Structured Response 11/1/2012

There have been many groups over the course of Human history that have asserted their positions. The two most notable are those of the feminist movement and of course the civil rights movement in the mid 20th century. Both of these parties fought for what they wanted and eventually by most means got what they wanted.
I love the term "hegemonic culture" that you used. You reference that not all sides are always on the same side. That it is "Civil Society broadens Political Participation" I think that in doing my country brief along with the readings that is clearly evident. 
In Jordan and/or Morocco the political parties resemble those of the United States. They are ineffective and in some people minds they are part of the "authoritative regime itself". I think that you can see that right here at home. The Republicans and Democrats basically make for a political stalemate unless the other party agrees or if a majority of the one party is in power in congress.Contrary to western belief, Civil society in MENA region is very active.
I think that Social Media is one of the major impacts of democracy both here and abroad. Twitter and facebook are the leaders. Take the debates for instance.  The "Twittosphere" went crazy with tweets that were occurring and many of those not watching the debates were able to get one liners or mistakes made by candidates. Thus twitter in a way could dictate who wins or looses to those using its interface. Which is actually quite remarkable if you think about it. You can take any world wide event, and a 21 society and twitter could be used that way, Facebook has been used in a similar way except instead of real time messages,which it can do, it has been my experience that it is more successful after said the event. MEMES are created, groups where people can argue and discuss. Pictures are posted and are commented on. Finally I think that youtube has a huge part in the democratization process. A lot of Syrian footage that the West and those outside of Syria are getting are from youtube and are amateur footage. This allows the world to see how civil society is breaking down and how action must be taken to protect those lives.
That is just one example, but the west and the middle east are not all that different.

Reflection

In an interesting turn of events, Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri  urges support for insurgents in Syria. Looks like the US and Syria are fighting on the same side then. Yes I know that the US wants a different more credible group to topple the Syrian government, but that doesn't mean they haven't been helping the FSA along the way. On the other hand, Iran is in favor of a ceasefire. And the US is caught on both sides. 

Clinton recently made statements about looking for an alternative to the FSA. Obama is apparently creating a Syrian Opposition Council. Clinton believes that the opposition forces should be lead by people who are doing the fighting, who are on the front lines and have lived in Syria throughout their lives. In other words, not the Syrian National Council. It seems to me that the US is trying to completely sculpt this revolution, instead of letting it naturally become what it becomes, giving only small nudges and support like a foreign country should. 

Structured Response

It seems to me that the US is more concerned with spreading democracy in other countries than maintaining it here. The thing that sticks out most to me is voting restrictions. Already we have a problem with the number of eligible voters being significantly higher than the number of registered voters, not to mention the amount of people that actually come out to vote. In the past legislation such as the Motor Voter Act that allowed people to register at the DMV was aimed to incase voter turn out. However, since then voter ID restrictions have been passes making it difficult for thousands of people, legal documented american citizens, to vote. A funny article has the title "UFO sightings are more common than voter fraud" causes me to question the motives behind such laws. Voter fraud is a minor topic in the US, and while I agree that it is important to have legitimate elections, I don't see such laws as beneficial when they are hindering people exercising their right to vote. It seems to me that such acts are intended to prevent impoverished people and minorities from reaching the voting booths. Perhaps they think this demographic is most likely to contain undocumented residents, but I believe it would be naive not to think of underlying political motivation. To actually target a demographic, as these laws do, is disgusting and un-American (in theory, maybe not in practice).

I think social movements outside of the US are only beginning to have an affect on US society. Eventually, when it becomes more clear what the outcomes have been because of the Arab Spring, I believe the US will become more motivated to have similar peaceful movements. Although OWS is still  in the streets every week in NYC, a more focused organization is necessary and possible. (And can I just say I find it hilarious that people call occupiers 'hippies' as insults because hippies were a big part in Vietnam War protests, plus I know occupiers who are nowhere near hippie status).

In America, it seems that civil societies and such organized movements are considered 'cute' but ineffective and unimportant. I'm curious as to how this differs from MENA regions. MENA countries tend to have more extreme problems that affect the entire state in a more... obvious way. Or that could just be me being blinded by the scale of injustices in America. Although many civil societies in the MENA countries may be though of as 'anti-Islam' 'Anti-Arab' or 'Pro-Ameria/ Pro-Europe', in general its either a case of if you support it enough or not. In America, perhaps because it is so diverse and so large, less people get involved in civil society even if they think the topic matters, simply because they think other things are more important or because they think their efforts won't matter. I'm not sure how America has reached that conclusion, since we have always been a country that gets things done by rallying the masses, from the Revolution to the Civil Rights Movement. Occupy Wall Street is the closest we have come in decades to mobilizing out country, but its lack of organization and goals made the movement a disheartening one for many.


