, and they wanted a change they could trust. It must seem comforting to some to have a government ruled by one's religion. This is because religion is a constant in one's life, so a religious government would most likely be stable and free from corruption, unlike the militant groups whom one could not trust.

Reflection #5

This past weekend, I went with a group of friends to a hookah lounge/Mediterranean cafe in Georgetown, and was rather surprised by what I saw on the news. Al Jezzera was on, and they were showing footage of a protest that had turned violent with people throwing rocks and large groups running away from approaching authorities. This struck me as odd, because the people who were running the lounge were of Middle Eastern decent and clearly still connected to their native language, yet they were broadcasting images that made them look bad. I wondered if they were even aware that the news they were showing was just perpetuating the stereotypical thought of the West that people from the MENA region can't protest peacefully. The news broadcast was even more unusual with it juxtaposed to all the MENA region books it had for sale about the different states, histories, cultures, etc. Here was a business that was selling you factual information about their region, and yet they were showing for free the labels of 'barbaric', 'uncivilized', and 'violent' that we already knew. I don't know if it was right of me to assume that just because the people running the lounge were Middle Eastern that they would try to paint the region in its best light, but it was just a very striking image to see.

Reflection 5

I was in my dorm’s lounge the other day when I overheard a conversation about whether or not the US should intervene in Syria. By listening to both sides of the argument, I realized that I (and these peers) really had no idea how the world could be affected by Western intervention. I had a difficult time formulating an opinion on what role the US should play in the crisis, so I decided to do a little research and put some of the information together as my weekly reflection.

If we don’t intervene:

-The crisis may turn into an ethnic cleansing civil war

-A failed state in Syria is likely to spill over into Iraq and Lebanon and send refugees to Turkey and other neighbors
-It will intensify a proxy war between Saudi Arabia, its Gulf allies and Iran

-Would create a fundamentalist threat to Israel’s sense of security
-Continued loss of Syrian life

If we do:

-Loss of life with US troops

-Depleting resources and funds

-We don’t know the Syrian opposition and military insurgency

-What follows might be worse- how will we put an effective, practical, fair government?

-We’d be opposing Iran and Russia (who are providing fighters and weapons, respectively)

-Could lead to regional instability

-The destruction of the Assad regime could in turn lead to weakened Iranian leadership, further democracy in the Middle East, and help Iraq achieve democracy

Consensus: I think the US absolutely needs to do something. Whether imposing peaceful corridors, supplying rebels, voicing support, or sending reinforcements, the US has a humanitarian responsibility to protect life. Though I’m not exactly an expert on the situation after reading just a few articles, I do think the pros outweigh the cons. I don’t know what course of action would be most effective, though I think that’s extremely difficult for anyone to determine, but I think that some sort of action needs to be taken.  

Reflection 5-Hayley

I just read an article titled "Malala Yousafzai: Pakistan girl 'strong'" and I was very moved. Although this is a story of violence by radical Islamists, this article also reveals that there are people who are seeking change. Malala Yousafzai is a 14 year old girl who was shot by the Taliban and is currently recovering in a UK hospital. She has been an advocate for women's education since she was 11, and I find her enthusiasm welcoming. I believe that we have been focusing a lot on radical terrorists, but we have not spent a lot of time focusing on civilians.  I would like to see more stories of brave civilians who are working to increase equality in their country. Although she was severely injured in the attack, she is expected to recover. Perhaps other girls will see this story and become inspired to advocate in their own areas.

After researching women's rights in Bahrain, I see that many Islamic countries do not offer the same rights to women that we do. While I respect the notion that different countries have different cultures, there are some things that I believe all women have the right to. The right to an education is one of the most important rights one could have. Education opens doors to new opportunities, and when one half of the population does not have an equal right to education, that limits the growth of a nation, and of the world. Although each state should have the right to choose how this education is given, it is necessary to foster a positive change throughout the world. Another issue that I feel is important is the right to feel respected by one's nation. Although this may be an interesting concept for one, I believe it is related to this argument. Many Bahraini laws do not treat a women as equal in the eyes of the law. The law is one place that should not discriminate based on sex. A law should be enacted in Bahrain that ensures women have access to the same liberties given to men. I do respect the religious beliefs of any nation, but equal respect is something that I believe everyone should consider.


