We are seeking well-written, interesting submissions of 1500-2000 words on the themes below, including summaries and/or excerpts of recently completed research, new publications, and works in progress. Submissions for the issue are due Monday, February 27th, 2012.

After the Revolution: Looking Forward

The wave of uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa in 2011 set a precedent for political and social change. Starting with Tunisia, people began to publicly call into question the leadership of governments and individuals that hitherto they feared challenging or accepted as their political fate. However, shortly after the Arab Spring, the stark realities of political transitions have become clear. Some regimes, such as in Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria, sought to use force to crush nascent uprisings. Even in the successful revolutions, most notably Egypt and Tunisia, securing political leadership that acts in the interests of the people remains a challenge. More broadly, we are witnessing revolutions still in progress, where the prospects for successful democratic transitions seem uncertain. What challenges exist to these nascent democratic movements? A number of questions emerge, including:

Opportunities and Dangers: Political transitions present groups with opportunities influence the direction or nature of the change. Notably, in the context of the Middle East and North Africa, revolutions may present Islamic parties with an opening to advance their ideologies and gain support. On one hand, this may lead to a more peaceful redefinition of groups that were repressed by previous regimes. But on the other hand, the political vacuum revolutions create may encourage the rise of more extreme ideological parties.

State and Society: The revolutions and uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa have also called into question the fundamental basis upon which the state relates to society. To what extent have these political transformations altered peoples’ expectations about government accountability and notions of popular sovereignty?

The Role of the External Actors: To what extent has political change in the Middle East and North Africa called into question the capacity of external actors, such as the United States and Iran, to cultivate politically compliant regimes? Can democratic countries that were supporters of overthrown dictators, like the United States and France, play a constructive role in helping to foster democratic transitions?

The Role of the Media and Technology: There exist many untested hypotheses about the role of the media, notably Al Jazeera and technology like the Internet, added to the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa. Can we state with any degree of specificity the role these media played in them?

The Challenges of Governance: Democratic transitions often place political groups previously in opposition to the regime with the challenges of actually having to govern. What are some of the problems they face, or impose on these transition?

Slow Pace of Change: Many lament the slow pace of political change in the region since the uprisings began one year ago. Is this pessimism justified? Or should we expect political transitions in much of the region to be lengthy processes that are prone to backsliding?

Resistance from Regimes in Power: In the case of Bahrain, Syria and Yemen the regimes in power resorted to harsh tactics to crush dissent. Whereas in Egypt and Tunisia, leaders stepped down without much of a fight. How can we account for these differences?

These are just a few of the questions that arise as the challenges of the Arab Spring become more prominent. This issue of Democracy and Society will take a broad, analytical perspective on determining what these issues are. We seek to understand it from both a US, global, regional, and country-specific perspective. Please email submissions to democracyandsociety@gmail.com by February 27th, 2011. For additional information, please contact Andrea Murta or Ayesha Chugh at democracyandsociety@gmail.com.

Other

In this issue:
“A Free Pass, But At What Cost?” by Elizabeth J.C. Cutler
“Geopolitics after 9/11: Did Iran Benefit?” by Stephan de Vries and Paul Aarts
“A Decade On: ‘The War on Terror’ and Indonesia’s Militant Islamist Groups” by Paul J. Carnegie
“Orwellian Lexicons: The Uses and Abuses of the ‘War’ on Terror” by Brenda Ong Bi Hui
“With Al-Qaeda’s Decline and Ten Years after 9/11, are U.S- Latin America Relations at Bay?” by Robert Valencia
Review Essay: “A Decade of War” by Andrew Gripp, Barak D. Hoffman, and Eli Lovely

Other

Ten Years into the War on Terror

Al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 fundamentally reoriented US national security policy towards fighting terrorism. The fight has led to some tangible victories: no attacks on US soil over the past decade, weakening the Taliban in Afghanistan, dismantling Al Qaeda, and killing Osama bin Laden. Nevertheless, the war on terror has extracted high costs: expensive and militarily draining wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as proxy wars and lower-level conflicts in the broader Middle East, an erosion of the US’ reputation and authority in the region, and a diversion of attention from – or perhaps an acceleration of – other national security exigencies such as the rise of China, a diminishing US military capacity to project force globally, and a weakening US economy.

