More than two years after the January 25 revolution in Egypt people are still waiting for the change they thought would follow, after the ousting of former dictator Hosni Mubarak. Despite the changes brought about by the revolution, which first-and-foremost included the so-called fall of Mubarak’s military regime, the real change is still to be seen. The fall of Mubarak’s regime was followed by a range of democratic elections, where both women and youth remarkably went to the voting polls in big numbers. And a new president was voted into office. However, the world, not least the Egyptians themselves, is still left to see a change in the social structures of the Egyptian society. Changes, which can complete the revolution that became world-famous as its role in the Arab spring.

Theda Skocpol once remarked that revolutionary social changes does not primarily occur as a consequence of individuals’ actions but because of major, significant changes within the social structure. In other words, according to Skocpol, the revolution does not take place before a modification on a basic level, related to the overall condition of the society, such as economy and class structures, can be identified. This will only happen, she argues, when something happens to the structures themselves. And as most of us know, that is still to be witnessed in Egypt, where the amount of people living below the poverty rate has increased; the gap between rich and poor has not declined, the unemployment rate is higher than ever; the economy is continuously getting more challenged and human rights are still not to be found on the ruling party’s agenda.

Thus even though the Egyptians have put an incredible effort into keeping the revolution alive by continuously demonstrating to show their disappointment and lacking support to the new ruling party, consisting of Islamists with the Muslim Brotherhood in the leading position, obtaining its major support from the Salafi party, Al Nour, they can only be part of a major change as members of a structured social position.

That, however, seems disheartening, as the opposition, which could be the basis for such a ‘structured social position’, appears to be everything but structured. From such a perspective a lot of Egyptians do not have the surplus energy to unite and create alternative groups that potentially could fulfil the role as this structured social position, which possibly could challenge the current social structures with the aim to complete the revolution. They simply have enough anxieties worrying about bread feeding children and other family members, that nothing is left to focus on how to change the social structures.

Consequently, several youths are revolting in a savage attempt to show their resistance towards Egypt’s new regime. Nevertheless it must be stressed that far from all Egyptians show their frustration in this way: Some are depressed to an extent that they believe nothing can ever change their miserable situation, for which reason migration seems as the most appealing solution:

“The political situation [was] the main drive for them to go [to emigrate] because they feel that there is no hope. There is no change,”

- one man said, in an interview conducted for my MA thesis, about his friends who have migrated to Canada after the 25 January revolution. Others are trying their best to find stability within the structures of a country that currently comes across as very instable and chaotic, not leaving much hope for the vast majority of the citizens. Yet others do not really feel a difference between the time under Mubarak and this ‘new Egypt’.

All this shows the reality of the social structures related to socio-economical class relationships that can be found in every society, and in Egypt to a great extent. These class structures indicate how the social opportunities, such as income and other sources associated with wealth, are divided between different groups of the society. Thus the access to such sources seems to be frightening linked to the social position of the group one belongs to. In this way the social structures are often maintained by the poor and marginalised too, as they often tend to believe that they do not have other chances in life than what is their current status quo.

Meanwhile the people, who are rich and privileged, and benefiting from the corruption and inequality, seem likely not to be that eager for major changes in the social structures, as one of the respondents for my research remarked:

“I feel bad when I get advantage of anything like this [the corruption]. (…) for my job it is hard because we have a lot of connections so I can get use of that but I feel bad about it. I don’t want to use it [his connections], I want to go as a normal citizen and get my rights. That’s it! (…) but my chance or my force; I am forced to do this [use his connections] because suppose I am going to do something, maybe that would waist a lot of my time, I don’t want to waist my time, so I have to use my influence so they [his connections] can help me out with this.”

Frustrations derived from the feeling that the hope for a different, better, future, most Egyptians saw two years ago, are slipping away. Egyptians take to the streets, if not for the change they long for, then at least in an unsuccessful attempt to gain a minimum of respect with the idea: “If I cannot succeed in this system, I can at least leave my mark, trying to tier down the system that made me the failure I am!”

In conclusion, it can be highlighted that for the revolution to be finalised successfully, Skocpol suggests we need the opposition to form the structured social position that can take on a leading role in the fight for changes within the social structures of the Egyptian society. On that note, it can only be hoped that the parties and individuals represented in the opposition make their greatest effort in organising themselves better for the upcoming parliamentary elections than what have been the alarming case so far.

The article’s theoretical approach has been inspired by: Lemert, Charles. Social Forhold – En indføring i det sociologiske liv (pp. 128-142). Translated by Annika Dahl Ebert. Narayana Press. Denmark. 1997-2004.

Image Courtesy : Sierragoddess

The article Will the Change Longed for in Egypt Ever Happen? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

In the past weeks Muslims around the world have been offended, hurt and upset as a consequence of Westerners feeling the need to stress their freedom of expression — but for what reason?

