Sunday, March 5, 2017
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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
According to Tilly and Tarrow, a social movement consists of "a sustained campaign of claim making, using repeated performances that advertise the claim, based on organizations, networks, traditions, and solidarities that sustain these activities" (206). However, in the case of the Egyptian Workers' Movement, Joel Beinin and Marie Duboc believe this definition should be altered to encompass the "combination of an authoritarian state and . . . people who do not conceive of themselves as or aspire to be fully autonomous individuals detached from dense networks of families and friends" (206). This particular movement was not focused under one organizer or party, rather the collective action of different localized movements. As noted, "these grievances were a response to the ongoing restructuring of the political economy affecting workers throughout Egypt" (207). For example, President Anwar al-Sadat's 1974 economic policy allowing for the privatization of public sectors disenfranchised thousands of Egyptian workers as "managers of public sector firms slated for privatization typically made them more attractive to buyers by reducing the workforce before the sale" (211). 2004 saw a second round of privatization under Prime Minister Ahmad Nazif, totaling $5.34 billion (211). Collective action in response to privatization erupted in worker strikes at the Misir Spinning and Weaving Company after governmental promises regarding a salary increase were not met. The workers organized a 4-day strike which ended with an awarded bonus and "assurances that the company would not be privatized" (218). This strike sparked strikes across the country and the government conceded in nearly all cases.
ReplyDeleteThe prevalence of civil society within a nation is crucial to successful social movements. For example, before the Arab Spring, “Tunisia was held up as a positive example of ‘modernisation’ in the MENA region and its civil society was considered far more vibrant than in neighbouring states” (Härdig 36). While anti-colonial movements of the 1950s began to shift public opinion of the status quo in colonial society, postcolonial governmental relations within Tunisia began to turn Tunisia into an authoritarian society even after its independence. However, “because Tunisia had a historical precedence for state organisation and an active civil society role before independence, the state was never fully in control of the civil society space – trade unions, while operating in a corporate model as in Egypt, were much more autonomous from the state” (Härdig 37). Without the establishment of a cohesive civil society, MENA nations are unable to attain democratic participation.
When you say the "collective action of different localized movements", it makes me wonder how could a group that is made up of many people possibly wanting different things be successful? Workers come from very different groups and perspectives, so could this be a detriment to their movement or helpful? And if just workers are striking, is it considered a social movement, if it is benefitting only the workers in one company? What would the difference be between people who are coming together for economic purposes in the workforce or people who are united under nationality for the purpose of stopping oppression? Or is there some overlap between these groups? It seems that historically, social movements have been successful because they have a leader or party to stand behind. The organization of the group is important for a common goal to turn into a movement that knows what the next step is. And we can see this in Tunisia, like you mentioned, that the modernization and organization of the civil society pave the road for social movements that have to the potential to lead to democracy. So would you see the Egyptian Worker's Movement as more of a step to democracy, or some kind of larger change, or do you see the movement as an individual movement towards just worker's rights?
DeleteFor some individuals, social movements to be successful it needs to consist “sustained campaign of claim making, using repeated performances that advertise the claim, based on activities” (Tilly & Tarrow 216). On the other hands of things, author Joel Benin and Marie dub believe otherwise. The idea of social movements and the way it will succeed in the eyes of Benin must include the aspect of the "combination of an authoritarian state and . . . people who do not conceive of themselves as or aspire to be fully autonomous individuals detached from dense networks of families and friends" In any case the in order for a nation to be successful a widespread understanding and agreement within the society. In Tunisia for example it states that it “was held up as a positive example of modernisation in the MENA region and its civil society was considered far more vibrant than in neighboring states (Hardig 36). Tunisia became what it is today when it came to social movement right after his independence, “Tunisia has historical precedence for state organisation and as active civil society role before independence, the state was never fully in control of the civil society space — trade unions, while operating in corporate model as in Egypt, were much more autonomous from the state” (Hardig 37). If there is not any sort of established unified society, they will most likely be unable to successfully transition into a democracy.
ReplyDeleteI like how you examined both arguments regarding what makes a social movement successful. On the one hand, successful social movements need to be active and organized, but on the other, protesters must surrender autonomy in order to be successful. I also like that you used Tunisia as an example that supported the argument that a widespread understanding is necessary in order for a movement to be effective. Because of your inclusion of this example, it is easier to understand the real-world criteria of a successful social movement. I am interested in which argument you support: Tilly and Tarrow's or Beinin and Duboc's?
DeleteI think that many of the differences in social movements in MENA can be traced back to the impact of imperialism. The foundations of the state was cracked by the arbitary boarders that were drawn my colonial powers. These cracks have allowed for dictors to form a false sense of unity in a country, which is attractive to those who want future stability. When people rise up, they are often confronted with opposition from other ethnic/religious groups in the country. As we have learned, social movements must encompass almost all people in the country to be successful. Traces of colonialism can also be seen in the purpose their beurcracies serve in societies. Because so many people rely on the government for jobs, housing and other neccessities, they are often wary to overthrowing it, in fear that they will not be able to survive without it.
ReplyDeleteResponding mainly to your last sentence, the existence of rent systems within most MENA states also facilitates the protection of authoritarian regimes in the region. If the rentier state is thought of as a form of neocolonialism, in which a state pays a western power in natural or strategic-location resources in return for protection, etc., past colonial actions have allowed for the re-inscription of a new colonial state that keeps a populace dependent on its authoritarian regime, and thus prevents larger democratization.
DeleteI think the deciding factor of whether or not a social movement has the potential to be a successful avenue to democracy is really how strong the state is in reality. The strength of a state can oftenttimes be traced back to imperial times.As we’ve repeatedly talked about, many authoritarian MENA states appear strong and legitimate from outside, but in reality are weak and have no real loyalty from their citizens. As in the case of the Saudi Arabia, despite having a huge lack of nationalism amongst its citizens, the monarchy retains its power because of its huge wealth from its oil reserves. Because of Saudi Arabia’s tremendous wealth, the government basically controls all aspects of life. If someone were to try and start a revolution against the government, they would immediately be either jailed or deported because the government has absolute power thanks to its rentier economy. Even if somebody attempted a non-revolutionary movement in Saudi Arabia but still challenged the monarchy’s rule in someway, they would still probably be either jailed or exiled. However, in weaker rentier states or states that are highly corrupt and fail to pay off its citizens, there is much more room for revolutionary movements. As in Egypt, many citizens were dissatisfied and although Mubarak attempted to assert his power, he ultimately lost his legitimacy when he lost the support of the military. Because he was unable to keep the military under his control through bribery and corruption, he ultimately lost power. As previously mentioned, a lot of MENA states lack a sense of loyalty from their citizens. Looking past the idea of the rentier state, the lack of loyalty and a sense of nationalism also stems from a lack of national identity of the citizens. As many citizens have united under non-revolutionary Islamic movements, this can lead the way towards revolutionary movements. Many people in the MENA region have united under Islam not because of a sudden religious resurgence but because that is one of the things they lost under colonial rule and even more so under the secular regimes that took over after the colonial powers fell. The colonial powers created arbitrary boundaries that separated citizens from their tribes and clans and left people with a lack of national identity. This lack of nationalism still persists in many regions today. However, a revolutionary movement cannot be successful unless its participants can unite together, which is why many turn to Islamism. If they cannot unite through Islam or any other way their is no way the people can create a cohesive revolutionary movement that can lead to an avenue of democratization.
ReplyDelete