It is reasonable to ask, ten years after the September 11 attacks, whether the world in general and the United States specifically are safer places because of the war on terror? Even if the answer is yes, do the benefits the US has obtained outweigh or justify the costs? A decade into the war, a number of questions emerge, some of which include:

• After spending over a trillion dollars in Iraq, losing thousands of US troops, and causing the deaths of many more Iraqis, did the US benefit from overthrowing Saddam Hussein? Has Iran profited even more?

• After pouring a vast amount of money, troops, and effort into Afghanistan, the country remains fragile at best, and real concerns exist as to whether the Karzai government will fall if/when the US pulls out its troops. Do the benefits that the US gained in Afghanistan – eliminating Al Qaeda’s operational capacity there and weakening the Taliban – justify the costs?

• US intervention to dismantle Al Qaeda in Pakistan has destabilized the country and increased its priority as a national security concern because of the country’s nuclear arsenal. Did Al Qaeda’s presence in Pakistan justify the results of US policy to weaken the terrorist network?

• Is there a relationship between the effects of the war on terror – either positive or negative – and the revolutions sweeping the broader Middle East? Does the tainted reputation of the US there prevent it from playing any meaningful, supportive role in these changes?

• Finally, while the US was engrossed in its pursuits in the broader Middle East, have these pursuits diverted attention from – or perhaps even worsened – other exigent national security concerns such as the rise of China, an overstretched US military, and a weakened US economy?

Other

The Obama Administration and the US Relationship with the Broader Middle East

Featuring:

• An interview with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
• Lessons and implications for the Obama Administration
• Discussion of the unexpected Maliki-Sadr alliance
• “Democratizing” Iran

And more!

Other

1.22.11: The position of Student Editor for the Spring issue of Democracy & Society has been filled.  Many thanks to everyone who expressed interest.

For those still interested in working with D&S or DemocracyandSociety.com, we will be issuing a Call for Papers for the Spring issue soon.  We also have positions available for contributors and guest bloggers.  If interested, please contact the editors at democracyandsociety [at] gmail [dot] com.

Other

Here’s a brief review to ring out the old year.

Top Posts

On Facebook

• Federalism and Democracy Development
• I Can’t Believe these People Govern Us
• Human Rights, Media Manipulation and Technological Attacks
• Diplomacy and Development: Best Friends for Life
• Busted

On the Blog

Returning from last year, Why Do People Protest still lands in the Top 5 posts on the blog.  The other Top 5 posts are:

• The Simpsons Turn 20
• Here’s a Dumb Idea
• The ‘Africa Porn’ Problem
• Event: Emerging Leaders for Democracy

Most Commented

Another of last year’s posts (Obama Needs a Vision Check) continues to be one of the most commented posts.  The others include:

• Freedom of Religion and US Foreign Policy
• I Stand by My Post
• Our Long National Nightmare Is Over
• Economic Success & Regime Change

Thank You

We’d like to say thank you to all of our Fans, Friends and followers, and in particular, to the following for ReTweeting, linking, and generally loving our stuff!

• Gregg Wilhauck at the CIPE Development Blog
• John Brown’s Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review
• Everyone over at The Democratic Piece
• @SMSLegal @pcdnetwork @mmckone @NDItech @penelopeinparis @auerswald @viewfromthecave @USIP @elizabethcutler @demdigest @vargheseanand @amellionaire @Adamdougl @odonnellm @DavidJandura @SwahiliStreet @xrauscher_ @intljurist @Tobias_B @gerardtmccarthy @CIPEGlobal @iapss @msfsinfo @Grieboski @LisaofArabia @Snov @GUInstituteLSGS @electionguide @woodenbeirut @arenda @Tosk59 @GUConflictRes

Happy New Year from all of us at D&S and Georgetown CDACS!

Other

We are seeking well-written, interesting submissions of 1500-2000 words on the themes below, including summaries and/or excerpts of recently completed research, new publications, and works in progress. Submissions for the issue are due Friday, October 15, 2010.

