Syrians horrified by 'crime of no honour' killing By Lina Shaikhouni and Chris Bell

A video documenting the brutal murder of a young woman in Syria has been met with outrage and horror online - and shone a renewed spotlight on so-called "honour killings" in the country.

The young woman, identified by Syrian news outlets and social media users as "Rasha Bseis", was shot repeatedly with an automatic rifle in the rebel-held town of Jarablus, near the Turkish border, by a man reported to be her brother. Some said the young woman was under 18 years of age.

The BBC has not been able to independently verify these reports.

In the video, a young woman cowers against a wall as a man stands over her with a gun. He opens fire, kicking dust up from the floor and wall. A voice in the background yells "wash away your shame".

The video has been widely viewed and shared online. A report on the Lebanese Al-Modon news website said police were investigating and an arrest warrant had been issued for the man.

'Crime of no honour'

Activists responded with a campaign to denounce so-called "honour" violence.

A graphic of the murdered woman looking fearfully into the camera, featuring the caption "crime of no honour", has been circulating online since Monday, BBC Monitoring reported.

Kish Malek (Check Mate), a civil society organisation based in southern Turkey, was among activist groups to publish the image on Facebook.

"A young man from the city of Jarablus has killed his sister after direct instigation by his friend allegedly to 'wash her of shame'," the organisation posted.

"The instigator filmed the crime and published it on social media networks," it added.

Sharing the image, Syrian NGO Women Now for Development issued a statement demanding justice for Rasha Bseis.

"Rasha is not only the victim of the spread of weapons and lapses in security, she is the victim of a dangerous social concept, under the pretext of 'shame washing' as an accepted - and sometimes encouraged - punishment," they wrote.

A copy of their statement would be sent to the local council governing Jarablus and all other concerned legal bodies, the organisation noted.

Syrian writer and women's rights activist Rima Flihan told the BBC there are no accurate statistics for honour killings in Syria but that "Syria and the Middle East had ranked highly in previous global statistics".

"I have worked in successive campaigns since 2005 in Syria to counter what is described as honour crimes," she said.

"The crime is encouraged by a law that is lenient on the murderer and a society which partly reduces a family's honour to a woman's body."

In 2009, Syria scrapped a law limiting or waiving punishment for men convicted of killing female relatives they regarded as having illicit sex.

At the time, Human Rights Watch said the measure did not go far enough. The law introduced a minimum two-year sentence for perpetrators of so-called "honour killings".

Since 2011, the conflict in Syria has claimed more than 350,000 lives. Ms Flihan says the chaos in Syria as a result of the war has made the problem of so-called "honour killings" worse.

"The presence of extremist groups in some areas encourages such crimes, and so does the law in others," she said.

"In both cases, the woman is the victim."

However, she told the BBC that the reaction to such crimes shows some positive change.

"I have noticed through monitoring people's comments on these crimes that there is a wider section of society that are rejecting and condemning them," she said.

Khashoggi: Bots feed Saudi support after disappearance By Chris Bell and Alistair Coleman

Suspected bot accounts are attempting to shape the social media narrative following the disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Arabic hashtags expressing support for de facto Saudi leader Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, condemning news organisation Al Jazeera and urging users to "unfollow enemies of the nation" were among those amplified by the involvement of bot networks alongside genuine users.

Twitter has suspended a number of bot accounts.

Mr Khashoggi is missing, presumed dead, after he was seen entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October.

Turkish officials allege the journalist, who had been critical of the Saudi regime, was killed there.

On 14 October, the Arabic hashtag translating as "we all have trust in Mohammed Bin Salman" was among the top global trends, featuring in 250,000 tweets. Additionally, "We have to stand by our leader" was used more than 60,000 times.

On Wednesday, a hashtag translating as "unfollow enemies of the nation" was also highly used, while in the past 24 hours the term "campaign to close Al Jazeera, the channel of deception" has gained traction, used close to 100,000 times on the social network.

