With "victory" in Libya, we were bound to hear about the new "Libya" model. I don't have anything against the Libya model other than the cautionary comment that Libya will be unique from conditions in Syria, Libya, North Korea, or whatever regime we think we ought to oust.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
I'm more interested, however, in what protesters in Syria will do now that the verdict is out with Libya. Protests in Hom and elsewhere in Syria were relatively peaceful. Assad's government resorted to brutal force a la Tiananmen to quash resistance. Will protests embrace the type of armed resistance as taken up by the Libyan rebels? This leads to an interesting policy and academic question.
1) When do protests resort to armed resistance? I mean, when do they decide that nonviolence won't work and they ante up to meet force with force? Obviously a movement will have numerous factions so it probably depends on whether a "militant" wing rises to take leadership in the resistance movement.
2)How do we distinguish protests from rebellions to revolutions to civil war? If someone knows a really good article which spells this out, let me know. B/c I still have a hard time explaining this to students. To me, these concepts fall along a violent/non-violent spectrum of contention. Protests are non-violent and are a base form of contention. Revolutions offer a specific category of contention which call for the overthrow of the government in power. They may be violent or non-violent. Not all protests are revolutions - often the goals of protestors are less far-reaching. Ditto for rebellion.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Protests in India and America
India made headlines through Anna Hazare's high profile hunger-strike against government corruption. The movement is pushing the Indian government to implement greater transparency and accountability measures, such as the establishment of an ombudsman to investigate corruption charges over bureaucrats and the prime minister.
Such movements are a sign of participatory democracy. But do these protests undermine democratic institutions and processes? Can the people dictate Parliament's actions. Or, as the Post article above notes, is the brinkmanship of a hunger strike a form of blackmail that undermines democracy?
The second article is a good overview of contentious politics in American and abroad. Why don't we see more people taking it to the streets in the US? Of course, protests begin with anger and grievances. But these aren't sufficient conditions for protests. Meyer's puts a lot of weight on the role of organizers in channeling this anger. But I would also add that there has to be a psychological component. At the microlevel, individuals are either a) calculating the costs/risks of protesting based on the action of others and/or b) swept up in the moment. Either way, there's a cascading logic behind large street protests. At the macro-level, you also have to look at open political opportunities. There are key moments in history and politics - upcoming elections, the death of a leader, etc...which make moments ripe for protest.
So why aren't we seeing more protests in the US? As Meyers notes, the tea party is probably the closest thing to a social movement in our country. But b/c we live in a relatively open, democratic society, the tea party chooses to also work through formal political channels and institutions (i.e. vote or help get their preferred candidates elected) so it may not be necessary to take grievances to the public square 24-7. . Protesters in Syria or Egypt may have felt that they had no access to formal channels of politics, giving them no other choice but to take it to the streets. In London, many of the protesters were minorities on the fringe of society. Looters joining the foray probably sprung out of "mob mentality." It's more of a psychological rather than political argument. But hey, we should embrace multi-disciplinary accounts!
Such movements are a sign of participatory democracy. But do these protests undermine democratic institutions and processes? Can the people dictate Parliament's actions. Or, as the Post article above notes, is the brinkmanship of a hunger strike a form of blackmail that undermines democracy?
The second article is a good overview of contentious politics in American and abroad. Why don't we see more people taking it to the streets in the US? Of course, protests begin with anger and grievances. But these aren't sufficient conditions for protests. Meyer's puts a lot of weight on the role of organizers in channeling this anger. But I would also add that there has to be a psychological component. At the microlevel, individuals are either a) calculating the costs/risks of protesting based on the action of others and/or b) swept up in the moment. Either way, there's a cascading logic behind large street protests. At the macro-level, you also have to look at open political opportunities. There are key moments in history and politics - upcoming elections, the death of a leader, etc...which make moments ripe for protest.
So why aren't we seeing more protests in the US? As Meyers notes, the tea party is probably the closest thing to a social movement in our country. But b/c we live in a relatively open, democratic society, the tea party chooses to also work through formal political channels and institutions (i.e. vote or help get their preferred candidates elected) so it may not be necessary to take grievances to the public square 24-7. . Protesters in Syria or Egypt may have felt that they had no access to formal channels of politics, giving them no other choice but to take it to the streets. In London, many of the protesters were minorities on the fringe of society. Looters joining the foray probably sprung out of "mob mentality." It's more of a psychological rather than political argument. But hey, we should embrace multi-disciplinary accounts!
New Direction in Blog: Social Movements
After dwelling for days about the purpose and intent of my sporadic blogging, I've decided to narrow the focus of my blog to themes specific to my research. This blog is not intended for mass consumption. Rather, I intend to use it to help me think about research on social movements and perhaps occassionally reflect on issues related to East Asia, anti-base movements, or North Korea. But I'll try to stick mainly to the theme of social movements in IR.
Why social movements? These days we're being bombarded with news about social protets everywhere: the Arab Spring in the Middle East, London riots, in Europe in reaction to austerity measures, in India. Hardly a day goes by without a major protest. Are we seeing the diffusion of power from states to society? How does contentious politics affect international relations and the study of IR? These are some of the questions I'll try to address in future blog entries.
Why social movements? These days we're being bombarded with news about social protets everywhere: the Arab Spring in the Middle East, London riots, in Europe in reaction to austerity measures, in India. Hardly a day goes by without a major protest. Are we seeing the diffusion of power from states to society? How does contentious politics affect international relations and the study of IR? These are some of the questions I'll try to address in future blog entries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)