The Obama Administration and the US Relationship with the Broader Middle East

Solving exigent crises in the broader Middle East is one of the Obama administration’s top priorities. Not only has the administration made little progress on most of these issues, in many areas the problems seem to be getting worse:

• No Crises Solved, New Ones Generated. The administration’s efforts to solve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and block Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons have failed to achieve concrete results. Stability in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, even as the US sends in more troops. While the administration has kept its promise to withdraw combat troops from Iraq, security remains tenuous and the Iraqi government is paralyzed. In addition, new threats are emerging from Al Qaeda in Somalia and Yemen, and recent floods in Pakistan have weakened a government already struggling to contain a violent insurgency. More broadly, perceptions of declining US influence in the region are strengthening the power of its adversaries, such as Iran.
• Stalled Political Reform Efforts. Due to the aforementioned crises and the perceived necessity of leaders in some non-democratic states in the region, such as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, to assist in solving them, US support for political reform in the broader Middle East has stalled. Political freedoms in some these countries are backsliding.
• Deteriorating Public Opinion. Public opinion data from the US suggests the country is as hostile to the Muslim world – and in many ways more hostile – than any time since the September 11, 2001 Al Qaeda attack.  Public opinion towards the US in much of the broader Middle East, for the most part, is as hostile as it was during the Bush administration, despite a slight improvement following President Obama’s election.

What are the causes of the inability of the Obama administration to solve – and prevent – crises in the US relationship with the broader Middle East? To what extent can changes in US leadership and/or strategies reverse these trends? To what degree do they reflect the inability of leaders in the region to contain pressures emanating from their own countries? What factors most distinguish the Obama administration – or not – from its predecessors with regard to approaching the Middle East? Most troubling, do the problems the administration faces derive from real or perceived declining US power?

This issue of Democracy and Society will analyze the Obama administration’s relationship with the broader Middle East, and what it suggests about the US’s future relationship with the region, US public support for regional engagement, and the US’s ability to project power in these countries. We are interested in analyzing these issues from the point of view of the US, countries in the broader Middle East, and/or other regions of the world. We also welcome submissions that focus on the public opinion and its possible links to public policy.

Please email submissions democracyandsociety@gmail.com. For additional information, please visit www.democracyandsociety.com or contact Elizabeth Cutler or Deborah Brown at democracyandsociety@gmail.com.

Other

Those seeking to promote and block political reform exist in a dynamic environment. They must consider new techniques, technologies, and strategies as they become available and respond to the actions of their adversaries. Reformers and those seeking to maintain the status quo also can learn from allies in other countries as well as form organizations that allow them to share information across borders. To explore these processes of political learning, the Center for Democracy and Civil Society and Freedom House hosted a conference, “Demonstrators and Dictators: Sharing Strategies” on December 10, 2009. We have dedicated this issue of Democracy and Society to the conference papers.

The papers touched on two main themes. The first is how new technologies, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Ushahidi, affect the power dynamic between demonstrators and dictators. While many believe that these technologies inherently favor the former over the latter, the papers, especially those by Laura Mottaz and J. Hunter Price, question that assumption. Mottaz and Price show that while new technologies increase the capacity of demonstrators to organize and publicize, since governments control the communications infrastructure, demonstrators’ ability to exploit these platforms exists only to the extent that governments allow them to use the communication networks.

The second theme the papers raised was governmental learning across borders to counter the threats protestors pose. The papers highlighted three main strategies. The most common, as the papers by Jeanne Elone and Brandon Yoder, make clear is adopting laws to repress civil society. In the 1980s and 1990s, many countries transitioned to democracy, and enhancing freedom of political association was central in these political reforms. As civil society organizations have become more effective and begun linking with organizations in other countries to enhance their capacity, governments increasingly see these organizations as a threat. In response, Elone and Yoder notice a broad trend of governments imposing restrictions on these organizations, especially their capacity to seek external funding. The second strategy, most prominent in Sheena Chestnut’s paper on China, is governments learning the most effective way to silence protestors. Camera cell phones and internet web sites, such as You Tube, now permit near-instantaneous global transmission of pictures and video. As a result, governments are becoming more wary of repressing violently in public.  Instead, they are resorting to less visible forms of coercion. Chestnut explores the efforts of the Government of China in these tactics. The final strategy is cooperation on blocking political reform through international organizations, a theme most highly developed in Lauren Albright’s paper on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Often called the Dictator’s Club because non-democratic regimes comprise its entire membership, Albright examines how the SCO allows member states to share strategies on “best practices” for defusing internal demands for political reform.

Politics is dynamic contest. The main conclusion to emerge from the conference is that in the struggle between dictators and demonstrators, those who are best able to adapt to changing circumstances and opportunities tend to prevail.

