This post is due by Tuesday, April 15 @ midnight for full credit.
Email late posts to rwilliamsATchamplain.edu for partial credit.
Read the assigned chapters above, and then:
1. Provide 3 SPECIFIC observations about the Arab Spring you learned from EACH chapter of our book, using 2-3 sentences combining the book and your own IYOW analysis.
2. Finally, ask ONE specific question you have of the Arab Spring after completing our reading.
Chapter 10 is called King’s Dilemma, which is aptly titled as the authors take us through the voting process. The chapter poses a relevant question, what is most beneficial to the monarchy. A true democracy would give the citizens the chance to vote in someone new, or does the monarchy appease the revolutionaries and give them promises of stepping down or a mixed type of democracy. This is a king’s very selfish dilemma.
ReplyDeleteOn page 247 there is a description of the divide amongst the poor and rich and how foreigners have an influence on a countries democracy. My question, though rhetorical, would be, isn’t that an oxymoron? It seems that foreigner interest has a great deal of say in ruling regimes policies. The revolutionaries that took to the streets to wrong the regime have a much bigger issues in foreigners still calling the shots.
On page 263 the authors ask what are worse, fundamentalist leaders or dictators? It seems that the citizens of these countries cannot catch a break. They hit one hurdle after the next in their fight for freedom, with no moderate leadership. In countries such as Tunisia, there are so many groups trying to get a piece of the action that it offers no solid foundation to move forward.
What perplexes me is that none of the revolutions were begun by religion. The catalyst was for social issues. Yet, religious groups want to join the revolution after the hard work was done. I can understand why citizens are so skeptical and the unrest will continue until diplomatic and sincere people step up in front of extremist leaders.
Ch. 10- This chapter examines a different part of the Arab world, countries that did not have Arab Spring revolutions and that have a monarchy still in place. This is an interesting topic and as the book points out, there a very few monarchies still in place outside of the Arab world. One of my big questions from this chapter is how will things play out for some of the countries like the UAE and Qatar whose citizens currently have high living standards thanks to oil, however things are bound to change in the near future when oil cannot be relied on. I also wonder if, assuming that revolution will eventually hit some if not all of these monarchies at some point, will it hit countries like Morocco first? Morocco is not as wealthy as some of the Gulf countries, however it seems to be a much more free society. So what will cause revolution first, economic or civil issues?
ReplyDeleteCh. 11- In this chapter the author quarrels with the issues surrounding Islamist's and democracy. I think it is important to recognize this quote in the beginning of the chapter, "There are indeed Islamists, as there are nationalists, socialists and various other secularists, who do not espouse democratic values and who would seek to impose oppressive restrictions on society. Not all Islamists fall into this category,...". The important part of this quote being the end of it. While this chapter is titled The Islamist Resurgence, and obviously points out its resurgence, the author does a good job of highlighting how it is different than in past history such as the Iranian Revolution in 1979. There are different factors that need to be kept in mind such as tourism, and that alone can effect Islam's future impact. And lastly it is encouraging to read the end of the chapter and see the author's outlook on the future of the Arab world, "patriarchal authority is weakening, along with the traditional attitudes that see women as mothers and homemakers. The norms that govern the relations between men and women in the family and in the public sphere, and the relationship between religion and the lifestyle choices individuals make, are shifting".
Chapter 10
ReplyDeleteI like that part three of the book went into details of other countries in the area that we previously hadn’t talked about. One of the things that interested me the most was when the idea of Saudi Arabia and Qatar went looking for ways to do their own policies rather than following Americas lead. Another idea what that of buying stability, while I knew that oil played a big role in the stability of a country I never realized it could be a way of completely keeping power in a country. Being able to buy the support of your people, while unethical, it is very efficient. The power of wealthy Arab countries is so powerful that at the sign of any type of uprising would be shut down with the blink of an eye. It’ll be interesting to see where most of countries would be at post-oil since they don’t have much of a plan set in place.
Chapter 11
When thinking of Islamist I always thought of them of people who were trying to get their religion mixed within the government. This chapter has taught me that it’s the opposite it’s the use of religion to get their ideas accepted by the larger religious population. This also surprised me since after the Arab spring almost half of the cabinets in Egypt and Tunisia were held by Islamists. Finally, I connected what we saw in the square and the opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood to the idea that youth in Egypt and Morocco boycotted elections because they feared what they would have to come up against if the Islamist were to take over.
Question: What will happen to the Middle Eastern countries when their oil reserves come to an end?
Yalla - good reflections on THE KINGS DILEMMA, you three.
