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 claim 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. However, when civil society actors begin to claim legitimacy as organic parts of a broader society it tends to hamper the creation of a civil society.

            As Bowers mentioned in the reading most Arab’s in cultural no matter how liberal they are, are very traditionalist; they will stick to the way things have been and even when liberalist Arabs argue for democratization they cite the Qur’an. 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 just another tyrannical regime or in the worst case other countries will disparage the growth of democracy as they are afraid of Islamist extremist rhetoric. In Egypt this fear proved to be ever true when the US was distant in supporting the revolt in fear that the “Muslim Brotherhood” would assume power. It is this single sided rhetoric that precludes a mass advocacy of the majority of the population and only allows the top tier of non-state actors to assume control of the advocacy. Moreover, one group claiming some sort of organic legitimacy of the civil society’s periphery, as well as, civil society itself, leads to a lack of multilateral cooperation, as one group has the power to speak for multiple sections of the population that will remain largely in the dark. The population left in the dark will remain there as Bowers also mentioned that Arab civil society has a different meaning not only culturally but linguistically.

            When one group claims organic legitimacy it may be all well and good, I mean who doesn’t want a jumpstart to a democracy, but is it really a democracy? In the MENA region civil society is much more segregated, different in every region and to every person. Civil society has a much more interpersonal family base, whereas in the West civil society is a burgeoning concept of civic duty. Now when one group claims to speak for the whole 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 is enjoying relative freedom and the right to practice traditions it will remain intact. This difference in civil societies meaning has allowed the Sultanic state, tyrannical regime, and lack of advocacy by many groups in the region.

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