Other

Other

Barak Hoffman

The Obama administration inherited a number of foreign policy crises. In the near term, the administration must address the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran’s determination to develop nuclear power, and a global recession. Beyond these exigent concerns, the administration faces a diverse range of foreign policy challenges, such as climate change, terrorism, and settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All of this is taking place in a context where U.S. power is in relative decline and other powers, primarily China, are rising. While the administration may have been looking forward to developing a new foreign policy vision, the urgent issues the administration must address are likely to constrain these ambitions.

We have thus devoted this issue of Democracy and Society to foreign policy in the Obama administration. We have two thematic articles advocating that the Obama administration redesign democracy assistance strategies and two papers that urge changes to the U.S.’s bilateral relationship with Egypt and Mexico. We also review six new books on foreign policy suggestions for the Obama administration. The range of the policies they advocate reflects the number of challenges the administration faces, their diversity, and disagreements over the sources of the problem and solutions to them.

Our two papers on democracy assistance strategies encourage the Obama administration to redesign these programs. Each paper starts with the same premise, that the Bush administration’s militarization of democracy assistance programs was counterproductive, but they reach different conclusions. Michael Signer of the New America Foundation argues that the U.S. Must ground democracy assistance programs with the idea that the people are the guardians of democracy. Signer maintains that programs focus too much on building institutions and too little on cultivating democratic values. Jack Santucci, alum of the MA in Democracy and Governance Program and currently at the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, believes the problem lies elsewhere and thus derives a different conclusion. Santucci argues that current democracy assistance programs developed during the peak of U.S. power and programs reflect that assumption. Santucci argues that U.S. strategies need to adapt to a world where the U.S. will face challenges to its global dominance and where political instability is likely to rise, in part, because of it. Santucci argues that the U.S. must change its democracy assistance policies to reflect its diminished capacity as a global power and greater need for allies.

The two country analyses focus on how the Obama administration can improve its bilateral relationship with two strategically important countries, Egypt and Mexico. Dina Guirguis, Executive Director of Voices for a Democratic Egypt, is dismayed that the Obama administration has decided to listen to the Government of Egypt, and not the people. She argues this is a short-sighted strategy because while the Egyptian Government may have succeeded in stamping out democratic opposition, support for democracy in Egypt is strong, but currently silent. Guirguis worries that if the Obama administration sides with the Government of Egypt, not the people, it risks alienating the Egyptian people from the U.S. and squandering an opportunity to catalyze democratic reform in the Middle East. Brandon Valeriano of the University of Illinois at Chicago urges the Obama administration to reengage with Mexico. Despite sharing a long border and being the U.S.’s second largest trading partner, the Bush administration neglected the country’s importance to the U.S. Since Mexico and the U.S. Currently have similar positions on a number of issues of mutual importance, primarily drugs, immigration, and terrorism, Valeriano argues now is an opportune time for the Obama administration to solidify its policies with Mexico on these vital issues.

Broadly speaking, five of the six books we review argue that the Obama administration ought to change the direction of U.S. foreign policy, but differ, to varying degrees, on the nature of the problem as well as the solution. The varied responses reflect the complex world the administration faces. Andrew Bacevich, David Calleo, and Paul Musgrave argue that the U.S. Global military presence is unsustainable. Bacevich suggests the nature of the problem lies in demands for high levels of economic consumption. Calleo indentifies the U.S. desire to be a global super-power as the source of the problem and Musgrave argues it derives from the increasing cost of war. All three believe the U.S. can no longer sustain its aspirations for global military dominance. Rajan Menon contends that U.S. military alliances, such as NATO, are obsolete relics of the Cold War, and maintains the U.S. should pursue flexible alliances derived from the nature of the problem it is trying to solve. Finally, America and the World is a set of discussions between two former National Security Advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scrowcroft, moderated by the Washington Posts’s David Ignatius. Although Brzezinski and Scrowcroft disagree on much, they agree on the importance of bi-partisanship in U.S. foreign policy, that too many policy makers still see the world through a Cold War mentality, and that the U.S. has become excessively frightened by terrorism.

Timothy Lynch and Robert Singh are contrarians to the above analyses. They see far more continuity than change in George W. Bush’s foreign policy, arguing that unilateral military action, regime change, and inconsistent commitment to multilateralism has been typical U.S. foreign policy for decades.

I want to thank my able editors, John Morrill and Lindsay Robinson. John and Lindsay will be graduating the MA program at the end of the spring semester. I wish them the best of luck and am certain they will have promising careers.

Other