The Washington Consensus

The "Washington Consensus" is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions targeted at developing economies and countries. It focuses on a switch to a free-market system by providing aid packages. The hope is that this aid will help countries get on their feet and privatize. This move to privatize and develop is also seen as a push for these nations to "modernize."

There are many fundamental positive expectations of the consensus. The hope is that through aid and stimulus, the economies will grow. This growth in economy theoretically will help with job creation to battle severe unemployment. As unemployment increases, it is expected that standards of living will rise as well. Poverty, as a result, will hopefully be reduced.

Many MENA states have been reluctant to the Washington Consensus. It is seen as power move by Western nations to "modernize" the region, which is a mindset that can be considered a second wave of colonialism. Western nations and institutions, such as the World Bank or IMF, assert control by attaching strings to aid. These include the implementation of certain infrastructure or requirements on health goals. By making aid conditional to Western values, MENA states are left suspicious and hesitant.

There are many counterproductive effects to this plan. For one, it has been known to lead to destabilization of local economies since the change is not organic. In order to achieve that goals, the change must come from local development and not from top-down mandates. Also, the plan leaves the countries open to foreign exploitation. Like what we saw in the documentary about the Zaballeen in Cairo, foreign companies are contracted to provide services so that a country can meet the conditional requirements for aid. But by contracting internationally, the local economy is not growing.

Neoliberalism

The "Washington Consensus" 'prescribes' possible policy suggestions on how to get out of economic turmoil. These are reform packages that deal with trade and investment. The "Washington Consensus" is basically a worldly economic advisor.

The expected outcomes would be to help the country from their economic problems. It would therefore reduce the amount of strikes and protests over wage laws there are. Many MENA states are reluctant to implement these strategies because they are still governmental policies. MENA states are not happy with the state of their government so they do not want government help. Obviously with any policy a counterproductive effect could simply be it doesn't work. They could also turn around and backfire and do the opposite of what they were intended to do, creating even more distress.

MENA and Neoliberalism

This is a bit of a curveball question, in that it doesn't directly relate to the reading you have for next week, but I thought I'd still let you wrestle with it (if you choose to do so!). The IMF and the World Bank provide different kinds of development loans and aid packages to some MENA countries, usually tied to the implementation of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), which are policy recommendations within the framework of the so called “Washington Consensus.” What is the prescription of the “Washington Consensus”? What are the expected positive outcomes of these policies? Why have many MENA states been reluctant to implement them? What could be some counterproductive effects produced by these policies?

Civil Society

According to Spurk, "Civil society [can] facilitate regular and sustained participation by the citizenry, beyond simply voting in elections." Civil society is a vital sphere of contentious political participation. Its definition is diverse and varying, but the basis of its definition lie in the fact that it revolves around uncoerced collective action. The lines determining what is included in civil society are often blurred with some saying that civil society is simply "not business, and not government." However, Spurk regards civil society as an autonomous sphere of nonstate actors outside of the influence of politics, business, or media.

The Middle East is relatively known for its lack of a strong civil society. However, i would say it is developing. Civil society in MENA is unlike that of the West, I believe, for much of the action undergone through the use of civil society has not truly represented progress towards more democratic societies as many Western thinkers have previously thought. However, civil society in MENA does indicate progress. While it does not have as much of an overwhelming presence as it does in the United States, civil society in MENA is important. MENA's civil society has been vital to the success of many Islamic uprisings.

In terms of the political arena, effective civil society broadens the horizons for political participation, encouraging everyday citizens to involve themselves in collective action. Civil society allows for the voices of the people to be heard much more easily and can allow the people to keep their governments in check beyond the political sphere.

Civil Society in MENA

          Civil society is something that has been difficult to define with one definition, as civil society can mean different things for different people. Spurk defines civil society as consisting of "... a huge variety of mainly voluntary organizations and associations that maintain different objectives, interests, and ideologies," (6).  According to Spurk, while civil society does often interact with the social/private, economic, and political spheres very closely, it is its own separate entity that is independent of these spheres (6-7). Civil society is not political even though it is involved in the politics of a state, it is not economic even though it is involved in the economy, and it is not a part of the private realm even though it does affect that sector as well. In some cases, actors that are in these other sectors do act as members of civil society which results in the "blurring" of the lines between civil society and the other sectors in some cases. 

