Spring Semester 2017 - first post

All - we're off to a late start on the blog, but here are the first questions! Normally, these questions will be posted on material that will be covered in the following class, but today's questions relate to today's class on confronting coercive institutions (Feb. 17 class) 

Why has the MENA region been so resistant to democratic reform? In light of the Arab Revolts of 2011, what do you think of Bellin's argument? How would she explain what happened in Tunisia and Egypt?

Also, is it accurate to say, as some do, that the region's civil society is "weak and... an ineffective champion of democracy" (Bellin 2005: 22)?

Non-Violent Social Movements

Following Israel's victory in the 6 Day War of 1967, the nation drastically expanded t's borders. After the war Israel came to occupy the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Golan Heights, and the Palestinians who lived in these areas. After the war, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, formed in 1964, continued the conflict against the Israelis. The PLO engaged in some terrorist activities against Israeli civilian and military targets, but also used non-violent protests in order to achieve an independent Palestinian state.
In opposition to the growing numbers of Israeli setters moving into the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, the Palestinians launched the first Intifada in the 1980s. The tactics used in the first Intifada included boycotting Israeli products and refusing to pay taxes. When the IDF cracked don on these measures, violence began. The ensuing conflict saw terrible bloodshed on both sides, with over 100 Israelis killed and over 2,000 Palestinians. The conflict also saw the first use of suicide bombings in 1993, that killed 2 and injured around a dozen. The conflict had a tremendous affect on the policies of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. In 1993, both sides came to the negotiating table in the Oslo Accords. They provided self-government in the Palestinian territories in return for the recognition of the State of Israel. These talks were followed by a second the second Oslo Accords. When neither provided an independent Palestinian state, the dissatisfied Palestinian youth engaged in the much more violent, Second Intifada.

Civil Society

The term civil society does not have a fixed definition, and is in fact very difficult to define. Depending on what one considers to be civil society, it can be defined in many different ways. However, most agree that civil society is not business, and is not government. It can be thought of as a space in which organizations, individuals, and groups interact and share ideas. It can also foster social movements.

In the MENA region, there are many restrictions on civil society. Some countries fear the threat civil society may present, and try to limit its activity. However, in cases like the Arab Spring uprisings and the first intifada, civil society can bring about large-scale social movements despite the constraints.

Civil society can provide avenues for frustrated or dissatisfied citizens to unite with others and demand changes from their government. These demands sometimes escalate to full-scale social movements, but sometimes are quelled after the demands are met, or are crushed by the regime. 

Stifling A Movement: Sisi puts 237 activists on trial for protesting against him

After Mubarak, the youth of Egypt had received a taste of the power of the collective. Nevertheless, the newly elected President Sisi has learned from his predecessors' mistakes. Systematically, he disbanded any semblance of political awareness among the youth to the point where he recently put 237 activists on trial. What do we learn from this? Social movements will only prevail if the government in power is more concerned with paying attention to criticism for the betterment of the country instead of trying to hold on to office. 

Although many of the civil societies had disbanded after the resignation of Mubarak, there had been many promises made by the newly elected government to delegate with the leaders of social movements. There were some youth coalitions set in place to advocate for their needs and demands, After five years, all traces of such improvements are all but gone.

This just goes to show that a social movement cannot prevail without a platform available. There has to be more acceptance by the government or history will keep repeating itself and the masses shall win

Non-violent Resistance

While non-violent resistance did not lead to a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it was not entirely a failure. It brought the concerns of the Palestinians to the world, and helped them gain more international attention and support. Additionally, because Palestine was (and still is) less militarily powerful than Israel, they were able to do this without a military confrontation. As we can see from the wars between the two in recent years, Palestine will not win through force. The non-violent tactics used in the intifada forced Israel to change some of its policies and actions, and non-violent demonstrations in Budrus, Bil'in, and other Palestinian villages have been successful in the years following the intifada. 

In Palestine, the non-violent tactics of the intifada allowed women to become more involved and, in some cases, leaders and integral participants. Unfortunately, divisions within the Palestinian community regarding their ultimate goals and the tactics they believed would help them achieve these goals lead to the intifada not achieving its aims. While the intifada strengthened the community and resolve among Palestinians, it also lead to some feeling jaded and hopeless. This hopelessness fostered violence. 

In Israel, the intifada forced some to accept that "occupying another people would neither guarantee peace nor security", and that the occupation of Palestine was not sustainable. However, the actions of the Israeli government did not reflect this, and an occupation remains present to this day. 

Social Movement in Tunisia

Social Movements have found success in the MENA region recently. Lets analyze why that may be the case. The main reason why people might oppose the preexisting government is because of their stance on many issues. For example, how oppressive are they? Are they interacting with their opposition or just stifling any criticism? As Gene Sharp mentions, social movements have different effects in different areas according to the culture and the already existing platform for social movements.  

We must first consider how legitimate a current or standing government might be. Time and again, we have encountered leaders in the region whom the people feel a lack of trust for. In Tunisia the disparity between the government and the people is evident. This might be because Ben Ali’s regime was accused of corruption and the state was plagued by oppression from the elite.The government provided no support to its people. This catalyzed the social movement in Tunisia

Tunisia was also not a military state therefore, the police or military were not particularly inclined to either support the standing government or arrest and harass protesters.

Strong vs Weak MENA States

The strength of a MENA state (i.e. its ability to suppress revolutionary insurrection) stems from the support of two groups: its constituency and its allies.

Hazem Beblawi contends that MENA states can afford to break social contracts with their constituencies because of the nature of their rentier economies: People do not require or expect representation in government because they often have zero or little commitment in terms of taxation. To some extent, I agree with Beblawi. But I also think that a state can derive more strength if it has the support of the people it represents. For example, in Palestine, an entire faction of Hamas (the political organization, not the al-Qassam Brigades) is dedicated to providing people social services and managing pensions. Not everyone in Palestine likes Hamas, but those who benefit from the social services at least recognize some of the benefits they receive. If a revolutionary social movement is to be successful in retaining power after they seize it, the movement must find a way to provide or improve upon the services that the former administration provided, else people will be discontented with the new administration and may rebel. This is precisely what occurred in 2013 in Egypt, and what occurred after the deposition of the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 1990s. So the support of its constituency lends a state strength, and a social movement must win over that support if it is to be successful in the long term.

Support of allies also lends a state strength and may allow it to suppress social movements. Conversely, making additional external enemies may weaken a state and diminish its ability to stay in power. In Libya, for example, the Gaddafi regime found itself to be the focus of the pique of the United States and its NATO-backed coalition in 2011. The social movement in Libya surely would have failed had not air strikes by NATO decimated the state's infrastructure. The state, therefore, was essentially weakened because of how it was perceived by other world powers.