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.
I definitely agree with your emphasis on the need for a strong civil society in order to plan and execute a successful social movement. Ibrahim is right that social movements require the participation of all members of society, and without so will likely be unsuccessful. You are also right in mentioning the main difference between Tunisia and Egypt and their contrasting results can be attributed to the strength of their civil society. Tunisia has made relative progress because it effectively gathered large numbers of people around a common goal.
ReplyDeleteI really liked how you pointed out " social movements fail to work when there is not already a strong presence of civil society and when the government oppresses civil society actors. " I think this is very important point that a lot of people just overlook.
ReplyDeleteI think Tunisia is a great example of how important civil society is in creating a lasting change in the country. Having established institutions are a good way to organize and can continue even after the revolution. Libya is a good example of what can happen if there is no civil society to center mobilization around, and the chaos the occurs when a country has to build from the ground up post revolution.
ReplyDeleteAwesome response! I agree with you that in order for any civil society to work there need to be a strong presence of civil society that can and is willing to fight against the governments obvious need to oppress.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that "revolutionary movements, unlike non-revolutionary movements, can completely change the system in which they are operating" as in the case of Libya and Egypt, an effective system of governance was not planned or executed after their respective revolutions. Currently, through an unintended effect of American support from behind, Libyan citizens are armed and becoming radicalized without a cohesive system of governance. Meanwhile, Egypt is under military rule without a foreseeable change in the near future. In order for revolutionary movements to be truly effective, plans of a new government must be devised before overthrowing the current political system and its leaders.
ReplyDelete