          There are seven functions of civil society based on Spurk's extended functional approach to analyzing civil society (23-24). The most basic role of civil society is to protect the freedom of the citizenry from authorities. Civil society also holds the state accountable for its actions (or inactions) to ensure that the state is upholding human rights and fulfilling its end of the social contract to its people. It helps facilitate communication so that the citizens are able to express their interests to raise awareness and facilitate debate. The socialization of the people is another task of civil society in order to promote a democratic attitude in the people. Civil society helps build communities that can bridge societal gaps and unite the people. Civil society also acts as an intermediary between the people and the state to facilitate communication between the two. Finally, civil society delivers services to the citizens especially in cases where the state is weak. Through the execution of these roles, an effective civil society can greatly increase the space for political participation by the citizens.
          However, the civil society MENA have had trouble in performing these functions because of the repressive, autocratic regimes of MENA. The outcome of this suppression depends on how it is carried out and how the suppression is perceived by the people. Because of these variations, suppression can result in one of two outcomes according to Vairel: the radicalization of the civil society or the greater mobilization of civil society (41).
          When civil society is made more radical because of repression, it becomes less effected at affecting change in the society. Radical groups are more divisive than uniting, which means that they do not have as large of a backing if they had been able to unite more people behind them. Radical groups face fewer political opportunities and more political restraints, they are less able to mobilize resources because of their smaller base and the fact that they are less likely to receive international assistance if they are seen as radical, and the way that they frame their narrative can push citizens to oppose their objectives. This outcome is produced whenever the state is especially violent in its repression and is selective in whom it targets.
          Counterintuitively, repression by the state can actually strengthen the civil society in some cases. When the state represses indiscriminately, it can attract more people to the civil society and increase their ability to enact change. The people unite behind the civil society against the government. Also, if people perceive a threat from the government, they are quickly mobilized and since the actual force is not present yet to repress the people, they are not discouraged from joining the civil society.
          I would say that civil society in MENA is generally weak in fulfilling its roles. The repressive regimes have become especially brutal in their measures and have targeted specific groups rather than the whole populations. An example of this is the case of Egypt. Sisi's regime is targeting the Muslim Brotherhood opposition group, which is seen as a radical Islamic group, rather than targeting the population. The actions of the regime have resulted in little effective action from the civil society because of Sisi's targeted approach and the Muslim Brotherhood's inability to unite the Egyptian people. One could also point to the failures of initiatives to promote democracy in the region as an indication of the weakness of civil society in MENA. After the "Arab Spring" revolutions of 2011, few of the democratic regimes remained in power and MENA states are just as if not more repressive and authoritarian than before the revolutions. Civil society in MENA has been unable to fulfill its seven roles and states' powers have gone unchecked in the MENA region as a result of their ineffectiveness.
         
         
          

Civil Society

            Civil Society has gone through many definitions since the terms creation ranging from the state itself, to the state’s opposition, to somewhat of an intermediary between the state and the people. Some such as Hegal define civil society actors as being in conflict for their own selfish purposes while others such as Habermes focus on the affect that civil society can have in fostering communication in the public sphere. While details on the specifics of what constitutes a civil society have never truly been agreed upon, a loose definition that many modern scholars don’t contest is that civil societies can make political demands towards the state and others, but not run for political office within the government. In addition to this, civil society excludes the business sector and media (usually), because they don’t have voluntary participation. While that interpretation was mostly domestic, civil society from a global perspective has often been seen as playing a major role in countries political transition towards democracy. 

            Before trying to analyze how effective civil societies are this global role, one must first determine if looking at certain regions through a civil society lens even makes sense. For example, the book “Civil Society and Peacebuilding: A Critical Assessment” states that the conditions for a Western style civil society e.g. “a self-confident urban citizenship that has already gained some autonomy from state structures” is mostly absent in Africa, as well as the Middle East.  That isn’t to say that in the Middle East there isn’t action on the civil society front. For example, in the region there has been a gradual opening of political space due to increasing pressure from citizens. After 9/11 Arab human rights organizations “redoubled efforts in the quest for democracy”. Frederic Vairel says that in Morocco and Egypt “civil society has become a cause for some, a field to increase the value of diplomas for others, or a practical notion … for international donors.”

            The way I see it the whole point of a civil society is to broaden the space for political participation, whether it be through trade unions or NGOs. Especially after the Cold War when thriving civil society became “an important pillar for establishing democracy”. The only way that a democracy will work is through active political participation and traditionally that is just voting or running for office however through civil society a whole other door is opened to protect the citizens human rights and keep the state from overextending itself, another outlet for intermediation between states and citizens, community building, participatory socialization, and probably most importantly, communication (Merkel and Lauth).

Martin Schneider

2/14/16

What is civil society? What is the status of MENA civil society? What role can it play, if any, in broadening the space for political participation?

Civil Society is made up of groups and organizations that work for the benefit for the people. Civil Society is kept separate from both interferences from the state and from markets. Organizations that make up a thriving civil society include unions, non profits, volunteering groups, and religious organizations. Organizations not beholden to politics or money is vital for a prospering and healthy society. A strong civil society builds trust, shares values, greater participation in government, and stronger relationships among the citizenry. Nations with weak civil societies have weaker bonds tying their nations together. These countries are prone to revolutions, sectarian or religious conflict, and fragmentation.

Many of the nations in the Middle East and North Africa have far weaker civil societies than that of the west. Civil societies in the Middle East and North Africa are weak because the region’s leaders have not facilitated its growth. Since decolonization, most of the nations in MENA have been run by autocratic strongmen, who have crushed dissent in order to maintain their own power. The silencing of opposition leaders and reformers have made the creation of civil society difficult if not impossible. The resignation of longtime Egyptian strongman, Hosni Mubarak in 2011 marked the end of a string of autocratic leaders that had ruled Egypt since the gaining of independence. In the 2013 elections the only organized forces were pro government or the Muslim Brother. This was because there was no organization of civil society to counter these forces. Feeling as though there was no other choice, the Muslim Brother swept the elections, making Mohamed Morsi the fifth president of Egypt. Only an organized civil society can counter the existing powers that assert dominance over MENA and form a new world.

In regards to the United States, we must take a hands off approach. In 2003, the US attempted to create democracy in the Middle East by invading Iraq and deposing strongman Saddam Hussain. Instead of organizing a prosperous civil society after the fall of Saddam, the Iraqi people organized into insurgent groups, creating a toxic mess that still hasn’t been solved.