As we transition from studying advanced democracy in Unit 1 to studying authoritarian regimes, along with communist and post-communist transitions in Unit 2, I want to start by looking at major transitions that have transpired over the last few years in the Middle East. The Middle East has undergone massive political upheaval over the last few years, attempting to transition from authoritarian rule to democracy. When the Arab Spring started, there was a sense of optimism from the Western world and in the minds of the people starting these revolutions, that finally democracy would gain a foothold in many authoritarian regimes. Obviously, the road to democracy is not as smooth as many people hoped it would be. I want you to watch this TED talk by Wadah Khanfar and answer the following questions (remember to use the same format as before, "1 question-1 post" with the # displayed before it) keeping in mind what we know now about the difficulty of such transitions:
1. Do you feel that Khanfar was too optimistic in his expectations for the outcome of the Arab Spring? Why or why not?
2. He focuses much on the youth of these countries as a driving force because they embrace universal values. How has that played out over the last couple of years? Do you feel that the youth in these countries have the same role they did when he made this talk (February 2011)? Why or why not?
3. What kind of role should the regional media (e.g. Al-Jahzeera) play in the Arab Spring? Should they be active promoters of these regime changes or should they simply be a purveyor and distributor of information regarding these (attempted) transitions?
4. There is a focus on the non-violent aspect of these regime changes. Knowing now that some of these regime changes have turned violent, do you still think it is worth the loss for these people to bring democracy? Why or why not?
5. Compare the paths of Tunisia (an optimistic example), Syria (civil war scenario), and Egypt (very difficult and drawn out process with recent military influence). What do you think was the most important distinction between these three countries that are all a big part of the larger movement of the Arab Spring? Why did they take such seemingly different paths?
1) I feel like Khanfar was overly confident in the timetable and immediate results of the Arab Spring, because from the speech I got the sense that he believed that as long as these protests and oustings continued to spread, that the democracy that people wanted would eventually take root. While he did acknowledge that the road would not be completely smooth, what we've seen happen in places such as Egypt and Syria lead me to believe that the Arab Spring is not progressing as Khanfar believed t would.
ReplyDelete3) "Al Jazeera is not a tool of revolution. We do not create revolutions. However, when something of that magnitude happens, we are at the center of the coverage."
ReplyDeleteThe best thing news outlets in these countries can do is to cover these stories extensively, that itself will be what they need to do to ensure that the people will do what they want. IN addition, if they were to add their own bias it would introduce a new set of problems and controversies that would negatively affect the regime change process. This especially applies to the Qatar-owned Al-Jazeera, who may (and have) been blocked. The most important thing for the people is that they have reliable news coverage, not that the news publicly supports them.
1) I feel that he's being too optimistic because the end results aren't clearly drawn in stone yet, and because even in the countries that deposed their authoritarian regimes, the new goverment either had a reactionary response back to their authoritarian regimes or are in an anarchic state as people are trying to restore order and a new goverment.
ReplyDelete2) Certainly the young are more influenced by changes then are the elders whose habits and beliefs are very ingrained. I believe that it is possible that the youth would constitute or be the first age groups to try to change the status quo. The young and inexperienced-like myself- are often more proactive in change and i believe that until the Arab spring has run its course, that the young will play a significant part in the transition from authoritarian to democracy.
ReplyDelete3)Al-Jahzeera as Matt has mentioned-as well as the quote he listed- should be neutral to the entire event. They should maintain the professional attitude that journalist have and take an indifferent stance otherwise they might introduce bias and poison the truth.
ReplyDelete1) Yes, I feel that Khanfar was too optimistic in his expectations for the Arab Spring. Though some of the changes he was expecting took place and continue to try to take place, they are not happening at the rate he has expected them to; he seems to really believe in the people, but the people are not moving at his anticipated rate. Revolutionary change doesn’t happen overnight; it took our country 10+ years to become stable after gaining independence, so we shouldn’t expect the changes in the Arab Spring to lead to stable countries overnight either.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say that change will take time, that is very true. However, I do not believe his faith in the people is too optimistic, in fact, in my opinion it is right-on-the-money, and to be expected. I feel that anyone who is looking for a change should rightfully look to the younger generation, they are the ones influenced by the increasingly globalized world. But, on the other hand, it cannot be expected that the generation of youths directly following the Arab Spring will be the ones to rise up. Who knows, it could take another generation of Arab youths; however, the weight of the possibility of change and the justification for his optimism lies in the fact that as time goes on these youth are getting smarter and even more bold.
Delete2. As I just mentioned, the present generation of youth are learning how to operate in an increasingly globalized world. This influence has had both positive and negative results. For example, Khanfar experienced an incident where people derived comfort and peace at mind knowing the media was present in Egypt. However, in places like Syria a youth rising against the authoritarian government would be detrimental today. Therefore, while I believe that youths will play a big part in initializing change, I feel that their role should not be as independent of the rest of the population. If they were to work with older, more experienced ones then change could occur.
Delete2) Khanfar says the youth in Tunisia are both ideological but realistic, and they are the ones who took to the street to fight for this revolutionary change. Youths are generally more open-minded, as they are usually worldlier and have new ideas that don’t agree with the current way of living. They also have more technology at their disposal. The internet is definitely a driving force in the impact the youths have, though, as Khanfar said, the access is limited in the Arab world. Though it is limited, it is a form of communication that the elders never had and can therefore be instrumental in driving change. I believe that the youth will continue to be instrumental in the changes that are trying to take place, because the younger someone is, they more likely they are to want freedom, which indicates a belief that democracy should beat out authoritarian.
ReplyDelete3) As I previously said in my answer to #2, the internet access in the Arab world is limited. Al-Jahzeera amplified what the youths posted into “every living room” which definitely helps in spreading a message. I think that they should be neutral as a news outlet, though few news outlets ever are. They should be there to simply spread the news, not to put any bias that sways people to either side of an argument. However, the amount of news they spread on one side of the revolution or the way they spread that news can lead to unintentional bias, which is another problem.
