Re: Social Movements and Democratization

There are two major parts to conducting a strong social movement.  The first is to have a common purpose or goal amongst participants.  That is to say, as we briefly mentioned in class a few weeks ago, an example of a failed attempt at a social movement was the Occupy Movement.  The major criticism we made of the movement was that the protesters had no common goal.  They essentially were each fighting for something different.  The same goes for the Women's March a couple months ago.  Although it was well-intended, what ended happening was that men and women from an array of backgrounds and perspectives were all marching together and shouting or holding up posters which stood for varying, and in some casing contrasting ideas.  

This important step also applies to social movements in MENA.  Citizens of many countries poured into the streets and began protesting for things like democracy, governmental reform, economic reform, etc., which are all clear and evident goals, which is why many were successful in overthrowing their leaders.  The issue in many countries, however, was that once these leaders were overthrown, the next step was not evident.  That is when civil society comes into play.  It is important that citizens have a clear image of what to set out for, otherwise they will be unsuccessful.  The main challenge is that many of these societies do not have a strong civil society to begin with, and people fear the idea of going into the streets and speaking their minds because their freedom of speech and assembly is not protected.  It is therefore very difficult to convince large numbers of people to make such large sacrifices and risk their lives in the name of progress and democracy. 

Re: The Rise (and Fall?) of Political Islamism

Islamists have yielded success in Egypt in recent years because the country has undergone an extensive social revolution.  Although Egypt has never really been a full-fledged liberal democracy, it has had a history of a relatively progressive society, beginning most notably with Gamal Abdel Nasser.  He was a strong advocate of secularism, modernization and uniting Egyptians around Arab values rather than Muslim values.  Although perhaps not as direct and obvious with his vision for Egypt, Mubarak, who came to power many years later as a critic of strict Islamic ideals.  

When he was deposed, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood went from being a prohibited but well-organized group relatively on sidelines to what is essentially now a political party on the forefront of Egyptian politics. This group has effectively instigated a “social revolution” among Egyptian people by convincing them of the need to revert back to a time of strong Muslim values.  Their platform, although very diverse and constantly changing over time, maintains the need for a strong and evident role of Islam in Egyptian society and government.   It is highly disputed whether their history of violent acts should deem them a terrorist organization or whether their work bringing schools and hospitals (similar to Hezbollah) renders them a social movement which has swept over many countries in the Middle East.  I would argue the latter is what many Egyptians believe, which is why they effectively support them by turning out to vote. 

Re: Social Movements and Democratization

             It seems from the readings we have had that social movements tend to work in countries where there is an opening for civil society to have an influence socially, economically, and politically. Social movements work when they encourage participation and allow for sustained participation by all citizens (Ibrahim 29). However, social movements fail to work when there is not already a strong presence of civil society and when the government oppresses civil society actors. In addition, social movements lack influence when there is no unity and is also dependent on the influence of foreign actors. Another failure of social movements is the use of identity politics and the ideas Islamism and secularism cannot exist.

              In Tunisia, social movements worked through a joint effort by the government and citizens to rewrite the constitution. Civil society took control of the political vacuum and insisted on change the population wanted. There were also numerous organizations unaffiliated with the government which increased the influence of civil society and gave the social movement credibility. Specifically, in Tunisia democracy was achieved and has continued to succeed, this can be attributed to the unity of the population to obtain a similar goal. Likewise, there was little state control of civil society which allowed civil society to thrive. Unlike Tunisia, after achieving the primary goal Egyptians were unable to achieve democracy through social movements because the interim government oppressed parts of civil society. An obstacle civil society still needs to overcome in Egypt is the authoritarian government. This includes the governments control over media to influence discourse, the oppressive policies in place under the guise of security, and using civil society to give the government their legitimacy (Hardig 40).

              Revolutionary movements are different than non-revolutionary movements in the sense that revolutionary movements are automatically working against the government using any means possible. Non-revolutionary movements are not inherently against the government, instead they may work with or against the antagonist to achieve their goal. In Libya for example the violence of the civil war overshadowed the efforts made by civil society to be part of the change. In this way, a revolutionary movement can ignore the civil society actors that are not protected by a legal system, or where rule of law doesn’t function (Hardig 39). Non-revolutionary movements do have to respect the accepted legal system and civil society.  Revolutionary movements, unlike non-revolutionary movements, can completely change the system in which they are operating. 

Social Movements and Democratization

You have thus far in this class learned about the potential of social movements as an avenue of democratic representation and about the state in the MENA region. I want you to try to make a link between these two issues - how might social movements work/not work in the different types of states you find across the region? In other words, what opportunities and/or challenges do you see to social movements  functioning as an avenue of democratic participation in the region? And how do you think these opportunities/challenges differ between revolutionary and non-revolutionary movements?

The Rise (and Fall?) of Political Islamism

The past week, your readings focused on Islamist movements in the region. In our current 'post-Arab Revolts' environment, why do you think Islamists in particular have yielded such successes at the ballot box, in both Tunisia and Egypt?