Paul Ropp
Structured
response #2
After yesterday’s class I don’t
believe that Civil Society can be relegated to a singular definition; every
person can base it on his/her own perspectives. But to me Civil Society is the
non-government, non-business, and non-violent sector of the society that works
to further the will and standard of living of the people without causing
sectarian riffs. Civil society can affect the political spectrum of government
in two ways through social cohesion, and through advocacy of the peoples will.
When
a group of society is no longer living on the fringe and is standing in
solidarity with one another the role of an authoritarian regime becomes more
complex, and harder to achieve. The government may easily be able to manipulate
sects of a society, but when a whole country comes together the will of the
masses may, and tends to overwhelm the will of the authoritarian regime; as
seen in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia. Bellin’s argument pointed out that the
Regime must have the will and the power to remain in control of a territory;
power over the people, power to control and manipulate society for the regimes
purposes; will to remain in power. Now in the case of Palestine Israel has both
the will and power to remain in control, however, as Palestinian civil society
grows like it has for the past decade Israel will be dealing with the affront
of not only a united people, but a united civil society.
The
Advocacy of the Palestinian people takes up 31% of NGO’s focus activity while
social cohesion only takes up only 26% of the budget. So what is about advocacy
that is more important than social cohesion? Isn’t a slow progress to democracy
the better path, a path of civil unity bringing up the advocacy of a majority
group a more effective path? It seems a bit counterproductive, a bit premature
to start the advocacy of what you would like to happen with Palestine before
the people as a whole are unified in one peaceful direction, although in the
case of Palestine and Israel, Israel seems to both have the will and power to
ensure that any civil society movements in Palestine are to be blocked by shows
of force and political manipulation on a grand scale.
The
Palestinian case shows the one major problem that is prevalent in most MENA
region countries; a government that is willing and has the power to subdue any
sort of civil society that has any chance of subduing the regimes power; the
State will protect itself at all costs even if the cost are citizens or
displaced Palestinians. Moreover the State run economies have much more
longevity which in cases of revolutions or the composing of a civil society on
the other half has destructive consequences.
When a nation controls the way to
make a living, the people who are trying to compose an uprising against the
government can be put down simply by taking away the means of living. On a more
positive note I feel that despite all the challenges facing Civil Society in
the MENA region that slow and steady progress to democratization will trump
most attempts to quell it by the regimes of the region.
No comments:
Post a Comment