Paul Ropp
Reflection 6
In
class we talked about Islam as a social movement rather than the “evil doing”
force a lot of people think it is. Although, the benefits of Islam as a
unifying force can be debated, it still is a social movement to be paid much
head in the MENA region. But as much as I would like delve into the subject
matter directly the recent Syrian agreement to a ceasefire has intrigued me
just a bit more especially in how it relates to Islamic, and many other social
movements in the region.
“Lakhdar
Brahimi said he hoped to use the lull in fighting to "discuss a longer and
more effective ceasefire" (BBC.UK) thinking about the revolution it is
really interesting to look at the different civil society actors that are
taking part in the ongoing revolution and see a common unity behind all the
sects in Syria. Islamists have come into Syria like, Hamas, but so has the US
according to a report but out by the BBC. So what is the fundamental difference
between a social movement in the MENA region and a social movement in Serbia?
Well I think more than anything It has to with nonviolent resistance more than
the religious aspect; if radical Islamists showed their discontent through
peaceful protests, or even self-immolation they would most likely receive a
warmer welcome by Westernized states; when you’re defending your freedoms
people can get behind that or when you’re furthering your religion peacefully
no one bats an eye. However, when you’re violently trying to further your religious
beliefs that’s when things become a problem for Islamist social movements. When
the Soviets invaded Afghanistan the US supported what were undeniably terrorist
tactics, and in Syria the US supports the rebels although the Syrian government
would classify them as terrorists, but when an Islamist social fight for Islamist
goals, say a sect of radical Islamists are being repressed by their government
and want to be more autonomous they should resort to a gradual process of
change but the temperament of religion doesn’t really accept that, just like
the temperament of human rights, which most governments in a lot of cases are
willing to drop bombs for. So I guess what I am trying to get at is that the
only thing that separates the radical Islamist and a freedom fighter is what
they are willing to kill and die for, in what name is violence perpetrated in
the name of freedom, or in the name of someone else. Regardless of religion or
politics, a lot of the times when civil society resorts to violence a certain
bit of credibility of the movement is lost.
In
Serbia the OPFOR used passive non-violent resistance and non-cooperation to
further the civil society’s agenda under threats of violence, jailing, and
retaliation in general from the government. However, the Serbian OPFOR movement
stayed vigilant in the non-violent movement and enacted gradual changes, which
very soon led to the democratization of the government. I think that the vigilance
of the non-violent movement and the unity it promoted in Serbia allowed for the
proper course of democratization to take place without too much sectarian
strife. Moreover, unlike in Syria the government lost the will to enforce the
authoritarian regime against a united Serbia. So to me the violence in Syria is
unsuccessful due to the government’s ability to quell an un-unified, sectarian
driven rebellion. Yes, the government has occurred losses due to the rebellion but
what the government truly hasn’t lost in this rebellion is control, the
government hasn’t lost its legitimacy; one of the most important things to a
state and perhaps that’s why it’s still going.
No comments:
Post a Comment