In America, we focus on equality, and when we're not focused on equality we're focused on liberty. When neither of these things are being obviously infringed upon, we turn a blind eye to injustices. We don't realize that or democratic society is slipping away, while the rest of the world is gaining on us.

Structured Response #3

The democratization process in America was a lengthy one. While we have, technically, been a democracy since our founding, in practice that was not the case. From women not having the right to vote, to slavery being widely practice and segregation being enforced up to the 1960s we, as a country, like to forget that we were not such a true democracy a mere 50 years ago. This after more than 150 years championing democracy and our own brand of it. Social movements have really influenced the democratization process in America. They helped pave the way for the abolition of slavery, they introduced women's suffrage but perhaps the most important social movement in the United States in the past century was the movement started by Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. Both using completely different means helped the United State become more democratic by fully legally embracing the United State's black population and ending the racist policy of segregation making us a more open society and therefore aiding the democratization process. Through these social movements we have become a more open society that has had its freedoms reinforced and asserted for the entirety of its population unlike what was the case previously.
The lesson for the countries of the MENA region can be much the same. However the way in which these social movements operate must be different because the set of ideals that the countries in the MENA share are different that what the USA hold and held. The US started as more democratic and therefore were less inclined to respond to these protests with violence. While not all countries in the region are like Syria who shoot their own citizens they may not grant licenses to protest in the first place making social movements harder but not impossible to operate. Social Movements in the MENA country will have to operate with baby steps, just as social movements in the US operated in order to be effective. The process may take as much as a 100 years although perhaps less as they have templates among their more democratized neighbors to emulate and base themselves on so that they can avoid the mistakes made by their counterparts. All in all, the role of social movements in the MENA region should be to inform the people from the bottom up, the government may be less likely to encourage such movements especially in more conservative countries in the region but if the citizens at the bottom support the movements then action and progress by these movements can be made and we may see democratization efforts in the region soar. The movements should advocate principally for more freedoms to be granted, to every member of the country's population whether they be gay, of a different color or of a different gender, equal freedoms for every one should be the role of these social movements in the democratization process of the MENA countries.

Reflection #7

Today, Bahrain decided to impose a ban on all protests due to, as the government claims, an increase in violence resulting in deaths and injuries.  Of course Amnesty International called for the immediate lift of the ban because they claim it is a breach on Freedom of Speech.
Who are we to side with? Are we to side with the Bahraini government as proponents of security or are to side with protesters and Amnesty International in the name of Freedom of Expression? It would be easier if the Bahraini government had fallen hard on these protests when they started to heavily criticize the government but no, on average, 2 such protests were licensed a week. Thus, the Bahraini government proved itself accepting of these protests at least until they turned violent. Furthermore, it would be easier if there was no basis for the claims of the Bahraini government, after all, in the name of Orientalism, are Middle Eastern Government corrupt and predisposed to manipulations of their citizens? But no, even a true Orientalist would have to admit that there is proof of violence among the protesters. Recently, 2 police officers were killed after protesters used petrol bombs in one of the protests. The deaths of these officers directly led to the ban.
In the MENA region there has always been this question of what to prioritize: do we prioritize security and sacrifice freedoms after the actions of a few? Or do we prioritize our citizens freedoms but accept that sometimes violence may result and deaths and injuries insue? It is a tough question and sometimes I find myself wondering if Amnesty International, an organization operating primarily on Western based values and ideals can truly be counted on as neutral observers that take into account the society which they judge. Is freedom at all cost something to encourage? Or as the Bahraini government seems to believe are freedoms a privilege and not a right that the population needs to earn? Perhaps when calling for a lifting of a ban or other legal action Amnesty International ought to take into account the situation and not as the article I read say "call immediately" which implies a lack of deep thinking about the situation.

Structured 7

Paul Ropp

                                         Structural Response week 7

            In the United States we have a republic, and not just any old republic; The Grande Olde Republic; an ode to all that is good and righteous in the world, standing above all else, especially those shady autocratic regimes of the MENA region; Simply put the one democracy to rule them all. But what, if anything, separates the US political system from that of any other country, are we really so perfect, and has it always been that way?

