Democracy in the MENA region has a complicated and detailed history that varies heavily on a case-by-case basis, and so when speaking in the context of social movements, it is important to note that it is incredibly challenging to make broad, all-encompassing statements. That being said, in states where there is subdued citizenry participation due to the regime style government authority, any lens that helps us to identify civil society actors that are calling out for increased political involvement, and hence democracy, is helpful. This is where social movement theory comes into play. Social movement theory attempts to determine how, why, and when, people act collectively to achieve their goals. Applying social movement theory to civil society, something that often isn’t done due to orientalist discourse, sets us up to examine civil society as a place of strategic, inherently political action. In this case, it is also important to note that social movements will often try to change social and cultural attitudes not just legislation, even though usually the former tends to lead to the latter.
In the MENA region, as I touched on before, I would classify civil society as not only developing, but also something that has been around that isn’t often discussed. While it may not have had the success that we see in other parts of the world, this is largely not due to the citizens or their intentions and more on the ability of their government to shut down their movement. The same repressive agencies that we see prompt militants to radicalize also lead activists to quit their work. While that is a daunting thought it cannot be taken at face value and one must again understand the ingrained differences within states within the MENA region and therefore the different forms that their civil society will take, and in turn how democracy may develop.
I completely agree with you that each MENA nation needs to be analyzed separately. To continue with that thought, I also think that civil society is unique to a country as well. For example, in Egypt, worker organizations are a very prevalent form. However, in Syria, these players have less of a role and militant forms of civil society have more tractions as the civil war continues.
ReplyDeleteI like what you said about the average failure of a social movement and that isn't due to the citizens or their intentions but instead more the ability of the regime to shut down the movement as a whole. This is a good point because its one thing to get thousands of people in the square protesting (like we saw in Egypt) but if a government can successfully shut that down then the movement really has no momentum.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and Hadley on how it is not always necessarily the fault of the actual movement that led to failure in social change, but rather forceful government measures that involve threats and, in some cases, death. I like how you say that the failure of making significant change can be disheartening, and this is what drives some to either radicalize or give up democratic activism. I think there is hope in the region for democracies, I just don't know how it will get there and when (I think most people have this problem). I also agree with Albert in that I think each individual civil society within MENA countries should be considered separately, and not be analyzed as a giant monolith of a "civil society."
ReplyDelete