Turning Movements into Political Action

Hahrie Han's article from the Atlantic was quite thorough and precise in analyzing necessary prerequisites for the creation of successful social movements whilst it is possible to draw several links to our class discussions. I think the most important aspect is the coherence of demands when it comes to demonstrating. This was in my opinion the greatest weakness of the Women's March, where although there was great participation and a very emotional vibe throughout the march, there was also a serious lack of purpose. The speeches were very general and did not address particular elites which could in turn be influential. Relating this further to the US political scene, I believe that the two party system, seriously diminishes the possibility for the formation of successful social movements mostly because particular demands and initiatives to change specific policies are defused into a more general policy that includes opinions from a very broad spectrum. For example, demands expressed by Bernie Sanders and by many others throughout the years are being difused into a more general neoliberal policy within the Democratic Party. This is not two say that social movements cannot succeed without the support of political entities, however, some political elites have to take the burden in the case of successful political movements, and essentially execute the demands. In the case of the Democratic Party, it doesn't seem that there is anyone who at the moment is ready to adopt more divergent approaches and essentially facilitate more particular changes.

Social Media in 2011

Undoubtedly, the role of Social Media in the 2011 revolts was important. However, there is a particular limit to their effectiveness that is directly related to the capacity of the coercive apparatus in each country. The extent to which the press and the freedom of speech are oppressed are two key aspect in the formation of social movements and essentially revolts. In the case of Egypt, this was part of a process that had began from 2005 when the government made concessions and allowed the opening of privately owned newspapers. It was these newspapers that excised some form of criticism against the government from the very first time while exposing a variety of scandals and schemes. Besides this the lessening of measures when it came to public gatherings should also be taken into considerations. The importance of this is highlighted more in the present, where it is much harder to publicly demonstrate in the country. Most importantly, we should also have in mind the discontent across many different groups of people in Egypt, as shown in the documentary we watched in class. Young people felt hopeless and without a future, labour unionists felt exploited whilst the middle class disliked the corruption. It wasn't the social media that created the incentive for the creation of a social movement but it was the discontent of the people. This can be further exemplified through the example of Turkey. Freedom of speech has been harshly pressed in Turkey for decades. During the Gezi Park revolts the social media played a crucial role into mobilizing people, however, the government forces were proven to be way more powerful and eventually suppressed the demonstrations. At the moment social media are either blocked or regulated in Turkey, however there are still ongoing demonstrations as people find other means to communicate. In other words, social media are very important into facilitating social movements and mobilization because they make communication more interactive whilst they maximize access to information. However, even without social media, people could still mobilize because they feel discontent and even with social media, social movements can be crushed because of the robustness of the states' coercive apparatuses.

Israel Palestine Conflict

Overall, the coverage of the Israel Palestine Conflict has been quite problematic over the years. As on any other conflict and as it happens with most coverage of news, we tend to emphasizes on what makes us different rather than focusing on what unites us. The case of Palestinians in Gaza is a very complicated one, and conventional non violence measures would be hard to work, mostly because of their isolation and the lack of coverage. One of the most important points highlighted in Gene Sharp's reading was the power of the people as consumers and how embargo's could influence governments as it happened in the case of South Africa. In the context of Gaza this would be very hard to implement because Palestinians in the region are even more isolated and in many cases are deprived of many basic goods. Thus their position is very disadvantaged. However, many things could be done, if there was support from both Israelis and Israeli Palestinians. If all of them unite under the umbrella of civil society, the force would be significantly more powerful and effective. Most importantly, coverage of such events as well as coverage of aspects of the hardships are essential not only for the rest of the world to get informed but also for the Palestinians themselves to feel that people out there share and understand what they are going through. It could be argued that it is the very sense of helplessness that drives people towards violence and triggers equally violent responses. Besides this, it is essential to invest on conflict-resolution programs for the youth of both Israeli and Palestinian communities. Enhancing communication between the two would not only highlight the common interests they share with each other but it could also provide a framework for the potential formation of social movements which will seek change. 

Social Movements in MENA

In my opinion, at the moment the conditions are rather unfavorable for a social movement to develop in the MENA region. As said by others and as mentioned in Eva Belin's reading in regards to the power of the coercive apparatus, authoritarian regimes in the MENA region still have the capacity to maintain a coercive apparatus which can press any kind of opposition. Belin argues that as long s this coercive apparatus enjoys the support of foreign powers, especially the waste it will be able to sustain itself. My prediction is that in a period of political turmoil the West will seek to maintain stability in the region to secure its own interests. Authoritarian regimes claim that they are the only ones who can maintain this stability and for many policy makers in the West this seems to be the case. Therefore the West will choose stability, over democracy, and will maintain a coercive apparatus which will be able to suppress any kind of movements. 