            Well, in reality the US like any other state and has had its fair share of atrocities, from slavery, Indian Removal Acts, internment camps, and general electoral hogwash due to massive political corruption. So in reality the MENA region is not as far behind the westernized world as we would think. Although, there are some benefits to the modern state of US politics it is not without failings; Super-Pacs running amuck, closed door deals, and a sense of autonomy are all things that US citizens contend with from time to time, depending on who is in charge and where, of course. However, as you can see the US and the MENA region are not so different. In the US there is a harsh division between conservatives and liberals one that mirrors the religious and the secularists in the MENA region. Both camps hold devote beliefs that cannot be compromised by discourse, although the exact beliefs may be different, you won’t see a conservative and a liberal compromise on abortion, any more than MENA region religious groups and secularist groups agreeing on comprehensive education reform. Moreover, in the US, specifically conservative states there is an outrage to the promulgation of creationism as a scientific theory, as well as the altering of text books to teach the children comparable to their religious upbringing. The idea that history should, or even can be altered to fit the agenda of a fundamentalist group is outrageous to the Liberal, and even the moderate spectrum of society. The problem of cleaning up history is also underway by fundamentalist Muslims who destroy pre-Islamic cave drawings, as they depict “blasphemous” images. In reality the political spectrum of the US and MENA region countries only differs by the brand of extremism, Muslim instead of Christian. Although, there is one difference between the US and MENA regions that shouldn’t be overlooked due to its massive importance which is a governments need for legitimacy.

            In the MENA region the different political climate and deep sectarian divisions allow the government to maintain a sense of autonomy to play one side against the other and to steer public rhetoric in such fashion. In the US, both citizens and countries around the world watch the US government with a critical eye. Although there are divisions in US society there are at some point superficial, when another government, or the US government threaten the “US” way of life, that comfort and rights US citizens enjoy there would be a unified uproar, but in that sense the US political spectrum differs dramatically from the MENA region. When one delves into US history you can see similarities to what is happening in the MENA region now.

            As Cavatorta points out there is a general theory map that countries follow when changing from a regime to a democracy. First the opening, a point where the regime will become a little more liberalized due to any one of innumerable factors. Secondly “the breakthrough” this is the point where the old regime collapses. Thirdly is “consolidation” of the new government. Although this theory is imperfect it gives a general road map to compare the US and the MENA region through historical analysis and civil society movements in the US. In the United States the importation of slaves was abolished in 1808, paving the way to the, highly criticized Emancipation proclamation, and to the civil rights movements of the late 20^th century. In the US African Americans participated in both violent and non-violent protests against the US government’s repression of their rights as human beings. Now what is truly comparable is that the US gave way to the immense public pressure and granted African Americans their rights.

            Now what is important to realize here is that civil society activists in the US were unified and the government needed to maintain its legitimacy which it could easily have lost in such a tumultuous time. Civil society movements in the MENA region will fare well if and only if they can unify society over a bigger issue and not play into sectarian conflict, such as the Egyptian revolution. The one and only large obstacle in the way of MENA region civil society is the ability to from a single cohesive social unit, granted it won’t be easy due to those pesky European Picket-Sykes and Balfour agreements. Although circumstance has placed the MENA region in a particularly hard place for the emergence of a full blown and well-oiled civil society machined, it is not an impossible task and will just take motivated civil society actors, time, and a unification of MENA region societies. 

Structured Response

Although ultimately unsuccessful, the intifada was an undeniably major part of the Palestine-Israel conflict.

The intifada in Palestine had some lasting effects. The movement mobilized and empowered the people of Palestine. If nothing else, by challenging the traditional norms, the patriarchal type society was questioned and therefore typical roles of women were reassessed. Women became even more involved in the nation's struggle, and took on public roles including leadership roles, where they could be seen by their community as a skilled contributor. It is these seemingly small but greatly important effects of the intifada that left the greatest impact.

The intifada allowed Palestinians to feel even more capable of working in masses to defend themselves.  As sovereignty was the goal, Palestinians were able to connect to make this goal reality by establishing their own institutions. Although not technically official, the creation of such institutions reflects the current spirit of autonomy seen throughout the region today.

Israel was affected in a much less obvious way. During the time of intifada, at least 50 peace organizations were created, using non-violent protest methods to get their message across. Some groups even had Palestinian support networks. Even Zionists became bothered by the occupation, seeing it harmful to Israel, and joined peaceful organizations such as "End the Occupation"

Overall, the effects from the intifada are not obvious nor extraordinary, but they are there and they are important.

Reflection 7

                                                            Reflection 7

            I was pondering what I wanted to write about and since in class we didn’t go over any ridiculously important things I thought I would go off on a limb and cover two things that I found particularly interesting in the past week; the demand of a UN resolution against anti-religious media, and Syria’s continued and perpetual tension amongst the Israel Gaza situation.   