Site:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19960207

Refection #5

Throughout the Syrian revolution, the U.S. has been playing a large role in supporting civil resistance and promoting the role of civil society in Syria. The U.S. State Department’s Office of Syrian Opposition Support was thus created to give aid to the opposition activists. This organization promotes non-violent, civil ways of avoiding and dealing with conflict in Syria. I was reading an article about how Maria Stephan, a member of the State Department, has been meeting with activists in Istanbul in order to train and organize civil resistance. She focuses specifically on civil resistance, media production, promoting anti-sectarian thought, and avoiding communications monitoring. Even with the continued violence and instability in Syria, I thought that it was interesting that this state department member was beginning civil society “workshops” overseas to counter the violence. I would tend to think these efforts would begin once Assad has fallen from power, and a new power was installed. I’m not sure if these efforts will be successful, especially because ending the violence seems to be the main concern in Syria as of right now. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to track the progress of the State Departments efforts in creating these workshops for civilians to improve the quality of life during, and after the Syrian revolution. 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/10/holding_civil_society_workshops_while_syria_burns

Response #4

      Social movements are always a hit or miss in any country, but for some reason, the intensity of that hit or miss is greater in the MENA region. In part, I believe that has to do with the level of oppression and strictness the people encounter with the government over their freedom of speech/press/etc., causing the groups that feel ostracized even more so when their movements don't work. However, if there were ever to be a place that social movements could thrive it would be in the MENA region due to the constant conflict between people and state. As there is no formalized setting for the people to express their concerns or demand change from the government, social movements are the best outlet.
      The greatest challenge social movements would face in the region would be the lack of political participation from the people, keeping the movements from mobilizing at a productive speed. Many of the states in this region are rentier states, often leading to this political inactiveness in the people, thus causing any democratic process to move at a slow enough pace for it to be shot down by the current, non-democratic government.
      It would take a large amount of momentum to get the region mobilized and for the people to become an actual force for the government to take seriously if they were to actually try for a democratic society.

Response #3

       Most of the states in the MENA region are historically based on autocracy, military control, and the roles of tribalism, sectarianism, and identity. As Lisa Anderson describes in her work, The State in the Middle East and North Africa, these aspects distinct to the MENA region can pose as challenges to change, especially democratization. Anderson also argues that “the region’s chronic instability, the limited legitimacy of most of its states, and their continued dependence upon externally generated revenues” further dampens the efforts of social movements to democratize the region. That being said, if a state lacks legitimacy, or is not economically or politically stable, democratization seems unlikely. 
Additionally, each states dependence on their military can affect the success of social movements and democratization. For instance, before Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak was forced out of office in 2011, Egypt’s government was under control of the Egyptian military. The threatening presence of the military therefore prevented any type of social or political reform until Mubarak was replaced. 
That being said, the type of ruler in a MENA state also affects the success of social movements and their efforts toward democratic participation. If a military dictator such as Mubarak has been in power for the long amount of time such as he had been, social reform is difficult to instill. Nevertheless, I believe that with the right type of state, social movements can be successful avenues toward democratic participation. Sticking with Egypt, now that a new president has been elected, democratic elections are being held in Egypt, and the military has far less of a role in government. Similarly in Israel, democratic values have been instilled in the state since 1948 because of humane leaders such as Golda Meir, Yitzhak Rabin, and Benjamin Netanyahu. Although social movements do face many challenges within the MENA region, there are some states that provide the prerequisites for these social movements to pave the way for slow democratic reform. 

