Neoliberalism

The "Washington Consensus" 'prescribes' possible policy suggestions on how to get out of economic turmoil. These are reform packages that deal with trade and investment. The "Washington Consensus" is basically a worldly economic advisor.

The expected outcomes would be to help the country from their economic problems. It would therefore reduce the amount of strikes and protests over wage laws there are. Many MENA states are reluctant to implement these strategies because they are still governmental policies. MENA states are not happy with the state of their government so they do not want government help. Obviously with any policy a counterproductive effect could simply be it doesn't work. They could also turn around and backfire and do the opposite of what they were intended to do, creating even more distress.

MENA and Neoliberalism

This is a bit of a curveball question, in that it doesn't directly relate to the reading you have for next week, but I thought I'd still let you wrestle with it (if you choose to do so!). The IMF and the World Bank provide different kinds of development loans and aid packages to some MENA countries, usually tied to the implementation of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), which are policy recommendations within the framework of the so called “Washington Consensus.” What is the prescription of the “Washington Consensus”? What are the expected positive outcomes of these policies? Why have many MENA states been reluctant to implement them? What could be some counterproductive effects produced by these policies?

Civil Society

According to Spurk, "Civil society [can] facilitate regular and sustained participation by the citizenry, beyond simply voting in elections." Civil society is a vital sphere of contentious political participation. Its definition is diverse and varying, but the basis of its definition lie in the fact that it revolves around uncoerced collective action. The lines determining what is included in civil society are often blurred with some saying that civil society is simply "not business, and not government." However, Spurk regards civil society as an autonomous sphere of nonstate actors outside of the influence of politics, business, or media.

The Middle East is relatively known for its lack of a strong civil society. However, i would say it is developing. Civil society in MENA is unlike that of the West, I believe, for much of the action undergone through the use of civil society has not truly represented progress towards more democratic societies as many Western thinkers have previously thought. However, civil society in MENA does indicate progress. While it does not have as much of an overwhelming presence as it does in the United States, civil society in MENA is important. MENA's civil society has been vital to the success of many Islamic uprisings.

In terms of the political arena, effective civil society broadens the horizons for political participation, encouraging everyday citizens to involve themselves in collective action. Civil society allows for the voices of the people to be heard much more easily and can allow the people to keep their governments in check beyond the political sphere.

Civil Society in MENA

          Civil society is something that has been difficult to define with one definition, as civil society can mean different things for different people. Spurk defines civil society as consisting of "... a huge variety of mainly voluntary organizations and associations that maintain different objectives, interests, and ideologies," (6).  According to Spurk, while civil society does often interact with the social/private, economic, and political spheres very closely, it is its own separate entity that is independent of these spheres (6-7). Civil society is not political even though it is involved in the politics of a state, it is not economic even though it is involved in the economy, and it is not a part of the private realm even though it does affect that sector as well. In some cases, actors that are in these other sectors do act as members of civil society which results in the "blurring" of the lines between civil society and the other sectors in some cases. 

