Reflection 4

Paul Ropp

                                    Reflection Week 4

            As far as the discourse on civil society this week has gone I found myself wondering how effective is civil society at procuring rights and privileges for the people? Can a civil society that lacks social cohesion and state support march forward into the legislatures of countries and demand freedoms without a single cohesive bond, without unity, and most of all in spite of sectarian conflict amongst not only the people but the government as well.

              Malala Yousafzai was shot today, October 9^th, after being on the Taliban’s hit list for months (BBC). It is amazing to see that an activist for what would be considered a trivial subject in the US, women’s education, gunned down for advocating women’s right to education in Northern Pakistan. The stark sectarian conflict of civil society has shown itself in the story more precisely and broadly then I could ever care to attempt. Yousafzai was advocating education for girls in Northern Pakistan while the Taliban are advocating for Islamic extremism. The deep sectarian divide in this case ended with a terrible act of violence being inflicted on a young girl who in the mind of the international community was doing extremely good and beneficial work in Pakistan. So how can a civil society be helpful, or be even remotely successful if there are actors claiming organic legitimacy, going against the will of popular culture, and committing acts of violence to gain power.  The theory of broad unity enacting incremental change on the regime at large and forming a cohesive civil society that would band together in mass democratization is swept out the window. The mass sectarianism in the MENA region to me is a hurdle that has to be overcome. No, not all sectarianism just that which causes harm to the civil society. I guess, what I am getting at here, is how can the civil society even get to the point of changing laws of the regime if it isn’t one cohesive unit. Yes, civil society should fight for freedom but I believe that unity should be another main task not just the advocacy of one’s own cause.
                In class we watched the documentary on Iran and the failure of the first and second revolutions. I really was interested in how the second revolution became a familiar failure despite all actions taken by Iranian citizens in the right direction. Although,  Iranians used non-violent means to enact a regime change the government wouldn’t let them achieve their ends no-matter what the cost; in this case the government had the means and the will to quell the civil unrest. Or maybe, in a realistic way, Iranian civil society was not yet strong enough to attempt a non-violent uprising the regime was too strong for the civil society at the time and the civil society relented maybe in this case it’s just a matter of re-organizing and being in for the long hall.

            I also found the article about the state in the MENA region to be particularly interesting, the point made about politics and administration being separate in the MENA region. That in the MENA region politics are more or less the same as the Western counterpart, however, the administration of the policies and laws is quite different. The fact that the royal family in Saudi Arabia is given special privilege, that the state’s administrators first help their sect then the state. Another interesting part of the article pointed out that although the civilian bureaucracy plays a far more substantive role in the everyday policies of the MENA region we focus primarily on the military aspect. The average day in MENA region society there is discrimination based on a myriad of factors, but researchers focus primarily on the military and how it discriminates.

           Over this week of class I have come to the realization that despite the prominence of the military in the MENA region by far the most important factor is civilian civil society, the unification and shared ideals of the group being a far more important factor in everyday life than the transitory autocratic military regime that we all seem to be so in lust with.