Sunday, April 17, 2016
Understanding the Arab Revolts
A key factor that influences the success/failure of a movement, especially in the context of the post-Iraq war MENA region, is foreign involvement and backing. In Tunisia and Egypt we saw the West yield to popular uprisings and call on the authoritarian dictators to step down. However, this was only significant because both countries relied on foreign backing to prop up their regimes; as we saw in Egypt when the US threatened to stop backing the military, the military abandoned Mubarak. However, on the other end of things, when foreign backing is reinforced rather than withdrawn, the movement has a much more difficult time in succeeding. For example, in Bahrain when the West stayed silent and the GCC backed up the Monarchy the movement was crushed, showing the influence that foreign powers yield in determing the success of such movements.
Another key factor that determines the long-term success of a revolutionary movement is the ability of the movement to transcend all levels of society on ethnic, religious, and socio-economic strata. The population may come together in the beginning united against a dictator, but if the dictator takes too long to topple, or is toppled without a legitimate successor, the movement will start to fracture. This was seen in Syria, when the oppostuion fragmented after Assad refused to go and in Libya when no legitimate government succeeded Gadaffi.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really like how you mentioned the role that foreign influence has over the success or failure of a movement, or even the success or failure of a regime. This is especially relevant in Libya, which you briefly touched on, where the United Nations and NATO played an absolutely pivotal role in the fall of Gadaffi. Libya is a unique case in this way as the United Nations backed the NTC (National Transitional Council) and made moves such as putting a freeze on all of his funds so that him and his cronies had limited mobility within Libya. It's interesting to note the strong and defined role that foreign intervention plays in most MENA countries, likely due to the rentier economy that most MENA states have developed.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your assessment of of NATO's intervention in Libya. Unfortunately the west is better at taking apart governments than putting new ones together.
DeleteI would almost argue that your second point is more crucial than foreign influence. The ability of a civil society to come together and have a plan for the future of the government is almost completely absent in these movements. We do not see civil society placing legitimate leaders in power after toppling repressive dictators. In terms of what we discussed in our last class about our hope for the future of the MENA region, I think this kinda of organization is crucial for social movements to succeed in the long run. Since the world is only becoming more globalized, I believe that through social media and other internet sources, groups within civil society will learn more effective ways to transcend and ultimately enact more effective government structures than those currently in place.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. The problem isn't that civil society puts in the wrong leaders, but that civil society is non existant in too many MENA nations.
DeleteI agree with Rayna and you Nezar the role of foreign influence is vital to the continuation of a movement. A lot of times the foreign influence is extremely power like you mentioned in the Egypt vs US example. Being backed by the United States is extremely useful and powerful position so it definitely plays a role in the success or failure of a movement.
ReplyDeleteI think that you bring up an important point about the role that foreign influence plays in the supporting or disintegrating uprisings and social movements. I think that this also demonstrates the instability of rentier states and the external rent system MENA. While these states do have impressive coercive apparatuses to suppress their people, they have very little control over the foreign states which are necessary for supplying the external rent. I feel like this fact will be what causes the eventual downfall of rentier states which will allow for more political participation from the people and possibly even some form of democratization.
ReplyDeleteThere is an article in the April edition of The Atlantic which chronicles President Obama's choice not to intervene in Syria even after Bashar al-Assad crossed the "red line" of chemical weapons use. Since Obama called for Assad to step down, but has shown reluctance to commit any sort of serious military intervention to actually do the dirty work. I am wondering how this example fits in your theoretical framework; you contend that social movements gain legitimacy when they are backed by the words of Western governments. Does a social movement gain more legitimacy if it is backed with guns in addition to words? How about boots? Would you characterize the present Syrian opposition as a legitimate social movement, and if not, would the United States be able to legitimize it by providing more military support?
ReplyDelete