ReplyDelete4) This made me think of economics and the idea that something is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it; i.e. if someone is willing to pay $1000 for a ball-point pen, then it is worth that $1000 to them – though that does not mean someone else would be willing to pay the same price. To me, this is kind of the same thing – if someone thinks this cause is worth destruction and worth dying for, then that is their decision.
ReplyDelete1. I think Khanfar was too optimistic and confident in the conclusions of the Arab Revolutions. I think, to a certain degree, that he has a very idealized view how people as a whole react to change. It’s important to note that people living within authoritarian regimes acclimatize and adapt to their situations, and it becomes harder for them to make the transition. Whether Khanfar understands this is unclear to me, because his speech seemed to enforce the idea that positive change was absolute and inevitable, and did not consider the fact that the changes would be negative.
ReplyDelete4. I don’t know. It’s difficult for me to say that the human death toll is worth the payoff at the end (also not knowing what the pay-off will exactly be) but if it’s what the people truly want, and if they deem it worthy, then it is. I agree with Desia on this one.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete2) The youth my embrace universal values, but it seems that in the countries that experience these revolutions they elect governments that do not. 84% of the youth in Tunisia felt the revolution was not a success... yet only 49% actually participated. In Egypt 80% felt the same way with only 56% participating. In addition, over half the youth in both of these countries feel that Sharia is a legitimate source of information. The point is this: I don't believe "Universal values" necessarily means the same thing to us as it does to the populations of these countries. If Khanfar is looking for the youth to create Western democracies in these states then no, the youth are not going to play that role anytime soon, because even there they are affected by the problem of young people not voting, even when they fought for that vote. In addition, they are voting for people and groups who have proven themselves to be incompatible with the basic tenants of democracy.
Deletehttp://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2013/07/201372992935843820.html
4) It's up to the people. If they decide democracy is worth it, then it is. If they don't, it's not. Plain and simple.
ReplyDelete5) Both Tunisia and Egypt have followed similar paths. Tunisia forced Ben Ali into exile, elected an Islamist party (Ennahda) into power, and when that government proved to be working against the people's will (trying to impose a constitution that claimed women were "complimentary to men") they forced it to hand over power and start a new set of elections. Egypt ousted Mubarak, elected Morsi, and when public support for him fell, he was removed in order to make way for new elections. The difference was how the elected governments were removed. Tunisia, which has close ties with the EU, saw the moderate Ennahda step aside, while Egypt saw the Muslim Brotherhood refuse to give up power until they were forced by the army. I believe in Syria the reason the revolts have devolved into civil war has little to do with religion, but with the fact that al-Assad is simply power-hungry and is willing to shed any amount of blood in order to stay in office. I think the main difference between these three countries is in how the governments chose to react to the protests, and indeed not in all of them have there been governments overthrown. In countries such as Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, and Oman the government has responded with reforms that have for the most part placated their populations. Are those protests done? No, they continue even to today, but at the present moment it is unlikely that the people of Morocco will oust Mohammed VI.
ReplyDeleteIn short, I believe it is the leadership of the countries that determined how the Arab Spring resulted. In those where the leadership was willing to make significant enough reforms and concessions, the people were content to accept those, seeing a better way of life as more important than democracy, especially in a region that has no democratic institutions to begin with. In Tunisia the leadership has proven to yield to the will of the people when they get loud enough, and in Egypt they have proven to be more rigid. In Syria I believe the civil war is a result of al-Assad's desire for power. Of course, the Arab Spring is nowhere close to finished in any of these countries (Tunisia and Egypt have elections coming u this year), so only time will tell what their paths really are.
1) The fact that Khanfar believes the youth are wiser than any political party, political elite, or intelligent elite inclined that he was being a little hyperbolic; so in that sense he was too optimistic in his expectations. He definitely relied on charisma to get his point across to the audience. The foundation of his speech was that the voices of public can fight and even beat authoritarian regimes, but in my opinion even with the connectivity that could be created in the Arab world, voices would not be enough to alter long last traditions. The idea that there is a new future that will be constructed is an optimistic point of view that seemed purposeful in my understanding of the video. However, the origin of this new future might not take place now. Perhaps the youth that Khanfar so highly spoke of still needs more time to develop into a more democratically involved era.
ReplyDelete2) Just like any country around the world, the youth can be classified as the source of a country’s future. Therefore, the youth is of course a major component of how things proceeded for the Arab Spring. Khanfar makes the point that the youth want their voices to be heard and wants to do this in a peaceful, non-violent way. However, the youth as seen in Egypt and Tunisia relied on violence to let their voices be heard. In relation to the time of Khanfar’s talk, the youth still have the capability of letting violence influence their role, but as of today there has been some form of alteration to this role that involves communication to be spread more easily and this is because of the internet (Facebook and Twitter).
ReplyDelete3) The role of Al-Jahzeera in relation to Arab Spring depends on what this regional media’s task is. Based on what Khanfar said throughout his TED Talk, it seemed that reporters were so continuously involved that they were even banned from countries like Egypt. It is the regional media’s intention to provide information for the people, but it seems as though the popularity of medias like Al-Jahzeera have gained such popularity because of their promotion for regime changes. When Khanfar mentioned how reporters volunteered to go to Egypt secretly, I got the general idea that Al-Jahzeera was attempting to make change and the actions taken by them were not for the purpose of desperately seeking knowledge for the public, but instead find information to expand on the promotion of the change that is needed.
ReplyDelete4) Throughout all of history, there is always the case that there are consequences and casualties that come with a desire for change (this is of course in regards to major political scenarios). Although violence is a hypocritically way of dealing with the want for democracy, the violent aspect of the regime changes might be necessary. The fact that people support violence shows a peculiar loyalty to the cause.