Besides this, it could be argued that the formation of a social movement is even more unlikely in the Gulf region, mostly due to the system of the rentier state. Citizens enjoy a vast amount of benefits from the state and it is more likely that they would like to maintain a status quo like that rather than overthrowing it. Discontent is a necessary prerequisite for the desire of a social movement, or at least change. On the surface this doesn't seem to be the case in the Gulf region, however it is likely the it would be so in the future when oil reserves will decrease dramatically. In fact civil society in the Gulf is mostly working in favor of the status quo rather than against it. This is the case in other countries as well such as Turkey. Thus, this makes the possibility of a social movement even more unlikely.

Social movements are only as strong as the people within them. A successful social movement can not operate with low representation, even if every tactic is executed perfectly. If people don't show up, nothing will ever change. The two greatest barriers to achieving high levels of representation are fear of reprisals from the state and general apathy. To combat these, a social movement must be both inspiring and pragmatic. Inspiring in the sense that it must make people believe that showing up will actually make a difference and pragmatic in that it must capture that momentum into making real, tangible steps forward.

RE: Social Movements and Democratization

Social movements have been extremely important to the MENA region in terms of paving the way to democratic representation. There are also many different types of states within the MENA region, and of course each social movement is going to look very different in each state. I think that in order for a social movement to work, the state itself must allow for large amounts of people to organize easily. For example, a state that heavily censors social media, it may be harder for people to organize a large social movement. In turn, social movements may be small and perhaps ineffective. It is important to have a vast amount of representation in order for a social movement to be effective, and those people must be able to organize themselves in a way that sends a clear message to the government to go forward with legitimate social change. A possible challenge to the function of social movements is how exactly to unite these people. For example, the MENA region in general is lacking nationalism, so it is hard to unite the citizens just under the belief that they are all from nation. Instead, some social movements have united based off Islam, which is strong enough in the region to have a vast influence, bring people together, all while still having an impact on the government itself to move towards social change. This are the things that unite enough people to lead to a revolution.

Re: Non-violent Movements and the Israel-Palestine Conflict

I think that for many conflicts all over the world, violent action receives majority of attention in comparison to non-violent action. This could be just because of the nature of social media and news outlets wanting to garner attention by means of click-bait, promising shocking live footage, etc. While it is important that news outlets report on non-violent action, they realize that violent action attracts more viewers/listeners/readers. I also think that the kind of news reported is heavily dependant on the news station that is doing the reporting. Western news stations tend to only report Palestinian violence on Israel, but the news coming from Palestine will completely contrast in comparison, and will most likely focus on non-violent actions coming from Palestine. The overuse of clickbait and shocking headlines is creating a trend in media where only violent action seems worthy of reporting. Non-violent action is getting overshadowed by violent acts, thus going unnoticed.  As for what needs to happen for a peaceful future for Israel and Palestine, I think a focus on security might help. I do not really think Israel and Palestine will ever truly have a future together, but the future could possibly be peaceful is each country agrees to keep to themselves. Neither country trusts each other, and want to keep each other out of their land. Israel is very self aware of their security, but if surrounding Arab countries encourage Israel to compromise, but manage to maintain Israel’s security, there may be a possibility of a peaceful future between the two countries.

RE: Social Media

The role of social media played an important role during the Arab revolts of 2011, and is an important tool for just about any revolt in the twenty-first century. The use of Twitter and Facebook is an easy way to spread the message to a large audience all at once, and especially to a generation very involved in social media. Without social media, it is very plausible that the revolution would not have been as big as it was. Social media is an easy way to rally support and get large numbers to come to events such as protests. Social media, depending on the poster, can be a very honest and raw and show the public images and stories the news cannot. Especially in countries where the news is heavily censored, social media is an outlet to post whatever you want. Social media may not have been a necessary factor in order for the revolution to happen, but it certainly helped rally the support of the younger generation especially. The revolution most likely would have happened out of just desperation in Egypt, but without social media, organizing such protests would have been much more difficult and a lot smaller in numbers, potentially leading the revolts to fail.

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?

There are a few possible reasons why Islamist experience such success at the ballot box. Even amidst the changes toward secularization and modernization in the MENA region, Islamist movements still prove to be very popular in the region. This could be because the Islamist beliefs resonate with a large portion of the population in the region, mostly due to Islam being the dominate religion. Their ideas feel a lot more principle in comparison to “new,” democratic ideas, and voters may feel more comfortable voting for someone within the same religion. Another explanation for the success of Islamist movements is best shown by Egypt. In Egypt, the people experienced many failing regimes coming from the military. When an Islamist was up at the ballot box, the Egyptian public voted for them not just because of their religion, but because they were looking for a new change within their government. When politicians in Egypt began incorporating Shariah Law into their campaign, it was a fresh new look at the government the people had not seen in a long time, since before the 1952 revolution. Both Egypt and Tunisia both experienced unsuccessful military regimes for many years, so people look to Islam as a way to connect with their government, and as a way to for them to feel comfortable with the law deciding process.

