Social movements
work within the MENA region because they mobilize the mass population to
participate. Because of authoritarian rule or rentier economic systems,
political participation is generally low throughout the MENA region. Dissent is
not heard, and if it is voiced, it is quickly silenced by national security
forces. Social movements have had success in combating this suppression. For
example, within Syria the revolution was able to gain legitimacy and media
attention voicing popular concerns with the administration. And in Tunisia, the
Gafsa protests led to popular chants and mobilization. In both cases, the
movements were strengthened when the government attempted to use force and
brutality to stop them. People were angered and the violence and began to
support the movements.
In respect to
opportunities, the first necessary requirement for a social movement is
support. In authoritarian regimes and rentier states, the majority of the
population is either repressed or uninvolved with governance. This leads to
dissent because people's concerns are not being heard or met by the government
in power. This leads to a ripe opportunity for a movement to take hold. Also,
timing and political action by the state internationally can be an opportunity.
For example, when Bashar al-Assad withdrew troops from Lebanon. Or when Israel
invaded Palestine and the Golan region. These actions can lead to the spread of
dissent through the home country, giving the opportunity for protests and other
forms of social movements.
One primary
challenge of a social movement calling
for democratic participation is the state in power. Authorization regimes have
shown that they are willing to use violent force to suppress movements. They
jail and kill protesters. This can escalate a social movement into a civil war,
like what happened in Syria.
For revolutionary
movements, opportunity of gaining a wide following quickly is more prevalent.
However, they are also more likely to be met with military force. They can
escalate so quickly that violence can replace and form of non-violent ideology
like boycotts and protests. For non-revolutionary movements, gaining support
can be a real challenge. Because they move slower, a sense of urgency can be
lacking. However, in a slower, systematic approach, there is less of a chance
of a complete toppling of a government which leads to a more stable transition.
Also, violence by the state is less of a risk.
I think the notion of state response strengthening rather than weakening a movement is of interest. I think the was definitely the case in some sense, but inevitably I believe that in most cases - even Syria, the regime's response weakens the movement. Although amongst the population the challenge to the regime may bear legitimacy, I think that the repressive methods employed eventually weaken the movement. In short, if the regime is able to respond harshly and effectively enough, then the movement can be eliminated as a threat to the regime's hold on power.
ReplyDeleteI think the notion of state response strengthening rather than weakening a movement is of interest. I think the was definitely the case in some sense, but inevitably I believe that in most cases - even Syria, the regime's response weakens the movement. Although amongst the population the challenge to the regime may bear legitimacy, I think that the repressive methods employed eventually weaken the movement. In short, if the regime is able to respond harshly and effectively enough, then the movement can be eliminated as a threat to the regime's hold on power.
ReplyDeleteBuilding off of the point that Nezar brought up, I agree that a state's responses to suppress social movements usually weaken the social movement, but I think that they can strengthen the movement under certain conditions. Sometimes the suppression of the social movement can increase international pressure on the regime, which strengthens the movement. For this to happen, however, both the movement's actions and the state's suppression of the movement must be carried out publicly and there must be some way to broadcast both, which requires either relatively widespread internet access or a strong international media presence in the country. Additionally, the suppression of the movement must be weak, for when there are half-hearted attempts to quell a movement, such as scattered arrests and the occasional violence, more people are inclined to support the movement. In contrast, when the response is swift and involves mass killing by a strong coercive apparatus, the movement dissolves and no amount of international support can save it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of you to an extent. While I do agree with the notion that a regime's attempt at the suppression of a movement will almost always weaken it in some way in the short run, I thin that in the long run many times you see movements and people mobilized by a regime's reaction. This is for a number of reasons. First, the reaction by a regime shows the people that what they are doing is working because the regime feels threatened enough to fight back. This is a mobilizing notion. Secondly, if acts of violence by a regime are caught on video and published on news sources such as Al Jazeera, they can gain international attention and even nation attention by forcing people to open their eyes to the violence committed by their own governments and then in turn mobilize them to take action.
ReplyDelete