          There are seven functions of civil society based on Spurk's extended functional approach to analyzing civil society (23-24). The most basic role of civil society is to protect the freedom of the citizenry from authorities. Civil society also holds the state accountable for its actions (or inactions) to ensure that the state is upholding human rights and fulfilling its end of the social contract to its people. It helps facilitate communication so that the citizens are able to express their interests to raise awareness and facilitate debate. The socialization of the people is another task of civil society in order to promote a democratic attitude in the people. Civil society helps build communities that can bridge societal gaps and unite the people. Civil society also acts as an intermediary between the people and the state to facilitate communication between the two. Finally, civil society delivers services to the citizens especially in cases where the state is weak. Through the execution of these roles, an effective civil society can greatly increase the space for political participation by the citizens.
          However, the civil society MENA have had trouble in performing these functions because of the repressive, autocratic regimes of MENA. The outcome of this suppression depends on how it is carried out and how the suppression is perceived by the people. Because of these variations, suppression can result in one of two outcomes according to Vairel: the radicalization of the civil society or the greater mobilization of civil society (41).
          When civil society is made more radical because of repression, it becomes less effected at affecting change in the society. Radical groups are more divisive than uniting, which means that they do not have as large of a backing if they had been able to unite more people behind them. Radical groups face fewer political opportunities and more political restraints, they are less able to mobilize resources because of their smaller base and the fact that they are less likely to receive international assistance if they are seen as radical, and the way that they frame their narrative can push citizens to oppose their objectives. This outcome is produced whenever the state is especially violent in its repression and is selective in whom it targets.
          Counterintuitively, repression by the state can actually strengthen the civil society in some cases. When the state represses indiscriminately, it can attract more people to the civil society and increase their ability to enact change. The people unite behind the civil society against the government. Also, if people perceive a threat from the government, they are quickly mobilized and since the actual force is not present yet to repress the people, they are not discouraged from joining the civil society.
          I would say that civil society in MENA is generally weak in fulfilling its roles. The repressive regimes have become especially brutal in their measures and have targeted specific groups rather than the whole populations. An example of this is the case of Egypt. Sisi's regime is targeting the Muslim Brotherhood opposition group, which is seen as a radical Islamic group, rather than targeting the population. The actions of the regime have resulted in little effective action from the civil society because of Sisi's targeted approach and the Muslim Brotherhood's inability to unite the Egyptian people. One could also point to the failures of initiatives to promote democracy in the region as an indication of the weakness of civil society in MENA. After the "Arab Spring" revolutions of 2011, few of the democratic regimes remained in power and MENA states are just as if not more repressive and authoritarian than before the revolutions. Civil society in MENA has been unable to fulfill its seven roles and states' powers have gone unchecked in the MENA region as a result of their ineffectiveness.
         
         
          

Civil Society

            Civil Society has gone through many definitions since the terms creation ranging from the state itself, to the state’s opposition, to somewhat of an intermediary between the state and the people. Some such as Hegal define civil society actors as being in conflict for their own selfish purposes while others such as Habermes focus on the affect that civil society can have in fostering communication in the public sphere. While details on the specifics of what constitutes a civil society have never truly been agreed upon, a loose definition that many modern scholars don’t contest is that civil societies can make political demands towards the state and others, but not run for political office within the government. In addition to this, civil society excludes the business sector and media (usually), because they don’t have voluntary participation. While that interpretation was mostly domestic, civil society from a global perspective has often been seen as playing a major role in countries political transition towards democracy. 

            Before trying to analyze how effective civil societies are this global role, one must first determine if looking at certain regions through a civil society lens even makes sense. For example, the book “Civil Society and Peacebuilding: A Critical Assessment” states that the conditions for a Western style civil society e.g. “a self-confident urban citizenship that has already gained some autonomy from state structures” is mostly absent in Africa, as well as the Middle East.  That isn’t to say that in the Middle East there isn’t action on the civil society front. For example, in the region there has been a gradual opening of political space due to increasing pressure from citizens. After 9/11 Arab human rights organizations “redoubled efforts in the quest for democracy”. Frederic Vairel says that in Morocco and Egypt “civil society has become a cause for some, a field to increase the value of diplomas for others, or a practical notion … for international donors.”

            The way I see it the whole point of a civil society is to broaden the space for political participation, whether it be through trade unions or NGOs. Especially after the Cold War when thriving civil society became “an important pillar for establishing democracy”. The only way that a democracy will work is through active political participation and traditionally that is just voting or running for office however through civil society a whole other door is opened to protect the citizens human rights and keep the state from overextending itself, another outlet for intermediation between states and citizens, community building, participatory socialization, and probably most importantly, communication (Merkel and Lauth).

Martin Schneider

2/14/16

What is civil society? What is the status of MENA civil society? What role can it play, if any, in broadening the space for political participation?

