Paul Ropp

                                                                Structured Response #3

                                When we talk about Civil Society claiming legitimacy it is just an expansion on a notion that both, states and people crave legitimacy; that in the grand scope of things a member of Civil Society needs to be recognized as much as the forlorn NGO, or government agent not just for self-interest but for the interest of civil society as a whole. However, when civil society actors begin to claim legitimacy as organic parts of a broader society it tends to hamper the creation of an effective civil society.

            As Bowers mentioned in the reading most Arab’s in cultural no matter how liberal they are, Arabs are very traditionalist; they will stick to the way things have been. Even when liberalist Arabs argue for democratization they cite the Qur’an and other traditionalist documents. But when one group of Arabs, say radical Islamists, claim organic legitimacy not only on behalf of their organization but others as well, it can lead to another tyrannical regime  or cause other countries to disparage the growth of democracy; as they are afraid of Islamist extremist rhetoric being in control of a state. In Egypt the US was reluctant in supporting the revolt in fear that the “Muslim Brotherhood” would assume power. It is the single sided rhetoric of organizations claiming legitimacy that preclude any mass advocacy of the population at large  only allowing the top tier of non-state actors to assume control of the advocacy. Moreover, one group claiming some sort of organic legitimacy of both the main body of civil society and the periphery leads to a lack of multilateral cooperation, as one group retains the power to speak for multiple sections of the population that will remain largely uninformed, especially in the MENA region. Bowers also mentioned that Arab civil society has a different meaning culturally.

            Claiming organic legitimacy of civil society In the MENA region is fairly easy compared to the West as the MENA is much more segregated; different ideals in every region and to every person. Civil society has a much more interpersonal family base; a duty to the small sect of the family, the tribe is the precipice of duty, whereas in the West civil society is a burgeoning concept of civic duty and allegiance to the ideals of democracy and personal freedom. Now when one group claims to speak for society, when the whole society is devoid of popular meaning or ideals, besides religion, things get a bit fishy. The MENA region historically is a very family oriented society and as long as the family unit enjoys relative freedom and the right to practice traditions it will remain intact and the main base of MENA region civil society. This difference in civil society has allowed the sultanic state, tyrannical regimes, and paltry popular advocacy in the MENA region to remain a modern history.

            In short when one group claims to have organic legitimacy it will forgo the standard rise of a proper, diverse, and unified social society into a unilateral regime and in the long run cause even more political and sectarian strife then would have been caused by a gradual onset of civil society.