ReplyDelete1) I think that Khanfar's optimism is reflective of the original opinions of many left-of-center Western thinkers, and that it is unwise to think that these Arab Spring revolutions in the Middle East are going to somehow topple the dictatorial structures that have been in place, in one form or another, for many centuries.
ReplyDelete2) A close look at Egypt, as an example, will show that this is clearly not the case. What some felt was a mass movement for liberal democracy led by the youth became known to really be a mass movement to simply overthrow the government. This led to a Muslim Brotherhood electoral victory (and its supporters were supposed to only be a small minority of the protesting population).
ReplyDelete3) Theoretically, Middle Eastern news agencies should present the unbiased truth and not further marginalize the situation by being biased towards one particular side. A wrong act by a "rebel" should not be seen as any better than if it were done by the existing government because such behavior (that is, turning a blind eye to the acts of various "rebel" groups) can only lead to problems in that it could lead to a new government that ends up being worse than the one it replaced.
ReplyDelete4) The concern when these revolutions turn violent is that it is very likely (especially because of past history in the region) that the rebel forces, if victorious, will be just as oppressive if not more so than the previous regime. Without a historical and trustworthy commitment to democracy, any turn to violence with regard to the Arab Spring will more often than not not bode well for the people of that country.
ReplyDelete5) A big difference between these countries is government dynamic before the Arab Spring. In Egypt, for instance, there had been a secular, peaceful government that dealt well on the international scene and was rather moderate (though certainly had its faults). By upsetting this structure and lacking the true universal desire for freedom, it should not come as a surprise that the hopes of some for real liberal democracy did not pan out.
ReplyDelete#1. I don't think Khanfar was overly optimistic. I actually think that he was hopeful enough. Obviously, change is not going to happen overnight; but I think that his faith and vision for the future makes him a leader, and someone who is at least willing to put forth the effort to make a tangible change to the current predicament. His comments about leaving the cameras on at night, and watching youth rally with their parents represent a keen dedication even in the face of doubt. He wants to see change, and I think this want is admirable. I think that the success in Tunisia, and the openness of residents in the country are testament to the idea that change is obtainable, and that Khanfar is idealistic enough.
ReplyDelete#2. I think that youth do still play a huge role in making these tangible changes. Think about it - social media is and was always cultivated and made interesting because of youth. Social media is and always has been the future. Press conferences over Skype, Google Hangouts, and YouTube makes sharing messages easier and more obtainable. The only issue with youth involvement is that youth are willing to be active, but in many instances, lack the education or influence to make changes that they approve of, and I think this is important. Check out this link: http://studies.aljazeera.net/eServices/Templates/en/centernews/201372911558721597.html. This being said, I think youth will always represent an important population involved in creating change. They just need to figure what kind of change they want.
ReplyDelete2.The youth are implicated to be a major driving force in the regime changes, but it’s important to note that they are one factor in a multitude of variables that are responsible for revolution. While the youth generation is instrumental in starting and/or supporting a regime change, there are other factors that must be considered, including the social climate of these countries, including religion, class, etc. I think the youth are part of a much bigger picture, and that Khanfar should include modes of thinking (conservative vs. progressive) of the population as a whole in his vision of change.
ReplyDelete#3. I honestly, don't think that I should decide this, but instead that Al-Jahzeera should make its purpose clear. Is Al-Jahzeera a news report whose purpose is to provide objective information for a global audience who can't be there to experience the ongoing conflicts of the Middle East? Or, is the Al-Jahzeera a platform for social activism that promotes democracy. For me, the speaker of the TedTalk who seemed to be associated with Al-Jahzeera was advocating democracy, so I would think the latter.
ReplyDelete#4. I think that it is worth the loss of life only if the citizens of these territories actually want democracy. As long as the democracy was not inflicted by some outside force as "the best way" of carrying on, I think the loss of life was noble and justified if fighting for a better tomorrow for fellow citizens.
ReplyDelete3. I think the role of any news agency is to provide unbiased information, regardless of their stance or agenda. I think the quote Matt used sums up Al-Jazeera’s responsibility during the Arab Spring. It is important to provide people with authentic and reliable information, so that they can make honest decisions. Even if Al-Jazeera supported the regime change, it’s important that this bias be absent from their reporting.
ReplyDelete1. I don't think that Khanfar is too optimistic. While some of his ideas might seem a little far fetched, I think that his position and intention needs to be noted. Like Jose said, he is relying on charisma to try to communicate his point, and I think that if he were to be successful in getting his audience to think favorably of his point, a certain level of optimism is necessary. I think he also does make some valid points- long-standing regimes have been overthrown by the common people before, and given the power of the Internet to unite people, I definitely don't think his expected outcome is out of reach. While his statements might be exaggerated, I do not think they are too optimistic.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that the youth do, and will pretty much always, play the same role. As the youth are learning and developing their own beliefs and ideas, their open-mindedness is likely to lead them to act out against the status quo. Especially with the wide access to the Internet that the youth today have, I think that they will be more likely to participate and act on their beliefs. While the youth is and has been the force to initially prompt the change, I do not think that it will play out well in the long-term without some type of balance from a moderate force. Youth tend to lack the experience and reason that would allow them to execute these changes effectively, shown by the instances of their using violence to communicate their point thus far.
ReplyDelete3. I think that Al-Jazeera's responsibility is to simply deliver the news of the recent events. I feel that if they were to get caught up in political bias, they would compromise their validity as a news source.
ReplyDelete4. I haven't experienced the cruelties of the authoritarian regime, nor have I experienced the consequences of the violence of the revolution, so I really can't say whether it is worth it. As most others have said, I feel that if the people involved think that the conditions of the past regime are bad enough to outweigh the potential destruction of a violent revolution that it is justified. Ultimately, it is up to those directly involved.