Reflection #4

I find our class' intellectual relationship with Israel quite amusing. We (myself definitely included) seem to be averse to discussing Israel in class and on the blogs for what seems to be a couple of reasons. As SIS students, and American University students in general, we are continually told to "expand our horizons" and "shift our perspectives." Especially after viewing the Edward Said documentary, we do not want to fall into the Orientalist trap of viewing the Middle East through the lens of the United States' relationship with Israel, nor do we want to spark a politically and perhaps religiously charged, but almost always unproductive  debate that often accompanies any mention of Israel or Palestine on this campus. Having said that, Israel is a key component in the politics of the Middle East and deserves some attention once in a while.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently pushed elections scheduled for October 2013 to January 2013. This is a smart political maneuver for a few reasons. First, Bibi is currently experiencing a surge of domestic support after his international display of hard-lining Iran.  The most recent polls put him at a 35 percent approval rating, which, according to the poll, puts him at more than double his closest competitor (remember, Israel has a parliamentary systems in which majorities are rare). That's not to say, however, that Bibi is untouchable. The conservative Netanyahu faces staunch opposition from a variety of groups in the center and left, but they are largely unorganized and do not have time to rally behind a viable leader or platform, which, if elections were held in one whole year from now, would definitely be a possibility. Benjamin Netanyahu will easily win reelection twice, which would mark only the second time in Israeli history a PM has accomplished such a feat.

Bibi runs on a platform of domestic security and stability, and remains popular in Israel due to his strict adherence to the status quo.  However, his unwillingness to deviate from the status quo may limit his foreign policy flexibility in a region whose interactions between states (and non-state actors) continue to become more and more complex.  He limits himself on advancing peace talks with Palestine, addressing the protests in major Israeli cities regarding the growing wealth gap in Israel, and arbitrating disputes between secular Israelis and ultra-Orthodox parties over military conscription.

Shout out to Hannah Huntley:
Do you think that the limits of parliamentary democracy in a certainly sometimes undemocratic Israel warrant our worry? We don't understand the way Israel does democracy, so should we increase our presence there?

Reflection #4

Last week in class, we discussed whether it was in the Syrian rebel’s best interest to resort to violence. Had they stuck to pursuing peaceful demonstrations and means of change, they may have been able to more effectively have their voice heard. As I was reading through Al-Jazeera the other day, there was an article about the exact same topic: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/201210718135394526.html. First of all, I was kind of excited to see a discussion we had had in class play out on such a well-respected news site. Secondly, I was intrigued to see the opinion of the reporter- which turned out to be the same consensus that our class reached. The article suggests that Syria was really in no position to attempt a regime overthrow. The successful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were in part allowed by the vulnerabilities in their governments and extremely well-planned out and strong civil society/ democracy movements. The Syrian government has no “cracks”, as discussed in class, and though there are many civil society actors, there is difficulty leading, coordinating, and implementing a new regime. “If people could articulate publicly a different vision for society to that of the regime that ruled them, the regime's days would inevitably be numbered. Thus, any attempt to move beyond a very constrained form of political discourse could not be tolerated by a ruthlessly authoritarian regime like Syria's,” says the article.

It goes on to discuss how the opposition may have miscalculated how quickly the regime would crumble, and only resorted to violence because they thought they would soon have control. Again, this multi-centered structure without a clear course of action or leader that has been a model for the Arab Spring shows many weaknesses, which were also exemplified in the Occupy Movement. The violence that has overtaken Syria was perhaps an unnecessary and useless way for the rebels to attempt to change their society. Even if they are to eventually succeed, the damage already done will take many years to rebuild and to institute a new government. One of the final questions asked in the article is, “Is rebellion worth it when the society you will free has been reduced to rubble with so many deaths?”- and I really don’t know how to answer that question. I see points to both of the answers that could be argued, and I definitely don’t think I could make an informed decision as an outsider. Regardless, the situation in Syria escalated very quickly and without much organization. Had they stuck to non-violent means, they may have had more success in attempting to carry out a regime revolution. 

