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.
I am glad you put in that last part--"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"--because I think that is something I must try to remember when thinking about social movements in the MENA region. Somehow, I think that social movements should be simple and quick; if there are enough people who support it, and if they are loud enough, their change should be put into effect. However, you reminded me that it is not this simple, and so did Gilbert when he spoke of the long process for change, and how results are not easily visible and usually small. For a movement to be successful, it needs the support of an influential body--whether that be the elite or a foreign source. I guess it is also important to remember, though, that even without such support, if a movement has enough passion and energy behind it, it must push forward for what it believes in--I believe that it will be worth it in the end. As Gilbert said, he would spends his life fighting for his passion, and it's worth it to him.
ReplyDelete