ReplyDeleteShukran,
Dr. W
Chapter 10:
ReplyDelete1. “The eight kingdoms or emirates in Jordan, Morocco, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain had all survived 2011, but things had clearly changed” (247). It was interesting to look at the impact the Arab Spring had on these countries. The fear of overthrow seemed to change each monarch’s outlook and make slight changes to keep their population at ease.
2. “Lacking the cash to offer endless handouts, Jordan’s King Abdullah is caught between allowing greater political participation by his six million-strong population as a means of easing unrest… It was a similar story in Morocco, which could ill afford the economic concessions made in the wake of the protests” (252-3). To this point, I hadn’t thought about the protests in this sense - poor countries may fall easier under uprisings than rich countries.
3. “All of the Arab monarchies are likely to survive in the short term...but the longer term, as always, is far less certain” (261). This discussion made me wonder why these monarchies survived through the Arab Spring in other parts of the region.
Chapter 11:
1. I think the quote at the beginning of the chapter embodies the essence of the Arab Spring protests: “The flaws inherent in the liberal democratic system should never be used as a pretext for rejecting it, for there is no alternative out there to democracy except dictatorship. An incomplete freedom is always better than no freedom at all, and to be governed by an imperfect democratic order is better than being governed by a despotic order, that is the whims and desires of a tyrant” (263).
2. “Those who espouse the violent overthrow of governments and the re-establishment of the lapsed Islamic caliphate across all Muslim lands are Islamists, but so are those who have reconciled Islam with democracy, accept the principle of the rotation of power within the borders of individual states, and do not seek to enforce measures that grab headlines in the West, such as the wearing of the headscarf or the banning of alcohol” (267). The diversity among Islamists makes me question why they are grouped together. In my experience, most democrats seem to have similar goals and most republicans share their own unique goals. I think the degree of diversity in Islamists party is misleading and could yield different results in different countries.
3. “The main danger for democracy lies in how easily the new constitution can be altered. Amendments are always necessary in any constitution, allowing them to evolve and initial mistakes to be corrected, but making it too easy to change key clauses could open the door for abuse” (277). One of the key causes of oppression was the ability to change the constitution. For example, the constitution was changed by leaders to allow them to stay in power longer. In the US, there are many steps involved in issuing an amendment, which is why there are less than thirty in over 200 years.
Question:
I’m curious about whether or not these countries will be able to maintain democracy. I think that it will be hard to remain motivated when all they have known is oppression.
Chapter 10 of Battles looks at the governance of the Arab world from a different perspective: observing its monarchies, such as in Jordan or the UAE. Considering how the failure of authoritarian Arab Spring countries to essentially 'buy' their citizens' support was a major factor in Arab Spring uprisings, it was interesting to read how monarchies have been able to survive in the Middle East by doing this with their (primarily) oil money. I found it particularly interesting when the authors discussed the success of King Abdullah in providing for his Jordanian subjects versus his decreasing funds; a friend of mine who attends McGill and is part of Abdullah's extended family once expressed his frustration that, in Jordan, the elite live in a few high-class communes while the majority of citizens live in poverty -- it seems like there's a large number of un-provided-for people who can easily disappear under a monarchy.
ReplyDeleteChapter 11 discusses the issues of synthesizing democracy and Islam, particularly considering Shariah law. The authors discuss how the main danger of Islam on developing democracies is how easily conservative Muslim policies, respected in the region but not always conducive to freedom, can wiggle their way into new constitutions. The high point here seems to be in the authors' concession that not all Muslims share these extreme beliefs.
There is a fine line between governments buying non-participation and citizens creating non-secular laws which also limit political participation. Will the Middle East be able to find a balance?
Chapter 10
ReplyDeleteIt is crazy to think about all the events that have happened and that there are still Arab countries that never had a revolution. Countries such as the UAE, Jordan, and Morocco never had a revolution. The reason being is that the common people are wealthy enough to not uprise against their leaded. The economic gaps between rich and poor are still huge but they managed to keep the majority of their citizens happy. As long as these countries can manage to do that they wont have to worry about failing at the mean time. Although there will be a time for change and it will be interesting to see if they sort it out themselves or if revolutions happen again. Maybe once countries like Egypt and Tunisia succeed they will push other Arab countries to do so?
Chapter 11
Now that these countries are beginning to build new governments they are going the route of democracy. Although there religions are clashing with the democratic system. These leaves them to have disagreements among each other about legal issues. It makes me question if the Arabs will be able to come together as people or if their traditions will get in the way of them.
What will happen if democracy fails? will they build their own system or will another regime begin?