Arabs, Dictators, Protests, oh my!

The coming of this "Arab Spring" has been foreseen by some for many years. In a 2009 special report on the Arab world in The Economist, the piece "Waking from its sleep" tells a tale of the "Arab world" that has been politically stagnant for 20 years, divided over issues like Palestine and Israel as well as the increasing demand for energy resources from the region (oil); however, a fever has been "building up" under the surface, even as many citizens of these nations are rather unaffected by border wars and are somewhat proud of the progress made over the past several years. However, this term, "the Arab world," refers to something large and amorphous, difficult to pin down, especially when patriotism to one's nation is often not seen as paramount. Another article, "The world of the Arabs," explores this identity, describing the term as loose an identity as being "European" can be -- put on and taken off at will. The article also points out that the states have yet to form strong senses of nationhood, and that the people of this "world" are separated not only by long distances but by culture, far from the homogenous identity Americans tend to think of (especially with the union of Muslim with Arab in many US citizens' minds). The final article in the special report, "Which way will they go?" chronicles the ideological struggles that came with the US' emergence and brief spat as the world's "sole superpower" and the use of its "soft power" to inject democracy into the Middle East and thus the Arab world. The article notes that Obama's speech in Cairo, chastising Israel and supporting Palestine had an interesting effect, earning the support of Lebanese voters re-elected a pro-American government over Hizbullah; although the prospect of an American who heeds Arab complaints is described as "disconcerting," this article and the others from this special report imparted one thing overall to me: although the Arab nations are somewhat divided in terms of cultures and experience, the large role that countries like America, Iran, Israel and others (such as Iraq and Turkey) play in shaping internal politics as well as group relations indicate that the "Arab world" does exist, especially if groups like the Arab League are informing the US of some form of consensus amongst their member nations along the lines of one or more issues.

The wikipedia article on this "Arab Spring" takes the story from there, describing the multitude of different causes that incited revolutions and protests in countries as occurred in Egypt and Libya recently. Human rights issues that accompany dictatorships, the presence of well-educated but dissatisfied youth, and government corruption are all listed. The article indicates that this is a new phenomenon in the Arab World, although its roots lie in the years past (as mentioned in The Economist). The wide variety of opinions on this Spring involve theorists we have discussed in class: In an opinion piece for Al Jazeera, Joseph Massad argues that after analyzing the rise of Louis Napolean to power after the French revolution of 1848, Marx wrote that the overthrow of a dictatorship does not necessarily mean that the oppressed will assume control. Paralleling this analysis, Massad claims that the "Us-Saudi" axis is seeking to guide the course of these Arab revolutions in its own interest -- that is, put an end to those revolts whose regimes would not be pro-axis and co-opting those that benefit them and welcome their influence. In another article for Middle East Online, Nizar Awad mentions Emilie Durkheim in connection with his coined term "social conciousness," referring to it as one of the causes of the revolutions of many Arab countries; their shared cultural beliefs, values, and ultimately their indignation has served as a unifying force in this recent string of uprisings and protests. Finally, in an article on mobilization of these revolutions in relation to economic disparity, Cintra Wilson writes on Weber's argument that "the state [is] the sole political authority inside a territory that controls the monopoly of force. Non-state actors like mercenary soldiers and pirates erode the monopoly of force." Going off of this definition, Wilson wonders if Arab states will fall into systems similar to Edo period Japan, although without a government save for mini-military regions dominated by the rich elite, wealthy enough to hire their own private armies. She notes that these wars are no different than any other, seemingly taking a note out of Marx's book -- that these are wars between the rich and poor, and nothing but.

These are incredibly complex issues, not only for one country, but indeed because they encompass the experiences of an entire region of the world. In reference to our theorists, I found that it was the notion of class struggles and identity within society that were the two most popular ideas -- those surrounding political organization and theory, naturally. Marx was not directly mentioned in two articles, but it might as well as have been so -- the disparity between the rich and the poor is undoubtedly a continuing problem in a region where a large portion of the world's wealth is generated and most of the population never see the benefits because of ruling economic and political elite; true modern day dictatorships. I found much in common between Durkheim's idea of social conciousness and the much-discussed topic of the Arab World. I felt that this explained the relationship between these countries, however distant they may be -- media like Al-Jazeera tie them together, as do something of a common language and history; it is certainly fascinating to see how each of these nations continue to respond to one another as ideological revolutions arise. My question is this: when the dust settles, how will this relationship change? Will we see an increasingly unified Arab world, should each nation create a more solid identity (perhaps cultivated by democratic institutions?!), or will they grow more distant? Worth thinking about, in my opinion.