Except for a few details, the recent incidences have had remarkable similarities with something we have seen before: the short film ‘Submission‘, made in 2004 by Theo van Goghon, a Dutch film director, and Somalia-born Ayaan Hirsi and the Mohammed Cartoons incident by a Danish newspaper in 2005, which caused the Arab world to boycott Danish-produced goods like dairy products. These are just a few of the examples to be mentioned.

Most Muslims in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world keep their feelings to themselves and their family and friends, or express them in a peaceful way – just like many Westerners fail to comprehend the purpose of publishing that type of material, time and again. However, it seems like a controversy that we, on both sides, are forced to witness again and again which makes it valuable to investigate some potential underlying dynamics for the recent incidents.

According to Politiken.dk, a feeling exists in the Arab world of differential treatment practiced by Western Governments; examples include that Western Governments support free will except in cases where Islamic parties win elections. They fight for human rights except in countries where the oppressor is a dictator who cooperates with the Western world; Western Governments support freedom of religion, except when it concerns Islam.

Additionally, Western politicians continuously make hostile comments about Muslims and Islam. This is reinforced by my research (to be published in Arab-West Report in April 2013) on the migration of Egyptians where Muslims indicate that they feel as second class citizens in their own country next to expats living there. At the same time they feel unwelcome in Western countries such as the U.S.A. and several European countries.

So while Western countries claim they are fighting for equal rights, freedom to be whoever you are, as well as the right to control your own life, it easily comes across as the exact opposite in the countries that are the target for that fight.

Politiken.dk continues that while the mentioned examples by people in the Arab World are perceived as differential treatment and interference, Western Governments understand it as isolated reactions to specific incidents. This could be related to what Charles Clay Lemert, Professor in Sociology, characterizes as ‘colonization’ in his book Sociale Forhold -En indføring i det sociologiske liv (2004), which he defines as the process where people with power and money get the idea that their theories and perspectives of the world gives them the right to take over other countries, their assets and sometimes even the soul of the native people, who rarely are in a position to defend themselves.

And it is all justified by the perception that the invasion will result in a better moral, a better political system, and in general a better way of living. But according to whom?

If the world is believed to be a social construction that only makes sense in relation to the society in which it exists, it makes sense that people around the world have not only different ways of living, but more importantly different perceptions of what ‘the better way of living’ is. No doubts that people in the Arab world are dreaming about a better world, as witnessed during the Arab Spring that last year permeated in several Arab countries. We are still, at the time of writing, witnessing how Syrians fight against the local regime, or how Palestinians continuously experience their rights to land reduced — but is this battle a cry for the Western world to free them from Islam, Islamist or Islamic values?

Without a doubt there is a perception in the Western world that politics and religion should be two separate entities in a modern society, anno 2012 — or is there? Maybe it is more the perception that politics and Islam should be separated? This leads back to the imagination of the world as a social construction: if we acknowledge that different people have different perceptions of ‘the better way of living’, it might again be reasonable to assume that different societies have different ways of structuring a democracy.

Can democratic values not be implemented in a religious society? It is true that according to the construction of democracy that exists in the Western world, it is difficult entities to unite, but Egypt and the rest of the Arab world have a different way of constructing their societies. In this light it might be fair to assume that the construction of a democracy, in these countries, would contain different elements than what we see in Western countries’ understanding of democracy -elements that focus less on freedom of expression and more on mutual respect and the right to practice your religion.

However, as Ahram Online writes in an article on their English website, the challenges may lay in the rapid development of technological tools that connect the world, crossing societies of different social constructions. This means that a film like that of the recent controversy can be made and distributed online in Western countries where legislation is developed in the context of Western social constructions, without repercussions. One such filmmaker, or a cartoonist for that matter, may be perceived as offensive to a group of people but cannot be indicted for a criminal act, because one segment of the world does not perceive it as such.

However, in the same breath it must be stressed that individual action, like the ones discussed here, does not represent perceptions, opinions or acts of neither entire populations nor every politicians. But because of societies based on different social constructions of what is legal and what is not, a Western politician cannot demand the person behind such material brought to trial. But does this mean that Western countries should consider reversing their understanding of democracy and put restrictions on what can be expressed and what cannot?

As one of the focal points for democracies in Western countries it is hard to see that happen. Being a Westerner, brought up in the social constructions of a Scandinavian country, it is believed that having the freedom to speak up against the current government, the practices of the church, or other societal institutions that are disagreed with, is a crucial fundamental right, which should neither be restricted nor jeopardized.

But does this give the people in Western countries the right to offend the values of people in countries where social constructions of societies are different?

With an economic crisis dominating most of the Western world, it might be time to start rethinking what used to be ‘the center of the world’ – to a growing extent, the Western world depends on countries and people around it. It may be worth considering if respecting other cultures’ way of life wouldn’t be more productive than upsetting them purposefully.

Image Courtesy of  arindambanerjee / Shutterstock.com

The article Reflections on Yet Another Mohammed Conflict appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.