Jennifer Hollis' paper idea

[penelope rumel <ayeayetide@yahoo.com>]

The abundance of questions one could raise in relation
to our topic of civil society in the Middle East is
truly staggering. A broad concept, whose definition
blurs around the edges, is here applied to a
historically diverse and complex region. When studying
the Arab world in modern times, one must further
consider the series of upheavals and general
instability brought about by war, colonization and
increasing exposure to Western civilization. The
region now is largely in a state of transition, both
culturally and politically. In such a context, the
question of civil society’s ability to determine
broader changes is exceedingly relevant. 
	Because Islamist groups are ubiquitous in the Arab
world, and seem to survive (albeit somewhat covertly)
under the harshest of regimes, they may provide a good
gauge of civil life- and basis for comparison between
states. Among these groups,however, some are so
violent and revolutionary as to try even the broadest
definitions of civil society.  Others stumble back and
forth between traditionally civil activities, such as
charitable work, and violent action, to pursue their
ends. Still, there exist a number of Islamist groups,
which operate alongside the aforementioned, and act
neither as violent revolutionaries, nor as rabid
terrorists, but instead in a conventionally ‘civil’
manner (i.e. through lobbying, charitable activity,
meetings and lectures, etc.). It must be noted that
many among these are believed to be sympathetic to-
when not monetarily generous with- their more brutal
counterparts. However, for purposes of brevity, I will
focus primarily on the direct activities and roles
played by these groups in relation to a given society
and its government. 
	I intend, in my final paper, to examine the
relationship between various Islamist groups and their
governments. I wish to seek out the similarities and
differences in these relationships, which might result
from the relative freedom afforded the peoples in
question by their governments. To these ends, I have
used the ranking system employed by Freedom House to
select two primary states to consider and two
secondary states to reference.  The more and less free
conditions will be judged primarily in respect to
Jordan and Saudi Arabia, respectively- and secondarily
in terms of Kuwait and Syria  (again, respectively).
Based on the function of these groups under divergent
conditions, I hope also to describe them in terms of
basic concepts of civil society.
	In selecting the states to consider, Saudi Arabia and
Jordan were the easiest choices. Both are monarchies,
which- though influenced by Western power- did not
suffer the sort of cultural deformities which are said
to have resulted from European colonization.
Therefore, it will be more difficult to attribute any
signs of civil society in these territories to
Western, colonial influence. Additionally, there is
remarkable difference in the response of their
monarchies to internal and external pressures to
implement liberal or democratic reform. 
For instance, Saudi Arabia’s response to Dr. Muhammad
Massari, who led the Committee for the Defense of
Legitimate Rights, is indicative of their stance
regarding religious opposition groups (within their
own land, at least). A fundamentalist, Islamist group,
the CDLR called initially on the government to
eliminate internal corruption, allow for a freer
Islamic council and ultimately to adhere more strictly
to Sharia law. Such demands are common for Islamist
activists; however, Massari was imprisoned, allegedly
tortured, and now lives in exile in London- heading
his group with a decidedly more revolutionary thrust
than was attributed to them initially. Jordan, on the
other hand, has allowed not only for Islamist
organizations to participate in society as leaders of
religious and other associations, but also allowed for
their election to parliamentary seats. The Islamic
Action Front, for example, won 21 seats in the
Jordanian parliament elected in Nov.1993. 
	The definitions of civil society offered to us thus
far have varied in respect both to its form and its
function. Many salient questions have arisen as I’ve
considered these definitions in terms of political
situations such as those briefly exemplified above-
for example: If civil society is said to facilitate,
and to some degree foment, the function of democracy,
then is it not necessary that the face of civil
society would alter according to the degree of
liberalism and democracy under which it operates?
Further, is there a point at which civil society is no
longer possible? If it truly is understood as a force
which assembles the voices of the disenfranchised into
an empowered collective, then could it not be argued
that revolutionary groups, even when pursuing violent
rebellion, still represent the discontent suffered by
the alienated masses under repressive governments? By
this I mean, given an unforgiving authoritarianism, is
not rebellion sometimes the only possible mediating
force, or ‘buffer, between a deaf government and its
dumb people? The Calvinist Puritans, referenced often
in discussing the genesis of modern civil society,
were themselves responding to religious oppression.
Had they not come upon a faraway land to which they
could flee, how might their protest of exile and
persecution manifested itself?
	In further confronting these questions, I will
reference two definitions of civil society. The first,
offered by Civicus, defines civil society in
functional terms. It qualifies organizations as civil
where they are “created neither with the purpose of
ruling over other people nor of making a profit for
individuals (and are)…established solely on the
grounds of advancing those who support it.”  More
significantly, this definition is pointedly not
restricted to ‘civilized’ organizations, i.e. there
are no value judgments attached to their goals. In
contrast, a second, more descriptive definition- put
forward by A.Richard Norton- will be cited. Norton
discusses civil society’s links to democracy, free
economic markets and citizenship, among other things.
My focus, however, will concentrate on his assertion
that civil society “refers to a quality,
civility…which implies tolerance, the willingness of
individuals to accept disparate political views…to
accept the profoundly important idea that there is no
right answer.” The conflict between this definition,
and the inclusion of any but the most liberal
religious groups (whether Islamist or Calvinist) in
civil society, is obvious. The distinction, created
between these two definitions by this idea of
‘civility’, goes to the heart of the difficulties
inherent in applying the idea of civil society to the
modern Arab world. 
	Can a region in the throes of change, moving
hesitantly towards democracy, contain that which is
sometimes said to be necessary for its success? I
doubt I can answer such a question, but I hope to
describe some potential answers.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.yahoo.com/