Arab Spring and Third Wave of Democratisation: The case of Egypt The concept of third wave of democratisation was introduced by Professor Huntington. He introduced the concept in five phases. They are emergence of reformers, acquiring powers, the failure of liberalisation, backward legitimacy and co-opting opposition. (Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, 1991) It was then subsequently addressed through modernisation, social equality, mass mobilisation and elite pact approach inclusively. (Welzel, 2009) Huntington expressed that the third wave of democratisation occurs with the emergent of opposition groups and indigenous sources against local power’s enforcement, particularly when there is a military regimes, one party system, or an autocratic dictatorship. (Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, 1991). The purpose of this essay is to examine Huntington’s five phases with the aim of understanding what happened to the Arab Spring, in the case of Egypt. The essay also examine, whether what happened to the Arab Spring in the case of Egypt is a common structure succeeded in …show more content…
(The Guardian, 2011) The police brutality shut down all civilian protection mechanisms, led to massive human rights violations. It also deterred the significance of individualism, individual autonomy and social control in the name of State Sovereignty. But, former United Nations General Secretary Kofi Annan comments, the state sovereignty should be the relationship of an individual to the state regarding being responsible as well as responsive. (Annan, 2014) It means sovereignty is not just about the state interest against agencies, but also about the interest of individuals against state actors. (Cassidy,
In 2010 the Middle East experienced a disturbing series of protests and riots against the government. The term Arab Spring was coined as an allusion for the 1848 revolutions that rocked the Arab world. This devastating revolution saw its inception in a chain of small scale protests for the democratization of the Arabian governments. With its start in Egypt and Tunisia it has not failed in affecting every Arab country from Libya, Sudan and Morocco in the West to Yemen and Saudi Arabia in the East. A branch of the same revolution has successfully managed to become the cause for a civil war outbreak in Syria and even stretched its influence outside the Arab world to affect Iran and Mali.
The authoritarian regimes of the Middles cycled through a pattern of anti-western policy until the globalization effects of economics and information demanded reform. As conservative Arab states try to maintain the autocracy they relied on after gaining independence, their citizens, affected by information and education expansion, challenge their resistant governments as typified by Syria’s unwillingness to capitulate. The proliferation of information and education underscored the protest movements of the Arab Spring because citizens’ contempt for their obstinate governments grew to large under economic pressures, as the current situation in Syria demonstrates.
Democracy and Islam, an article written by Irfan Ahmad1 strives to show that there is a possibility that Islam can move towards democracy. On the other hand, Islam and Liberal Democracy: A Historical Overview, an article written by Bernard Lewis2 discusses how a democracy is unable to work in Islamic States. In this essay, I will be comparing and contrasting the two articles. Both Bernard and Irfan carry weight in their arguments and have certain strong points, as well as weaknesses. The major difference between the two articles is the variation of the core definition of democracy that the writers have, and their distinct perspectives of the workings of a democracy. In addition, the articles also differ in their chosen format and the authors’ thoughts on the Catholic and Western influence. The fundamental dispute of democracy and Islam are strong in both articles, and they are resolved in a respective manner. Irfan was successful in formulating a more compelling case and was able to maintain better structure; however, I am a firm believer that Islam is a theocratic system and it is not compatible with democracy as a system of governance.
Early 2011 uprisings swept across the Middle East and North Africa, and many rebellions are still going on today. The Arab region has seen revolts and conflict since the 1800‘s, but only recently have these revolts been redirected to the problems of Arab society (Ghannam, J. 2011 pg 4-5)The Arab Spring Uprising was first sparked in Tunisia and eventually struck Algeria, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen and then spread to other countries. Citizens throughout these countries were dissatisfied with the rule of their local governments. Issues like human rights violations, political corruption, economic decline, unemployment, extreme poverty, dictators...
My answer to these two questions is threefold: First, I assert that TSMs and INGOs can and have posed substantial normative challenges to state hegemony, most commonly the notion that the state enjoys a monopoly on representation of its citizens and their interests. Furthermore, TSMs and INGOs that employ the use of violence (particularly terrorism) breach the conventional notion that states...
According to realist view ordering principle of the international system is based on anarchy. There is no higher authority other than the states themselves to check and balance their actions. Consequently, nation-states are the main players in this system. In other words, sovereignty inheres in states, because there is not a higher ruling body in the international system. This is known as state centrism. Survival is an obligation continuing to be sovereign. On the other hand, sovereignty is the characteristic feature of states and its meaning is strongly tied to use of force. According to the most of the realist variants, states are “black boxes”; the determinative factor is states’ observable behavior, not their leaders’ characteristics, their decision making processes or their government systems.