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

I think that the political Islamists in Tunisia and Egypt had such great turnouts at the ballots are because Islam is one common connection most of the country has in common. Tunisia and Egypt are both majority Muslim countries. I also think that because most of the political Islamists are not in fact politicians or at least weren't, made the public feel better in their decision to make a religious Muslim be put in power.

Re: Social Movements and Democratization

Unfortunately, the Middle East has not had a rich history of Democracy and is only now reaching its wave of Democratization. I think the reason why democracy has not held in the Middle East is because it was mainly a western theory. Today the Social Movements have had little effect on actual steps to making the Middle East Democratic, due to the fact that these authorities have held onto power for such a long time and have so much power in the country that it would be almost impossible to make a new government without the country being destroyed from Civil War and having changed only after the death of thousands of people for reform. In many countries of the MENA region, ruling royal families are in power, such as in Morocco, Jordan, the Sheikhs that rule the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. These royal families have so much power in the country it would be extremely hard to take them out of power. I do not think that Democratization could hold in these MENA countries mainly due to the strict governments, anti- Western views and the fact that they are not European and Democracy does not always work.

RE:The Role of Social Media in the Arab Revolts

The use of social media was incredibly smart on the half of the young Arabs in Egypt, Tunisia, etc. who showed the world what they are protesting and what is happening to them. They knew a majority of our generation have Instagram, Twitter and Facebook, and they can share their stories, first hand accounts, photos and videos out to the world from the peoples view, not just the governments or the medias view, but from the actual people. Although the Egyptian government did find a way to silence the people by shutting off the 3G in the country and stopping the connection of news coming from the Egyptian youth out to the public. The role of Social Media played a crucial role in the mobilization of the youth in Egypt and Tunisia, but unfortunately it was not effective enough in Egypt because the protests of 2011 had little effect.

RE: Non-violent Movements and the Israel-Palestine Conflict

I think that a majority of the news coming out of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict is about the violence is because when lives are lost, the world pays more attention. Also due to the fact that it happens so often. In Israel on average there is a rocket attack once a month or during times of "peace" only once a month or a few times a month. Along with the rocket attacks, stone throwings, stabbing attacks and several other violent methods are used. I think that if the Palestinians decreased the number of violent methods used, and use methods such as sit ins and protests, it will make the Palestinian cause look more humane and less violent.

Re: The Rise (And Fall) of Political Islamists

I think political Islamists have obtained so many, specifically in Egypt, because they aren't tied to the political elites. In both Tunisia and Egypt we saw revolts against the elites and political Islamists were shown as an alternative to politicians. Religion played a role for some, but not all; I believe it was more the services provided by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that encouraged people to vote for them. In Egypt after Morsi however, the population lost trust of political Islamists because they turned out to be just like the politicians. This I think indicates that the Egyptian people want some radical change almost; by this I mean change that will bring the reform they are looking for and a government that does look out for its' people. After the 2011 revolts, I think Egypt was stuck between caving into demands made by the people and keeping some of the power for the political elite.

Re: First Post

Referencing the Bellin reading, resistance to democracy in the MENA region is because the region lacks the perquisites that would allow countries to achieve democracy (Bellin 24). Some causes of the resistance include a weak civil society, low literary, low per capita income, and distance from the democratic epicenter (Bellin 2005: 24). Bellin explains the lack of uprisings that took place in Egypt and Tunisia prior to 2011 due to the “repression of civil society” and the will of the state to smash any uprisings (Bellin 2005:30). The fear of military suppression towards protesters may have also played a role in discouraging “democratic forces” (Bellin 2005:). Bellin would argue that the events in Egypt and Tunisia during 2011 transpired because the state lacked the will to put out the “democratic forces”. Since the heads of state in both countries rely heavily on the military and security to keep their power, the lack of intent to use military force would have made a vacuum where democratic forces could take back the power. All this would lead to the potential for a democracy to arise in a country. However, Egypt, unlike Tunisia, was unable to continue towards democracy which can be explained through dependency on the state for the people’s livelihoods and continued institutionalization of the government. I think it is fair to say that civil society in the region has been ineffective in trying to bring democracy. However, I think state influence on civil society has furthered the ineffectiveness of civil society in the region. State controlled economies, military and security, and patrimonialism all affect the way civil society operates and the state of civil society. Saying that civil society itself is weak in the region may be debatable, but the ineffectiveness of civil society in the region due to the specific state’s influence isn’t quite as debatable.