Structured Response 3-Hayley

The type of state relates closely to effectiveness of a social movement. The more democratic the state, the more effective a social movement will be. Authoritarian states are not willing to lose control, so civil societies in those states are limited. Thus, when a social movement arises, this type of state is more likely to destroy the movement through force. For example, when protestors in Syria fought for more rights, the Syrian government forcefully broke up protests and killed many civilians. Other states which have constitutional monarchies, such as Bahrain, have also experienced protests calling for more rights. In Bahrain, it is almost completely illegal to protest, thus, successful social movements in that state are rare. It is also important to note that social media can be a tool used to organize protests. However, if the government shuts down the internet, than social media could no longer be used.

Although it may be difficult in these states to effectively enact change, it is important to create a social movement. Other nations are likely to help the people of a corrupt nation if they see being harmed during protests. In Libya, for instance, the US became involved after civilian attempts at overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi proved unsuccessful.

In more democratic nations, social movements can sometimes be more effective than directly seeking change through policy makers. Many legal systems do not allow for political change easily. Thus, social movements, which do not directly communicate with law makers, can bypass the legal system and call for change to the head of state. Leaders see their people protesting about an issue they care about deeply rather than just reading a proposal for a bill. Social movements need to focus specifically on one issue, and provide a solution for it to be successful. The Occupy Movement in the US failed because it didn’t have a central focus or a solution. There was no one leader to take control of the movement, so it failed.

In order for a social movement to be effective in the Middle East, it must either force the leader of a nation to enact the change, or encourage outside support from nations, who will help the civilians create democracy.

Reflection #4

         This week I watched a talk session on CSPAN that discussed anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States. I found this particularly interesting because I’m currently writing a feature article in English class on this very topic. A Muslim guest speaker spoke about how after 9/11, the Western perception of the Muslim community had become dramatically distorted. He talked about how there is a broad generalization of Muslims that does not depict them correctly at all. He went on by explaining how one cannot compare a Muslim in Egypt to a Muslim in India, Saudi Arabia, or Morocco. This talk session then reminded me of the documentary we watched about two weeks ago on Edward Said. In the documentary, Said had talked about the rise of anti-Muslim sentiment that had been derived from how the history of Islam had been depicted in the media and elsewhere. I found it to be extremely beneficial to view this issue from the perspective of two men who have been direct subjects of anti-Muslim sentiment . Today, we are immersed in a society that is quick to assume that all Muslims are radical jihadist supporters; turning a blind eye to the majority of Muslims that are in fact just the opposite. 

Weekly Reflection 4-Hayley

The film that we watched last class gave me a lot to think about. When I saw the image of the woman about to be stoned, I was both angered and disturbed. I saw the fear in her eyes as she was buried half-way in the dirt, women fully covered behind her. I condemn any heinous act such as this, because no one deserves to be murdered so brutally for a crime such as adultery Although I respect the belief that adultery is a severe crime in Muslim nations, I do not agree that the crime should be punishable by death, let alone a way so agonizing.

 Seeing that image of inequality makes me think of the documentary Half the Sky that I watched last night. Throughout the globe, women are not being treated fairly. In Sierra Leone, the majority of women will be sexually abused in their lifetime. In Southeast Asia, many poor families keep their daughters from going to school at a young age to earn money and take care of younger siblings. The film stated that women's inequality is an inequality to us all, and I agree. When women are oppressed- physically, emotionally, and mentally, the world misses out on another creative mind. Think of all the ideas the world misses out on when one group of people is discriminated against.

After reading Magda's week four reflection, I do respect the rights of certain countries to have different laws regarding gender. However, it is important that these laws do not damage the ability of a women to feel safe, and respected in her own country. It is up to the women living in the Islamic nations to protest which laws they disagree with, to create a more equal society.