ReplyDelete1. I think he is being very optimistic but at the same time his optimism is backed by several examples. it is hard to say the youth will do the same thing in all arab countries because the youth population between cultures and nations is too diverse to place them into the same category, the democratic revolutions all started with the youth, but there is nothing suggesting that other revolutions will not be started by other classes. I think the group that inspires the revolution are the ones who are most suppressed.
ReplyDelete2. first off, I do not believe that the youth embrace universal values because they are the rebellious people. just because our culture believes that democracy is the best system of government does not make it universal. the youth have been the stimuli for change, so they have obviously not been using "universal" values of their culture. they have a large impact on the revolutions because they are the genereation that will rule and be affected by the political system for years to come. the elderly will die soon and will not care enough to see political change because it wil not benefit them enough.
ReplyDelete3. I am a firm believer in media only presenting facts and letting the public and viewers decide for themselves the best thing for the country. but of course with several media instituitions, they will appeal to different sides of the political spectrum. the media will always present what the want and skew facts to their benefit, but due to the principle of competition the most popular view will reign on and the others will fail
ReplyDelete4. the political change desired by the most people will eventually prevail and win out. this may come with a large loss of life, but it is not my place to decide whether political change in a country or region I have never been nor share a connection with is worth it. it is simply up to the rebels in that area and how much they desire a change in government and how many people want to support it
ReplyDelete5. I agree with Matt in that I believe the ambitions of the leadership are at the root of the differences between the countries. Obviously a nation with a desperately power-hungry government like Al-Assad will go down a different path than a nation with a more compromising government, like Tunisia's. The ambitions of the leading entity will determine how it reacts to the wishes of the people, which will determine the specific reactions of those people.
ReplyDelete1.) Khanfar had an optimistic view of the uprisings, and he did little to even acknowledge that many internal revolutions do not institute democracy, but even worse regimes. These can be seen in the very figures whose regimes are just now falling such as Qaddafi, Nasser, and Hussein.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, it is easy to see where his optimism sprung from. He grew up in an era of increasing authoritarianism in the Middle East, just as these staunch anti-Western governments took power. For the longest time, he has not seen a true internal revolution. All he saw was the U.S. pulling down Saddam's statue, and other Western interference. These are the first internal revolutions from a people who were fed up, and he is excited, as many of us were, by the possibilities of where this could go.
5. I believe it is the level of intensity by both the rebels and people already in power. with a strong leader eager to keep the throne like in Egypt, then there will be a storng military presence and may cause outbreak of violence. in a country where the people are divided on their desired system of government there will be a civil war. and in a place where the majority of people want a change, then there will be a more peaceful revolution.
ReplyDelete2.) I believe that the youth continues to be the largest group driving these revolutions. I believe that Maryam's post reflects most closely how I feel about the youth. They are not alone in this change, though they are the largest group that wants change. Political groups have identified the youth as the most key demographic in affecting this change (Oh how this differs in the US) and have started tailoring their messages to the youth, similar to how large companies tailor their advertisements to the youth.
ReplyDeleteIn this report by the US Institute of Peace (http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR236Venhaus.pdf), it is identified that many youth actively seek out middle eastern terrorist organizations because they identify most with them. In Tunisia, groups that held Western values in high esteem were able to appeal the most to the youth, while in Egypt, much of the youth was seduced (for lack of a better term) by the Muslim Brotherhood. In Syria, this is happening as we speak as groups are competing to be the most appealing group for the youth, who have become the agents of change.
#5. I think that the most important distinction between the three countries was the willingness to make the new systems work. With Tunisia, it was the first to successfully achieve independence, and there were no significant outside forces at hand to restrict change, like the Egyptian military, or Syrian repression. I think the paths were actually all very similar: overthrow of an old system, and attempts of democracy. The differences were simply cooperation.
ReplyDelete3.) All regional media have a responsibility to present an unbiased account of events. Allowing yourself as a media outlet to be thrown into the fray not only presents you as skewed in your reporting, but also makes enemies who will not forget your actions should they take or retake power. Now, it is almost impossible to present an unbiased view of events in the best of circumstances, but it is even harder to do so when one side of a story allows for personal interviews with activists while the other bans you from the country. As a result of this, Al-Jazeera emerges as a proponent of the revolutions, but I hope that Khanfar was correct in asserting their intent to remain unbiased.
ReplyDelete4.) Matt's comment gets straight to the business of it, the idea of self-determination taken to the extreme. If the citizens hold the idea of democracy close enough to their hearts that they are willing to die for it, then their sacrifices will be worthwhile. If they feel that the state they are living in is unjust and autocratic, and they are willing to lay down their lives for a democracy, no matter what its leanings are, then democracy is worth the bloodshed.
ReplyDelete5.) I believe that the key difference between the three countries and their courses through modern history is the will of their leaders. Ben-Ali appeared to have a strong will for the long time he held power, but he had little taste for widespread and open violence and warfare. He was not prepared to roll the dice to remain in control and chose to step down with his life rather than lose everything.
ReplyDeleteSyria presents the polar opposite of this spectrum. Call him what you like (I certainly do), but Assad has one hell of a willpower. He is unwilling to walk away from power, dismissing without a second thought any third party plan that involves him peacefully stepping down. He still believes he can remain in control of his country, even after dozens of cities have crumbled under the weight of this civil war. As a result of this willpower, he is prepared to use all necessary force to ensure he remains in power.