Civil Society is made up of groups and organizations that work for the benefit for the people. Civil Society is kept separate from both interferences from the state and from markets. Organizations that make up a thriving civil society include unions, non profits, volunteering groups, and religious organizations. Organizations not beholden to politics or money is vital for a prospering and healthy society. A strong civil society builds trust, shares values, greater participation in government, and stronger relationships among the citizenry. Nations with weak civil societies have weaker bonds tying their nations together. These countries are prone to revolutions, sectarian or religious conflict, and fragmentation.

Many of the nations in the Middle East and North Africa have far weaker civil societies than that of the west. Civil societies in the Middle East and North Africa are weak because the region’s leaders have not facilitated its growth. Since decolonization, most of the nations in MENA have been run by autocratic strongmen, who have crushed dissent in order to maintain their own power. The silencing of opposition leaders and reformers have made the creation of civil society difficult if not impossible. The resignation of longtime Egyptian strongman, Hosni Mubarak in 2011 marked the end of a string of autocratic leaders that had ruled Egypt since the gaining of independence. In the 2013 elections the only organized forces were pro government or the Muslim Brother. This was because there was no organization of civil society to counter these forces. Feeling as though there was no other choice, the Muslim Brother swept the elections, making Mohamed Morsi the fifth president of Egypt. Only an organized civil society can counter the existing powers that assert dominance over MENA and form a new world.

In regards to the United States, we must take a hands off approach. In 2003, the US attempted to create democracy in the Middle East by invading Iraq and deposing strongman Saddam Hussain. Instead of organizing a prosperous civil society after the fall of Saddam, the Iraqi people organized into insurgent groups, creating a toxic mess that still hasn’t been solved.  

Civil society is a flexible term that has no universally accepted definition. But while that is the case, there are a few precepts that most agree are an essential part to the definition of civil society; for example, it is a commonly accepted notion that civil society is defined as non-governmental, non-profit groups that represent the interests and values of society as a whole. 

Looking at the MENA region, while generally, civil society actors can be extremely influential in the transformation towards democracy for a state, in the MENA region, there seems to be a lack of public focus on the work of civil society. As noted in our readings, this is most likely because of the repressive regimes that currently exist in the region, and there also seems to be a lack of political participation from common citizens. In the media today, we see a lot of interstate communication and support, but civil society in the MENA region does not seem to have a large presence. That, of course, does not mean that it is not there though. Many of the uprisings in the Middle East, whether successful or not, were supported and organized by civil society groups in the region. Even today, civil society actors in the region are key instruments in promoting the ideals and goals of society as a whole. We also see the presence of civil society on a more global level in the region. For example, there are a number of civil society actors in the United States that work closely with actors in the MENA region.

Civil society can play a crucial role in broadening the space for political participation. Civil society allows common citizens who are unassociated with the government to freely congregate and express their own beliefs in a (usually) civil manner. We have seen this in the Middle East in places like Tunisia and Egypt during their uprisings, as the voices of civil society seemed to have a larger presence and a more central message and goal. If civil society is able to congregate with a common, central goal, the presence can produce real change and encourage political participation from individuals within society. 

MENA and Civil Society

Civil society is a term that has been defined in many diverse ways throughout centuries, with some relating it to how individuals within a society react to each other while others relate it more to how the individuals in a society react towards a government. Ancient philosophers deemed the term as a way in which society has become "civilized", with individuals working together to live in relative harmony. Later on in the 18th and 19th-centuries, philosophers began to think of civil society in more political terms, associating it with how collective groups of individuals take action to combat depotism (cruel and oppressive power). In today's context, I think it's safe to say that civil society is an important tool within domestic and international policy that allows the citizens of nations to participate and strive for change in their respective societies. Civil society is very diverse within the goals that each individual group is trying to achieve, but some characteristics remain a fixture in its modern definition, such as the the voluntary nature of it (individuals are consenting to take part in civil society causes) and the transformative nature of it (the goal of the collective action is to make change- whether it be positive or negative).