Reflection #4

   This week, I felt the readings in two of my classes overlapped. In this class, it was the reading, Comparative Politics: The State in the Middle East and North Africa, and the reading, The Passion of World Politics, in my World Politics class. As Comparative Politics looks at the state in the MENA region and how it is the last frontier to see how new ideas of state could work, I felt that the argument from Passion of World Politics would be an interesting addition to what the MENA region could be. Passion of World Politics looks at emotions in world politics and how the emotional state of a country and its people can really effect how events turn out, and that emotions at an IR level haven't been studied thoroughly enough to use emotions to our advantage when making decisions about other countries. This can be applied to this still blank canvas of a state 'style' for the MENA region. As there is a strong sense of nationalism in this area, it would be interesting to apply the feelings and emotions of pride and dignity to how other countries interact with the MENA region and watch and see if that could actually change the relationship between state and society. Could this work? I think it's worth a shot. 

Reflection 3

I was inspired by the documentary we watched in class to check out Said's Orientalism from the library.  So far, I have only read the introduction and a few pages of the first chapter titled The Scope of Orientalism in which Said illuminates just how pervasive our incorrect perceptions about the Middle East are. He argues this phenomenon is a direct result of the dominance of Orientalism as a legitimate world view for centuries. While I agree with almost all of Said’s claims (particularly his argument of a direct relationship between power and knowledge within the context of European perceptions of the Middle East), I could not help but think he was overlooking some key factors.

  First and foremost, I am not quite sure why Said titled his book Orientalism when he practically ignored what we have come to know as the “Orient” and instead focused on that which is familiar to him – the Arab world.  Second, though obviously well-researched and well-argued, Said’s arguments appear to be vastly oversimplified and reductive in nature. I am not sure if he will get to this (again, I am only about halfway through the first chapter), but it seems as though Said fails to account for European fascination with – and inclination towards – Islam during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Enlightenment thinkers adapted many Islamic beliefs into their writings and some even converted to Islam. Is Edward Said aware of all this? Of course he is; he just left it out of his book to create a stronger argument.  What do you think about Orientalism and its merits? 

Reflection 3

     One of the topics explored in this week’s reading was the idea of secularism in the MENA region. Arab liberals have a complex relationship with secularism and seem to try and steer away from being labeled as ‘secularist’. In an area so steeped and governed by religion, those who do not conform to the religious beliefs of the people are branded as outsiders and even subject to punishment. The reading suggests that even the word ‘secular’ is still considered dirty in popular discourse. This led me to thinking about how the MENA area would be different if it were to enact a separation between church and state. The theocracy that governs so many, through religion, politics, and culture, doesn’t necessarily seem like the best way to promote democratization. Without separation of church and state, it doesn’t even seem likely that a true democracy could emerge- and the Islamic tradition fails to allow for this separation. I’m aware of the deep significance of religion to cultural beliefs and I know Islam will never be abandoned as a guide by the majority of governments, but I think this separation has the possibility to be beneficial to the region. It would allow for increasing equality among all people and could alter the political sphere. The Compact of Madinah (which established a number of important political principles that formed the political constitution of the first Islamic state based off of the Prophet) is the binding force between Islam and Sharia rule. With a different document outlying political principles attached to no religion, there would be a possibility of secular rule which could create stronger democracies.  

http://www.islamawareness.net/Secularism/secular.html

Structured Response 2

     In the reading for this week, the various definitions of civil society (CS) and ways in which it is effective were explored. According to Browers, CS actors must be non-political to obtain legitimacy. This distinction can often become muddled in whether or not an institution is a political actor. As mentioned in the additional reading, “CS can’t stay “clean” from taint of the political sphere”.  Regardless of how a non-state organization attempts to further their ideologies, they will inevitably be pursuing and enacting some type of political action. In this respect, CS is not truly a part of the ’organic’ shares of broader society, but instead an aspect which plays a role in development. CS has a long and rich history within the MENA region- people are used to the concept and have seen it evoke change. In a way, this allows the civil society to work more easily in an area where it has worked before, a concept that opposes CS in the West.