Egypt is the most interesting of these examples. Mubarak had some willpower in his position, as he resisted the protests for such a long time, and yet he eventually vacated his post under pressure from most forces. His willpower did not drive him to the insanity Assad is conducting, and yet he held firm longer than Ben Ali. The other side of this is the military, who was granted increasing powers under Mubarak and is now clearly unwilling to relinquish these powers. The military appears to be closer to Assad as a leader, and it is unclear whether a widespread civil war might erupt, or whether it already has,
1. I do feel as though Khanfar was being slightly unrealistic in his expectations that there would be this clean transition from one regime to the next but in actuality, making a transition of this magnitude and opposing an authority that believes so fervently that it has the right to rule can never just be a clean change. These changes are evolutionary and must be given a lot of time and trying to speed up the process results in many tragedies and bloodshed.
ReplyDelete2. The youth are a pivotal aspect of the revolution and act as the fuel since they possess the mentality to strive to keep it going and achieve their goals. They are vital because they are the future leaders of the countries and although they might not have the ability to have a large impact now, they will be the driving forces of politics in the near future.
ReplyDelete3. Ideally, news broadcasts should serve as objective reports of conflicts, maintaining a distance and not influencing events themselves. However, this is very difficult in this situation because of the oppression typical in these authoritarian regimes. By publically broadcasting the events that occur and bringing public awareness, the news companies gather support for the revolution by showing the atrocities brought upon by these authoritarian regimes. As long as they don't skew their reports, they can still be treated as objective entities even if they unintentionally influence events.
ReplyDelete4. As many have remarked, as long as the people will the change and genuinely believe they are securing a better future for their children in that country, the cause can be viewed as a noble cause and the bloodshed would not be in vain. However if the citizens of the country do not agree with the revolution but rather are sucked into it and put in the middle of the entanglement by outside forces who have decided democracy would be best, then I believe it is wrong for those citizens to have to die for something they do not even agree with.
ReplyDelete5. The flexibility of the government makes all of the difference in determining how easy of a transition there will be. In many countries, such as Egypt, the leading group believes to their core that they have a right to govern and that right transcends any revolution that could be brought upon them. In these instances, the government in power will use any means necessary to stay in power and the revolution becomes long and drawn out. In other countries, however, such as the case in Tunisia, the government perhaps is not as strong to go against the people or not as fervent in their ways and can be easily won over.
ReplyDelete1. Khafar was slightly overconfident in the change in regards to the Arab Spring. Although he concedes that the change in the Middle East is not occurring at the ideal pace, his expectation of a smooth but revolutionary change is impractical.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Khanfar was too optimistic about the Arab Spring- even if he is, I think it's important to put on a brave face for the public to inspire a similar attitude in others. As a previous director of Al Jazeera and now the leader of the Al Sharq Forum, I think his optimism is appropriate given the goals of the organizations he is associated with.
ReplyDelete2. Khafar constantly referred to utilization of technology during the Arab Spring, which he states is the result of the youth and their involvement. This goes to show that the youth have a major role in the movement and the youth are the new generation of change. The youth in these countries always have and always will have the same power as the youth are the driving force for new ideas as evidenced by many of history's movements for change.
ReplyDelete2. I thought that Khanfar made a great point about youth and connectivity in this modern age- young people play such a great role in national change (and they always have) because they represent a new generation, a fresh set of eyes to evaluate the problems of a society. I think that the youth is just as important now as it was in 2011- as more people get involved they bring new perspectives and ideas to the movement.
ReplyDelete3. The regional media should serve to solely report as objectively as possible. If they are partisan, then the regional media could be considered propaganda and a revolutionary movement for democracy (which is not necessarily the best system, as each individual country may be better suited to differing political systems) could change towards a political system which is not supported/believed to be beneficial for the social, political, or economic health of a country. The goal of most reputable news outlets is to provide non-partisan, objective, and unbiased (to an extent) information and news.
ReplyDelete3. I saw a lot of parallels between the regional media such as Al Jazeera and organizations like WikiLeak- both stand for postconventional ideals of truth and freedom of speech (I did my TOK presentation based on this idea). I think that the regional media should serve only to distribute raw information rather than to promote regime changes- this way they can give the people a choice in what they want. However, there is always the question of whether any change will occur if no one incites it.
ReplyDelete4. Depending on the circumstances, bloodshed may be necessary for betterment. Suffering can either be pernicious or the kind that makes a people stronger. If the overwhelming majority (or even a minority) believes that change, through bloodshed, will better the people, then that majority, or minority, should be able to fight to preserve their views and further their beliefs.
ReplyDelete4. I think that Khanfar's emphasis on nonviolence was crucial to changing the way we view regime changes in the Middle East- the fact that violence has sprung up since his video was posted is discouraging in that it has signaled a potential cycle of authoritarianism and rebellion through violence, leading to more authoritarianism. It seems that nonviolence would be an effective way to break this cycle.
ReplyDelete5. 5. The biggest distinction between the three scenarios (that is evident to me) is that the people of Egypt have been severely isolated from the rest of the world. Khanfar stressed the role of connectivity through the Internet and social media in his TedTalk- this is a resource which cannot be used when taken away from the people. The scary part is that the Internet and social media are seen as weapons by authoritarian regimes, and as a result, people are punished for attempting to connect with other parts of the world. This reaction by the government is what makes the crisis in Egypt so different from those in Tunisia and Syria.
ReplyDelete5. The leadership is the main difference between the three countries. The combination of the will of the leadership, along with the causes for revolt (which goes back to the leadership), led to the different paths of revolution. In a more general perspective, all three followed the similar cycle of overthrow, replace, and instability. The paths have not fully developed and the cycle is not complete.
ReplyDelete#1 I think that Khanfar believed that the events that occurred in Egypt would spark changes all over the Middle East, which may have happened, however, he expected things to change much too quickly. The Middle Eastern countries are some of the oldest in the world, one cannot expect their governments (which have been built on and built on for hundreds of years) to topple down like a Jenga tower after Egypt’s revolution. It’s absurd to think so. I think that maybe he got caught up with the changes in Egypt and that’s why he got optimistic (and hope isn’t such a bad thing) but you cannot drastically change things that have been instilled within a country for generations in just a few short years.