The status of civil society in the MENA region is a very complicated thing because as noted in "Social Movements, Mobilization, and Contestation in the Middle East and North Africa", Arab political regimes are marked strongly by repression. Many put forth that MENA civil society is weak because of this, along with the fact that it has been extremely difficult for any type of successful democracy to penetrate the region. However, as the book also states, even limited openings and action within civil society can create visible change. A very interesting argument is made by Charles Tilly, as he asserts that people mobilize more easily and quickly when a threat is perceived than when an opportunity is perceived. This may be supported by simple psychology in that when a threat is noticed, it is human nature to come to the defense of yourself and your rights. All over the world we see [perceived] threats being carried out by governments and people rising to make their voice heard in opposition to this danger. The book uses the example of Egyptian civil society demonstrating this back in 2005 when two judges were punished for denouncing fraudulent actions by the government. There are many examples like this one where citizens in MENA countries gather to stand up for specific causes that can have very dangerous consequences. Do their efforts always work? No, but the strength and rate at which MENA civil society is growing should not be underestimated.

It is also interesting to note clear distinctions between MENA civil society and others around the world. The MENA region has an interesting challenge in that there are more "modern" civil society groups that are more human rights-focused and more "traditional" human rights groups that are more Islamic in nature. I thought it was interesting that a challenge is that the human rights civil society groups tend to be more elitist, while the Islamic groups have the potential to appeal to the masses. When discussing MENA civil society, we also must included the inclusion of foreign influence and factors that play a role in radicalization vs. deterrence. In the book we are asked this: how does U.S. influence (and Western influence in general) affect the governments of Egypt and Morocco and therefore the civil societies of Egypt and Morocco? What factors/actions of the government determine whether or not people are deterred from civil society action or more radical about civil society action? Does the answer to the latter question revert back to Tilley's argument that perceived threats drive people to more radical action?

As discussed in the readings, modern times have shown that civil society has become more than just the citizenry casting a vote. It has come to be made up of individuals and organizations that are determined to give a voice to historically marginalized groups so that they may have a larger role in the [political] process of that society. In the case of MENA, the marginalized groups have been the people in regards to their say in the government's actions and how they are treated as citizens. Robert Putnam says that civil society and the actions associated with it affect the health of democracy. If MENA civil society continues to grow in a progressive way, maybe that is a key tool to their democratization.

Civil Society in MENA

The term civil society is another term not easily defined. Civil society is a concept that is diverse, always changing, and controversial. In the 1750’s a major shift occurred on the idea of what civil society was and could be.  Writers like Adam Ferguson and Thomas Paine developed the idea of civil society saying it differed from the state. Civil society was seen not only as a organization directed toward the state but also having the ability to counter state powers. Over the past hundreds of years scholars, philosophers, writers, and politicians have added to the conversation of civil society and its benefits and drawbacks. By looking at everyone’s ideas on civil society we can form a commonality of all their interpretations.

Civil society is seen as its own sector. It consists of mainly volunteers that maintain different objectives, interests, and ideologies. These civil societies usually compete with each other. Lastly, they are viewed as freely organized and interact with public sphere.

The status of MENA civil society is not a good status. Although civil society has played large roles in democratic transitions all over the world like Latin America and Eastern Europe, it hasn’t helped MENA nearly at all. Many of NGO’s in MENA have been weakened and tamed. The civil societies that exist usually have little impact and aren’t seen as a resource.

Civil society can play a big role in fostering political participation in many countries around the world. We have seen it work but unfortunately not in MENA. Although Morocco and Egypt had help from civil societies, by no means did the play a huge role in their democratization. He states, “In Morocco and Egypt, civil society has become a cause for some, a field to increase the value of diplomas for others, or a practical notion and landmark for international donors, journalists, diplomats, and academics. In none of these countries should “real civil societies” be understood as the first step towards democracy (Camau 2002)".