     The matter of legitimacy can deter civil society from playing a part in democratization because it changes the way the political sphere works. As CSOs work for their ideas of change, they leave out the citizens of the area-which is a main aspect of democracy. Though CS can be a counterweight to the influence of the state, different organizations may be working for alternate ideas, thereby hindering any effective form of modification.  However, even with these setbacks, civil society is an incredibly important aspect of the political realm in the MENA region and is one of the ways non-state actors are able to oppose authoritarian rule. 

Structured Response 2-Hayley

It is very important for civil society actors to be able to claim legitimacy as a natural part of society as a whole. It can be difficult to determine what is organic, and what is not. We discussed weather or not an actor can be politically motivated and still be called a part of civil society. It can be hard to determine what is politically involved, and what is not. Are projects designated to alleviate poverty politically motivated? Though probably not, it is important to note that most actors are somewhat involved with the purpose of enacting political change. Could one not say that Non-Profits wish governments to provide more for its poorer citizens? Doesn't that mean they are political motivated to enact change?

But if civil society actors are not politically involved, does that make them more legitimate as a part of society? I believe it does, because an actor that is not politically, can usually be labeled as not seeking power, just seeking change. If an actor does not seek power, than it will not abuse what authority it does have to enact such change.


If actors who are politically motivated are not considered a part of civil society, than the idea that civil society plays a role in democratization is challenged. The actors who are politically motivated are more likely to partake in activities that seek an increase in democracy. If these actors are not considered a part of society, then civil society would not be necessary in increasing democracy, as those groups would be considered outside the realm of civil society.

Relfection 3-Hayley

The film from last week, about the way Westerners view Arabs,and the idea of Orientalism, was very interesting. The student discussion opened my eyes to things I had not thought of before, though I do agree with the ideas. It is frustrating to think that my society misunderstands a whole culture, because Western society seems like it would be an unbiased society. But when I look at media and how the Middle East is portrayed, I understand. America believes that the Middle East is only full of turmoil and fighting, and that all citizens there are violent. This is because the media shows clips of violence and protesting, not peaceful protesters or civilians during regular life. I have no idea what a Lebanese, or a Saudi Arabian doesafter work, because I don't see things like that in the media. I see bombs, and destruction. American society should instead focus on learning about the real culture of the Middle Eastern countries. One reason I am taking this class is to understand the differences between America and the Middle East, and learn to respect these differences. I believe that group discussions, especially which our small groups, really open up new ideas. I remember discussing our weekly reflection responces during class, and being amazed at the different ideas and suggestions. I would love to have more time to talk within our small groups about the class topic, as it is sometimes easier to be involved, than in the full class setting.

Reflection #3

      It appears that being a part of the state is the equivalent of having a target on your back. Anything that goes wrong immediately becomes the problem of the government, and all hell breaks loose. In an article about the Iranian currency crisis, the analyst said that traders are getting angry with the government for not giving more direction in the crisis, which is making the monetary values even more unstable, and of course, that is making people even angrier because the instability is making trading that much more impossible. Also, while reading Professor Hardig's reflection to our readings about civil society, I noticed that the state is still not included, and that any group or organization that has any affiliation to the state is almost labeled as taboo and is not accepted into the civil society realm as a "non-state" actor. Basically, civil society is like a club.
     Maybe I'm not getting the full point of the readings, but couldn't it be possible to include the state in some way to civil society? Or is it just natural that the government will turn greedy and corrupt and destroy anything positive it could have gained/ created in civil society? I feel that maybe this focus on what is "state" and what isn't is covering up the larger picture of how effective these groups are in civil society and if they are really leading their people to a higher level of "civilized" living.