ReplyDelete#2 An advantage and a flaw within the youth is that they are supercharged to take a stand for whatever they believe is right. Every generation wants to be the generation that makes a big change to make things better than they were with the generation before. Unfortunately, their minds and passion can be manipulated by people who claim to seek justice, but with less-than-democratic game plans. I believe that the youth’s open-mindedness will continue to be a great advantage to change but it is also important that the youth protest in such a productive way that they are respected and not perceived as being too violent and destructive to be taken seriously.
ReplyDelete#3 In a perfect world, all types of media should remain neutral regardless of scenarios. Doing so creates trustworthiness and reliability in the news’ ability to relay information to viewers. In the regional media’s case, if they cater too much to protesters and the protesters are unsuccessful in their efforts, well then there may be some awkwardness and trouble with the government and the regional media. It’s in their best interest to report what is really going on instead of conjuring up a story demonizing protesters or governments.
ReplyDelete#4 The problem with wiping out the government instead of taking steps toward reform with the government is that there may be a problem with establishing a new order. No more government essentially allows an opportunity for anarchy…or more oppression because someone will feel inclined to take charge and lead. Take France, for instance…things didn’t exactly get better after the violence. Completely wiping out the government also begs the question: great, we know we have an “army” of people who can fight, but can we establish a newer, better government that can actually withstand time and prosper?
ReplyDelete#5 I think that the differences between the three can be viewed in one way by the government’s rigidity towards the people and towards change. Some of the countries’ governments were very strong against the protesters and to change, while it seems that others maybe eased up more to the protesters.
ReplyDelete3. I think that regional media should just observe the happenings of the change. In my opinion, the role of the media should be to report, not instigate. While in some cases what is reported in the media can elicite certain emotions from the people, its role should go to that extent. The change in the region should be left in the hands of the people since they are the ones who know 'how' the changes will work for them.
ReplyDelete4. Honestly, that is a hard question to answer. I am a strict pacifist and I do not condone violence in any capacity, unless it is in self defense. But that is where this question is confusing. The citizens under these regimes are only trying to defend themselves and their minds against oppression. Therefore, in this sense it would be ok... if some were to lose their lives sine it is for a cause greater than a single individual's life. It is for the security of the future generations, and in that sense martyrdom should not be seen so negatively.
ReplyDelete5. It makes a lot of sense, as my classmates have brought out, that the manner in which Arab Spring movement is executed is based on the type of government in place in that country. Like when we write essays, we answer depending on the nature of the prompt. The same goes for the activists protesting authoritarian government. These citizens are forced to respond to the state based on the nature of the governing body they have been subjected to. And consequently, the end result of such change, be it civil war (Syria), incremental change (Egypt), or a bright democratic future (Tunisia).
ReplyDelete2. I think that the presence of the youth population at the forefront of advocating change and acceptance of universal values has diminished over the course of last couple of years. This is evident especially in Egypt where only a few years ago, non-violent and enthusiastic protests led by the youth called for the resignation of the authoritarian leader, Hosni Mubarak, and the commencement of a journey towards democracy. However, now this perspective seems to have disappeared as the conflict currently broils between supporters of the ousted Islamist leader and supporters of the military regime, neither of which has any resemblance to the egalitarian values required in the democracy that the youth and others previously fought for.
ReplyDelete3. Regional media such as Al-Jazeera should play an integral role in covering the Arab Spring. As journalists their responsibility is to report the news in the most balanced way possible. However, authoritarian regimes by definition limit their freedom to do so. Thus, I believe they should actively promote advances toward regime changes that ensure they obtain the right to freedom of the press.
ReplyDelete4. I think the loss of life for the cause of bringing about positive change in society is a noble sacrifice. However, I also think that this violence should not be initiated by those who are seeking the regime changes since the lines become blurred between who has the moral upper ground. Nonetheless, if the peaceful protests are confronted with violence, the protestors still have the right to defend themselves, though this can often lead to civil war.
ReplyDelete1. Of course in hindsight, it seems that Khanfar’s optimism was premature. However, in direct aftermath of the Arab Spring, I believe that his optimism rather than being excessive was in fact, warranted. His personal connection to the whole situation naturally entailed that emotions would color his judgment. After experiencing decades of oppression from authoritarian regimes, even simple protests represent major steps forward. In addition, commentators on the outside also were hopeful that this reflected a positive transformation that would last and not many predicted the demise is occurring now. I think that in the euphoric moment of living through such dramatic transformations, it is inevitable that people would expect a positive outcome and not really consider the obstacles that are now obvious in hindsight.
ReplyDelete1. I feel he was overly optimistic. The issues occurring in the Arab countries have been happening for years and years. And history has shown that they aren't easily resolved.
ReplyDeleteAlthough he was overly optimistic, with his goal of trying to promote change through an uprising by the youth, his optimism is justified as his presentation is more of a show of pathos than ethos, in trying to show the youth that they are completely capable, and trying to get the world on their side.
Delete2. The youth are more persevering and revolutionary than the old people that have been oppressed and broken down over the years under the regime. Therefore, the youth have the power and willingness to overcome and continue to fight. In recent years the youth have been the ones in the riots and crying out for help against the regime.
ReplyDelete5. I think the most important discrepancy between the three countries is the amount of support the movements in each country garnered. The Arab Spring movement in Tunisia appears to have had the broad support of the masses. This created an environment in which the authoritarian leader was forced to step down. Moreover, a majority of the Tunisian population seems to be deeply committed to democratic principles and thus, is tenaciously continuing on the long road of attempting to establish a more democratic government as is evident from the free elections and recent enactment of a democratic constitution. Egypt seems to initially have had support behind a regime change since they were able to topple the authoritarian leader. However, the commitment toward democratic ideals seems to be less united as they first elected a divisive leader who would limit minority rights and bypass democratic mechanisms and now seem to be content in reverting back to old military regime. Syria, on the other hand, is the most divided. Although there is a large group of rebels, there is still a significant and powerful backing of the regime and rendering the situation a bloody stalemate.