            On Saturday Abdullah bin Abdulaziz demanded that the UN pass a resolution that would ban media critical of Religion. "I demand a UN resolution that condemns any country or group that insults religions and prophets” (France24.com). In Saudi Arabia and many other countries religion, especially Islam is the one thing that unifies peoples, although there are sects of the religion, you are Muslim above all else, just like you are not a protestant or a new age believer you are a Christian at the core, and that is something you can identify with above all else. I think as we talked about last week in class that the popularity of Islam is a major factor in the proclivity of Islamist social society movements in the MENA region. Although there are many other social groups promoting advocacy, social cohesion, and other aspects of civil society, Islamism is something near to the heart. Moreover, the Saudi government’s hard line on the YouTube video’s depiction of the Prophet Muhammad and the popular support his stance receives is just another blow to the growth of social reform in the MENA region. As political leaders take up the arms of popular culture and defend “Islam” the general populous will be unequivocally be taken in by that support for the one thing that binds the society together making it incredibly hard for civil society to gain any footing within that state our the region. Another interesting news article was that of Hamas’s brutalization of Palestinian civilians.

             Although, at some points Hamas could be seen as liberators of the Palestinian people, as the defenders of the abused; however over the past decades Hamas has been ostensibly seen as a terror group killing hundreds. According to NewsTimes.com Hamas has now been beating Palestinians who oppose the ideals of Hamas, and staging executions. Now as far a social movement this reminds me of N. Ireland during the troubles, however, in the Palestine situation instead of just three sects there are many, and many different opinions on the matter. But what is important Is the social movements of Hamas and what that has done to unequivocally undermine the liberation of the Palestinian people painting them as terrorist collaborators, and if they don’t collaborate they are beaten. As much as I would like to continue on this rant I have to run!

Reflection #7

Magda Borgarelli

This week I began to read the book Zeitoun for my Lit. class.  It is the account of a Muslim family during and after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, and I highly recommended since it is very well written.  The reason I am bringing this up in my reflection is that one of the themes of the book is prejudice that American Muslims faced after 9/11 occurred.  The more I am reading about it in the book, the more I am appalled at how people treat this group in the fear that they are all connected to either the Talibans or Al-Qaeda.  For example, Kathy, Zeitoun’s wife, was brought up a Christian and converted to Islam in her twenties.  However, that created great attrition with her family, which automatically assumed that it meant women’s oppression.  Also, as Zeitoun owned a painting company, sometimes the clients would look for another company as soon as they found out that he was Syrian and Muslim.  I couldn’t help but think how degrading that must have been for Zeitoun and his family. Everyone looking at you as if you committed a crime or are about to simply because of the religion you practice, must be both scary and offensive.  It made me realize that, though we like to think that in the West we are “liberal” and embrace all cultures and religions, prejudice and ignorance can still be widely encountered.

Structured Response # 6

Magda Borgarelli

Social movements have played a great role in the process of democratization in the United States.  Some of them shaped the way people thought of certain groups and their rights as citizens of this country. Others fought to limit their political influence while trying to redefine them as either outsiders or part of our society.  The Civil Rights movement is just one of the most prominent examples of American social movements, since it not only helped further the social standing of African Americans but also sought to increase their “political voice”.  There were marches, sit ins, boycotts.  It took a long time and a lot of efforts for the Civil Rights movement’s goals to be achieved.  However, they succeeded.  In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination and aimed to suppress the obstacles that were put in front of African Americans who decided to vote.

Although, as previously mentioned, the Civil Rights movement exemplifies how American social movements can indeed broaden the political space, one must also look at the ones that made the 1964 Civil Rights Act necessary.  For decades, there were plenty of associations in American society that fought to maintain the status quo under which African Americans were considered inferior to the rest of the white population.  Segregation was a policy that was publicized as the right thing to do, which only contributed to the limitation of voting rights for African Americans.  In fact, poll taxes and literacy tests were put in place to hinder political participation of this group, and successfully doing so until the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Therefore, it is true that social movements can be both beneficial and detrimental to certain groups, as they do not necessarily have the “right motives”.

This is exactly what goes on in other parts of the world, the MENA region being one of them.  Different civil societies have different goals and means to achieve them.  They have the potential to both easing or hindering the process of democratization in the region simply because they can oppose one another, without anyone knowing which one will prevail until it does.  There are many movements in the region that are working towards increasing political participation and government transparency, but there are just as many that are working to maintain what they have now, the status quo.  The MENA region is no different from other areas.  All countries had to go through this kind of process at one point or another of their history.  Therefore, it would be wrong to assume that just because there is a possibility that social movements who favor tradition might win over the ones that favor more “Western ideals”, that democracy will be doomed.  One has just to look at America.  Segregation was found acceptable until 1964, affectively limiting the voting rights of African Americans.  However, once the act was passed, the country slowly but surely regained a political momentum that allowed it to come as far as it is now:  champion of the process of democratization.