In “The Conflict of Autonomy and Authority” Robert Paul Wolff argues that the state’s authority is in conflict with having genuine autonomy. He reasons as follows. If there were a supreme political authority, which have a right to rule, there would be an obligation for a man to obey its laws. However, a man has an obligation to be autonomous, which means taking responsibility for making one’s own decisions about what one should do. Autonomous man has primary obligation to refuse to be ruled. Therefore, a supreme political authority does not have a right to claim authority over a man who has a moral obligation to be autonomous. He concludes by denying the concept of de jure legitimate state.
As the Arab Spring enters its second year, major uprisings and revolts have occurred all over the Middle East, pushing for an end to the corrupt autocratic rule and an expansion of civil liberties and political rights. Most recently, images from Syria have emerged, depicting the government’s use of force to suppress the voice of its people. One might ask, “Is this the beginning of a revolution? Is the country on the path to democracy?” To assess this question and examine the future trends in the region, one must look back on the country’s somewhat tumultuous history, the relationship between the citizens and the state, and the political economy.
Political uprisings in the Middle East, especially in Muslim nation states have placed Arabian politics back on the focus point of international politics. Political events in certain Arab countries had an excessive impact on the political development of other neighboring states. Resistances and anxieties within different Arab countries triggered unpredictable actions, sometimes sorely to observe and believe. The authoritarian governments of Arabian countries led from various dictators have created a precarious situation for their people, especially in providing national security and maintaining peace in the region. Jack Goldstone argues that the degree of a sultan’s weakness has been often only visible in retrospect; due in part to the nature of the military-security complex common across Middle East states (Goldstone 1). In addition, the existence of various statesmen with political affiliation is concerned in faithfulness of its armed forces. Usually, the armed national forces of several states, mainly those in Arab countries are loyal and closely affiliated to their leaders, which have a major role in state regimes. Arab uprisings in their early spreading appeared legally responsible and with concrete demands from representatives’ peoples, calling for a more open democratic system and reasonable governance. Even though, the system in which popular frustration with government imposes alters considerably from one state to another. These public revolts against different authoritative governments didn’t halt just in Arab states, but they sustained also in the Far East and in the Eastern Europe. Can we say that the popular uprisings in Arab countries could be attributed to the term of globalization? In fact, globalization is a multi...
Contrary to popular beliefs, civil activism and civil society has managed to thrive in the Middle East. Social movements on a variety of topics have occurred despite the lack of democracy and democratic institutions in certain countries. One popular movement was the Arab Ba’ath Movement which eventually led to the formation of the Baath Party. By analyzing the movement’s history, ideological stance, goals, the actors, dissenters, and international aspect, one can determine how and why the movement flourished in Syria.
Sovereignty should be clearly differentiated and distinguished. It is divided into legal sovereignty as well as political sovereignty. Legal sovereignty is concerned with the legal relationship between the courts and Parliament.
...t state autonomy cannot be restricted by anything but the community (state) itself. As one might assume, it follows from these differing standpoints that the way each theory view intervention, etc., will be in opposition. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A)
When considering the concepts of human rights and state sovereignty, the potential for conflict between the two is evident. Any humanitarian intervention by other actors within the international system would effectively constitute a violation of the traditional sovereign rights of states to govern their own domestic affairs. Thus, the answer to this question lies in an examination of the legitimacy and morality of humanitarian intervention. While traditionally, the Westphalian concept of sovereignty and non-intervention has prevailed, in the period since the Cold War, the view of human rights as principles universally entitled to humanity, and the norm of enforcing them, has developed. This has led to the 1990’s being described as a ‘golden
THE SOVEREIGNITY OF NATIONS From the international law point of view, a sovereign state is independent and free from external control; enjoys full legal equality; governs its own territory; selects its own political, social, economic systems; and has the power to enter into agreements with other nations. It is extension of national laws beyond a country's borders that much of the conflict in international business arises. Nations can and do abridge specific aspects of their sovereign rights in order to coexist with other countries.... ... middle of paper ...
Before we delve deeper into this topic, it is imperative to properly provide a definition of sovereignty and lay down some foundation on this topic. There are four different definitions of sovereignty – international legal sovereignty, Westphalia sovereignty, domestic sovereignty and interdependence sovereignty. International legal sovereignty deals with “the practices associated with mutual recognition, usually between territorial entities that have formal juridical independence” (Krasner 4). The main definition of sovereignty that this paper will use is the ...