ReplyDelete3. They should be either active supporters or pushers for revolution. If they are both the portrayal and in the conflict, the information in the media being presented to the public could be skewed. If they are just an outlet to the people then I feel the information would be less biased.
ReplyDelete4. I don't feel like loss is ever worth it. However, the people have no other means of making changing. It is obviously a tragedy but what else are they to do. They need to be liberated.
ReplyDelete5. I feel the most important distinction between the three countries were the ways in which they tried solving the conflicts that resulted from the protests. They took different paths as a result of the different types/ intensities of the violence and protests. This was also due to their different types of governments.
ReplyDelete#1 He did seem to be overly optimistic when he threw in the part that he was convinced that the youth in the Middle East was better than political leaders from around the world, and that they were the perfect mix of rational and radical. I believe he was being highly ideal and not taking into account the realities of the situation. Mostly based off of history, although the youth is a force to be reckoned with, they still have quite a bit to learn on how to deal with their current authorities.
ReplyDelete#2 I do feel that the youth is a force to be reckoned with, they seem to on average challenge the orthodox and traditional views on running society. The youth is the most open to liberal ideas and is therefore able to be more effective in bringing about change that they think reflects their values.
ReplyDelete#3 I believe regional media like all media should attempt to not have bias; however, I believe this is a certain case where the above does not apply. The Al-Jahzeera is being banned from the country, and therefore is attempting to continue to stream information that is occurring live. So whether they like it or not, they are helping the cause of the opposition. Al-Jahzeera seems to portray an interest in freedom and I believe since they have a large influence on helping tell the story of those involved, they should do their best to help the cause, even if it may cause them to be biased.
ReplyDelete#4 Yes i believe it is still worth the loss of these people to bring about change. Even though a case to case situation would be different, i believe that for these people as a whole, they would agree to be the ones to step up for change if it would allow their kids to live free lives. By stepping up now, regardless of the consequences, they are putting their people out of the cycle and calling for an end to their harsh treatments.
ReplyDelete#5 The leadership in the countries were key to bringing about change in an effective way. Tunisia was able to force their leader Ben Ali into exile, while Egypt and Syria had more rigid rulers that were unwilling to step aside with noise from protest alone.
ReplyDelete1. I do not think that he was being too optimistic because at this point he is no longer a journalist but a humanitarian. He is trying to globalize the world through the distribution of information and he is laying the path for a better future. It is almost a necessity for him to be optimistic of the future in order to influence a wave of change.
ReplyDelete#2 I believe the youth of these countries are the main contributors to the change we see happening in the Arab Spring. They are more open-minded to change and have taken it upon themselves to bring upon the change that they deserve. In Libya we saw that the younger generation was taking to the streets and coordinating with the UN via Twitter to overthrow Gadaffi. It's the children of the traditionalists that will bring about change because change is inherent in time.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete#3 The regional reporters should play an active role in the revolutions because they play an essential part of the globalized culture. As Khanfar said, just by having the cameras rolling they are not only informing the world around them but also the people in the revolutions. It brings them morale and gives them something to stand behind. The situation has become too extreme for on lookers to stand idly by while there are people being oppressed and denied their basic rights. It is time to introduce the Middle East to the rest of the world.
ReplyDelete#4 I think the violence and death that these revolutions bring are justified for the change because it is the same sort of logic as when we dropped the atomic bomb. Kill a few and save millions. In many of the states there will be unwarranted deaths caused by the oppressive regimes that will not be remembered. However, if there were to be a revolution to bring democracy and a fair government then those deaths could be avoided and they could be saving millions of potential deaths. And the deaths for the revolution will not be in vain. They will be remembered as heroes who changed the world for the better.
ReplyDelete#5 I think the main distinctions were the unwillingness of the leaders to step down. In Tunisia it was a much more cleaner transition; however, in other countries such as Syria and Egypt with a heavy presence of Islamic extremists there is a tradition of tradition which creates more friction when change is introduced.
ReplyDelete1. I think that Khanfar was too optimistic in his expectations for the Arab spring because he seems to think that this type of change can happen instantly. I believe that in order for lasting change to occur, it must occur gradually so that it is more likely to be accepted.
ReplyDelete2. The youth definitely have a similar role to what Khanfar described in the video. With the use of the internet, they are exposed to many other types of societies that they perceive to be better. This serves to fuel their anger toward their regime and try to bring about change.
ReplyDelete3. They should not actively promote regime change only because if they do, people will not look at it as a reliable source. This may cause viewers to not side with regime change because they may believe that they are not getting the whole truth.
ReplyDelete4. I believe that it is not worth the loss because if people are to accept the change to democracy, there must be a peaceful change in power. Using violence will only lead to one side feeling oppressed and eventually using violence again in order to establish their own power.
ReplyDelete5. I think that the most important distinction between these three countries was the leadership. In Tunisia, the leadership allowed for some free press and eventually stepped aside when protests started taking place. In Syria on the other hand, with military rule, it would be hard for anything to get changed because the military has more power than others.
ReplyDelete1. I don't think that Khanfar was too optimistic about his expectations. I just think that they seem different and such an alternate to what people automatically assume about what is going on in the Middle East so that is why it may seem too optimistic to some. However, I feel like the expectations he has come up with is a result of the many inspirational encounters he has experienced with the people (such as those pleading to him not to turn off the cameras) and these revolutionary ideas that do seem possible that it is hard not to be optimistic.