Re: Social Media

I think the role of social media has been exaggerated, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the role it played. Social media during the 2011 revolts was critical is rallying the masses and spreading information at the beginning of the social movement. Without the platform social media gave the demonstrators, I don't think it would have been as successful because social media allowed them to organize. After the leaders were able to mobilize, I think social media didn't play such a large role in continuing the movement. Social media was able to bring, not only Egyptians who live in Egypt, but also allow Egyptians abroad to add to the discussion and movement. The range of social media not only helped demonstrators to rally international support, but also helped their credibility in the international media. Today social media wouldn't have the same effect, but in 2011 it helped the revolts in a big way.

Re: The Role of Social Media in Arab Revolts

While Twitter and Facebook were essential to the revolutions of 2011 in Egypt and Tunisia, but their impact is often exaggerated. Social Media helped immensely with resource mobilization. For example, according to The Guardian, in Egypt a twelve page guide for resisting the regime was distributed by email, and demonstrations were arranged through Twitter and Facebook. Also, if people are considered resources, according to The Guardian, social media gave a voice to even the most marginalized groups in society and helped them participate in the rebellion. The rebels were also able to counter hegemonic discourse through social media by posting pictures of people killed at rallies that would not have been spread otherwise. The circulation of these images helped people to discredit the regime.  

However, at one point the movement had to function without social media, when the regime cut off all internet and 3G in the country after the forces of social media became too strong. This act exemplifies the regime's strong willingness to repress the rebellion. However, during this time, rebels communicated through hand held signs that displayed the times of demonstrations. Eventually their movement was successful. While social media did contribute immensely to the credibility and efficiency of the movement, the movement itself was able to function without the various social media platforms.

Re: Social Movements and Democratization

Lisa Anderson talks about two types of states. Strong states, which can accommodate and respond to popular demands, and weak states, which attempt to ignore and suppress such demands. She characterizes strong states as ones that are stable enough to have democratic qualities, and weak ones as the opposite. She also notes that weak states have ambiguous territorial borders. A social movement would be more likely to work in Anderson's definition of a strong state because the state is not as oppressive and likely guarantees freedom of speech. However, in a weak states, a social movement would not be likely to succeed because it would be forcefully repressed by the military. Additionally, according to Anderson, the existence patronage in these types of states would prevent movements from making any significant gains because of the large gap between the elite class and the poor class that patronage enables.

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

In Egypt, Islam has yielded success in the ballot box because Egyptians wanted a change from the current military regime. Since, after the fall of Mubarak, the government has not met the people's demands, the people are turning to groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, who have fought for representation in the government for decades and are very close to the culture of many Egyptians. In Tunisia, where the institution of democracy has been relatively successful since the fall of Ben Ali, the Islamist party there, Ennahda, is becoming more and more secular. Its commitment to democracy has helped it to maintain popularity among the people (Aljazeera).

Re: First Question

According to Bellin, MENA has been so resistant to democratic reform not because it lacks the elements traditionally thought to bring democracy, such as civil society and high literacy rates, but because the oppressive governments of the region remain willing to oppress rebellions. She points out that in regions where the oppressive governments lost power, such as Latin American, democracy began to take root. Therefore, she argues that since the oppressive governments of MENA, or coercive institutions as she calls them, haven't lost their willingness to oppress rebellion, MENA has not been able to democratize like Latin America.

She would say that what happened in Egypt validates her argument. In 2011, the movement to overthrow Mubarak succeeded in part because the military allowed the protesters to continue protesting, despite what Mubarak said. She would say that this was an example of the regime loosing its ability to repress the movement, which is what she believes leads to democracy. However, in Tunisia, the regime did not show signs of letting up until Ben Ali fled the country. Therefore, she might not be able to apply her argument to Tunisia in the same way, considering the strong civil society that existed in the face of a government did not display a willingness to stop oppressing.

I think it is somewhat accurate to say that civil society in MENA is a "weak and ineffective champion of democracy." The fact that democracy has not been achieved does not change the fact that there is evidence of strong civil society in places such as Egypt, where the Kefiya movement came together, bridging many different ideologies in order to create a group focused on toppling the regime. However, in most cases, democracy has not been instituted, so civil society may not be "weak," but technically it's not a "champion of democracy" either.

Re: Non-violent movements and the Israel-Palestine Conflict

As we have learned, attention quickly goes away from the purpose of a movement when violence comes into the picture, which is likely because it is “a bigger story.” Like many other situations that have violent and nonviolent sides, it is a more “interesting” news story to cover a violent situation than it is to cover a non-violent story. Which is awful, but our media is looking to cover things which will get more views and start more conversations among us.

In order for there to be a peaceful future in Israel and Palestine, nonviolent practices should be implemented such as boycotts, marches, sit-ins, etc.