Reflection 8

Paul Ropp

                                    Reflection 9

To be honest I don’t have a lot to say about the documentary on the Egyptian revolution but I do have some things to say that, maybe, perhaps, just might be relevant to the course work. During the documentary there was one seen with the family, an elder women, a middle aged women, and their daughter/granddaughter. What really struck me was that this family was very well to do, the house was pristine the mahogany table wasn’t probably purchased at some rag-tag IKEA, sorry professor, and the way people dressed and acted was in a very upper middle class fashion; for god’s sake the women was going to go protest in heals.  Before I go any further this isn’t going to be some attack on their wealth and them being removed from the actual revolution, because they did participate, but what really struck me was how they all felt about the revolution. The family was having the same arguments and the same worries that people of all classes had in the streets of Cairo; that the Muslim brotherhood would take power and persecute, like they have been persecuted for so long, or that the autocratic military would remain in power and that Egypt would become another dictatorship. What was so interesting and enlightening about this was that the revolution was an actual cohesion of Egyptian civil society in full, the sectarianism was there and had the opportunity to fly from the starting gates, however, it didn’t.  The main goal of all Egyptian people during the revolution, from what you saw on the streets, heard in the news, and saw in the upper middle class home, was to oust the regime of Mubarak, in a united fashion. Granted I do find the participation of the family to be somewhat sheltered as we never see them in the midst of full swing protests, under the barrage of rocks from hired thugs, or being ran over by the esteemed officers of Egyptian law; but what really matters is that they participated in civil society. To me it doesn’t matter how you participate in civil society, whether you are dying on the front lines of a movements or supporting it in some other way what is unequivocally important is that you take part in a unified movement to achieve something that as a society you all want. I guess what I am getting at here is that I think this moderately sheltered upper class family is doing just a noble and respectable part as the people who were leading the protests on the ground and to that they have my respect. Another thing I would like to talk about is the recent vigilantism of Cairo citizens against the harassment of women.

            “The young activists lingered on the streets around Tahrir Square, scrutinizing the crowds of holiday revelers. Suddenly, they charged, pushing people aside and chasing down a young man. As the captive thrashed to get away, the activists pounded his shoulders, flipped him around and spray-painted a message on his back: “I’m a harasser” (NewYorkTimes.com). What really got me interested in the Egyptian revolution at the time was that a society that no one saw revolting, overthrowing a dictator that was so deeply embedded in the government and creating a new society. That at first this seemingly disorganized rabble, quickly unified and created a powerful civil society that had not only the power to bolster each other in such tumultuous times, and to overthrow a regime, but a society who would also defy the norms of sectarian conflict in the MENA region to do what they thought was right, to bring some sort of just unification to all people of Egypt; which they are continuing to do with the shaming of police who do not arrest harassers of women, and punishing those who harass them. Yes, the good of vigilantism is debatable; however, what these citizens of Cairo are doing is something that for so long the government and the police have refused to do.

            To me the acting out of vigilantes against the harassment of women is just a positive step from an autocratic regime to a fair, free democracy. Above all these vigilantes are making a difference they are taking the past norm of non-retaliation against those who would hurt their fellow Egyptians and are frankly saying with their actions that it is not ok. I remember in the documentary there was a man in a coffee shop who wanted to bring back Egyptian pride, to restore the pride of the Egyptian people. At the time I wrote him off as some sort of Egyptian radical nationalist, but in my ignorance I was unaware of what the deeper meaning to that was. That “restoring Egyptian pride” wasn’t some ignoramus call like “the south will rise again” or “M’erica” but it was a cry to restore Egypt as a respectable nation. To demolish the old ways of the autocratic regime and to replace them with a new sense of unity, a new sense of freedom and most of all a unification of civil society on a grand scale, no folks not just the unification that it took to topple a regime, but a unification that can build Egypt into a just, modern, and better nation; not that Egypt is bad, all nations could use a lot of bettering.   

                

Weekly Reflection-11/1/2012

I am interested to see what will happen between US-Israeli relations.They have been heavily strained these past few months. Sufficient to say that this has been the low point with Israel. The United States, no matter what party or president is in power has always supported Israel in their endeavors. Israel is frustated with the lack of action the US is taking. Look at it from the US perspective. We have 1 war ending and another going on, we have 15 trillion dollars in debt and growing and we are still in a recession. A war with Israel is the last thing that this country needs. I think that the world needs to take out Irans nuclear facilities, the US and Israel should not have be the ones to pull the trigger in this situation. Iran is just asking for trouble by continuing this program. I think that the moment the Iranians have nukes, the Israelis will put severe pressure, more than we are seeing now. Having said that, the world will protect Israel against any major attacks. So Israel really needs to sit tight and sit this one out. As does the United States.

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.