ReplyDelete2. I do believe that the youth has been a contributing factor and a driving force. Not only are they opened to these new and revolutionary ideas for their countries, they can also use the different media available to them to seek out support and secure these ideas. I think the constant news we hear about the countries fighting for their democracies are both direct and indirect results of the youth and their role they play in bringing these ideas and publishing these ideas to people around the world (the West) and that some of these things can still be attributed to their contributions.
ReplyDelete3. Personally I think that news media outlets or regional media should remain unbiased in their reporting even if there is a change in the regime (or attempt at a change). With that being said I think they should not support it as much but rather just distribute the news as unbiased as possible to have a more reliable and credible reporting. If they do try to promote the change, then I feel like news reports that are more likely to support the change would influence the reliability and credibility of these news media.
ReplyDelete4. It is definitely worth it. I 100% believe that you should fight for what you believe in and seeing that there are still attempts for regime changes in these countries despite the violence, injuries, and deaths, I think that this is something the citizens of the country want and are willing to fight for. At the end, these loss would just make the transitions seem more successful and glorifying.
ReplyDelete5. I feel like the most distinctive feature among these countries is the way their previous governments responded to the dissatisfaction of their people.I also think that it is because of this that the revolutions all took such different paths. The previous leaders of the different countries had different reactions to such attempts for change. Some wanted to stay and keep power more than others that resulted in a more difficult scenario (Egypt) than others (Tunisia) and those that had a difficulty in deciding what is best for the country (Syria).
ReplyDelete1) I think that Khanfar was optimistic in his expectations for the outcome of the Arab spring because he believed so much in the promise of the revolution and the power of the people; however, I would not interpret his hope in change to be "too optimistic." In order to believe in an idea, especially as revolutionary as this one, one needs an optimistic attitude and I think that although some of his expectations did not necessarily happen, he looked more to the hope of having this idea happen and chose to look forward to the good of the revolution than the bad.
ReplyDelete2) The youth are the future. They are the new generation and with a new generation comes new changes. I think that the youth really do embody the revolution because they are looking forward to the future that they will play a bigger role in, not as youths, but adults so they want to see change so that it can be a future that they see themselves in. I also think that the youth continue to play a huge role in the social media aspect with all the social media sites to rally more people because it is the quickest mode of communication and perfect for stirring up the public.
ReplyDelete3) The Al-Jahzeera should communicate objective, unbiased, reliable information because I think that is what media outlets should strive to do. Even if they support the regime change, they should keep the information unbiased because it maintains their legitimacy as a source of news.
ReplyDelete4) I definitely agree with Matt on this. If the people want democracy, it's worth the sacrifice. If they do not want it as much as they do, it's not worth it.
ReplyDelete5) I think the most important distinction is the different ways that the governments were already set up. With different governments comes different issues that have different ways to fix them. Also, while all of them had the idea of freedom in mind, the way they went about fighting for this freedom was different from each other.
ReplyDelete1) I think that Khanfar is a bit optimistic in his expectations. From his talk it seems like he thinks things are going to change in a short amount of time, which, I do not think is very likely. Revolutionary change like he is talking about is going to take time, and there may be some unexpected problems that will occur.
ReplyDelete2) Just like in our own culture, I think the youth can make whatever future that they want. What they make of the future depends on the universal values that they hold. The values that they hold are almost completely dependent on how they were raised and what they were raised to believe in. If they believe that they can make a change in their country, then they will try to make a change until they are successful. With news agencies and the internet, the youth can spread and share their ideas about what change they should bring to their countries.
ReplyDelete3) I believe that the regional media and news corporations should not promote any action at all. I think they should just simply watch what is happening and explain it to the rest of the world. The actions taken in these countries should be what the people who live there want, and not what some news corporation wants.
ReplyDelete4) I think that it is worth it if the end result is democracy for these countries. If the fight were given up because they do not think that it is possible to bring democracy, then all who have died already will have died in vain. Also, more people will continue to suffer if democracy is not brought to the countries. The only way to make sure that no more death and suffering comes is to finish the process and achieve democracy.
ReplyDelete5) I think the largest distinction between these is the leader’s unwillingness to leave their power. In Syria and Egypt this was more of a problem than in Tunisia. In Syria and Egypt, there was more of a military rule, which caused more violence, but in Tunisia, the leadership left more peacefully when there were protests. Syria and Egypt took different paths than Tunisia because of Islamic traditions in the area which would cause problems when there is any large change in power.
ReplyDelete1. I do not believe he was being too optimistic. It was new, something exciting, and the new revolutionary ideas were spreading at a fast and successful rate. He was enthusiastic, but based off the information available to him, I think it was a justifiable enthusiasm.
ReplyDelete2. The youth were pretty much the spark of the changes, but I think that has chnaged slightly since the talk was made. The youth may have started it, but now I feel that the entire population is involved. It has grown to encompass pretty much everyone in those nations at this point, regardless of age.
ReplyDelete3. The point of a news station is to convey information, and not to persuade it to move in one direction or the other. The best things these news groups can do is to cover the stories extensively and try to remain unbiased. Once the story leans too far in one direction vs the other, it becomes easy to discredit the accuracy of the news source.
ReplyDelete4. It is not our place on the side lines to say if the cost is worth it. The people that are undergoing those changes are the only ones that can say if their struggle is worth it. If they want it, it is worth it. By the fact that the uprisings have continued so long, I ould say that they still believe it is worth the costs.
ReplyDelete5. When it comes to the differenent paths taken, it really boils down to the leaders the nations had. In Tunisia, the leaders left when they lost public support. The people elected a new leader, who then stepped down after the public reject him.
ReplyDeleteIn Egypt this was similar, but the Muslim Brotherhood had to be removed by force, and that military intervention never really went away.
In Syria, the president refuses to give up power, and that is why the civil war has raged so long. This refusal to leave has created the situation that exists today.
The country changes based off the leaders, and that is why the nations have taken separate paths.