Bot networks were used by both sides in an effort to control the conversation on social media during the crisis.

Ben Nimmo, Information Defence Fellow at the Atlantic Council, analysed one of the Arabic-language hashtags with bot involvement.

"Unfollow enemies of the nation" was used in excess of 100,000 times. The vast majority of that came through retweets, which can be a signal of bot activity.

Accounts which had been dormant for a long time were suddenly tweeting again, posting identical or near-identical material to other suspicious accounts.

Others were newly-created or exhibited other characteristics typical of bot accounts.

Attempts to control and manipulate social media conversations have become an increasingly prominent global issue.

On Wednesday, Twitter published more than 10 million tweets from suspected state-backed Russian and Iranian "troll farms".

While US national security chiefs have warned of "a pervasive messaging campaign by Russia to weaken and divide the US".

Control Room (2004)

Control Room is a documentary whose main intention is to clear the name of the Al Jazeera reporting of the Iraq war, since in the United States, members of the Bush administration referred to this channel as the mouthpiece of terrorist organizations, most especially, Al Qaeda. This documentary seeks to show that this belief is not true and that it is merely propaganda to discredit its image. When one watches this documentary, one would not fault the way Al Jazeera covered the news during the Iraq war because it is revealed that the coverage was balanced and to the point. Al Jazeera showed the true picture of the war and not what the American government wished for its people to see; the realities of the war. In fact, if one carefully considers the information which this channel broadcast during this war, there would be a realization that the American public would not have supported such a war had they seen what it did not, only to the Arabs of Iraq, but also to the American men and women who went to fight in the war. Control Room is an eye opener towards some of the events which took place in Iraq and how these events were covered by the Al Jazeera network. It reveals that, despite the statements made against it by the Bush administration, none of the statements made were true and were, in fact, an attempt to cover up the truth about the war from the American public. This documentary is an attempt to show the news about the Iraq war, not from the perspective of the media of the west, but that of the region in which the war occurred.

The first scenes of this documentary seem to reinforce the belief that it is a network whose sole purpose is the spread of anti-American propaganda. The people who are seen working behind the scenes are all dressed in traditional Arab headgear, and when the American president issues an ultimatum to the Iraqi president, it is seen that those observing in the room jeer at the former. While, for many, this would reinforce the stereotype that has come to plague the Al Jazeera network, the truth is that the scene was inserted in the documentary to show that this network is not as different from those in the west as many would think. The documentary reveals that the statements by President Bush and his secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, that Al Jazeera was the mouthpiece of Osama bin Laden and that it was the centre of anti-American propaganda in the United States are completely unfounded. In fact, it is revealed that the exact opposite is the truth; that Al Jazeera is a network which is dedicated to presenting balanced news about the Middle East to the entire world. It is not mired down by state or political interests but in the interest of providing quality news. This documentary takes the audience behind the scenes, and reveals the people who are behind the collection of the news that is presented at Al Jazeera. While this network is much disliked and thought of in a negative light by some people, it has one of the largest viewer bases in the world, competing with such channels as BBC and CNN. During the Iraq war, this network was among the one with the most presence in the country, and it lost several journalists who were caught in American bombing while doing their jobs on the ground. In an attempt to achieve objectivity in its coverage of the war, it showed images of American servicemen and Iraqis who had been killed in the war, as well as the destruction which accompanied the deaths. Such images were rarely if at all, shown by the media of the West which reveals that Al Jazeera was more objective than they were. Such situations came to be seen as this network working against the interests of America, something which the documentary reveals to be untrue.

The documentary is shot at the Al Jazeera headquarters in Doha, Qatar, and it is here that the image of this network as a producer of anti-American propaganda is burnished. Instead, what is revealed is an image of people who work hard just like in other networks to bring the news from the field and present it to the public. What is shown is that it is not a network of propaganda as some have put it, but one which functions regularly. In fact, the documentary shows that the biases against the network do not stem from the network’s actions, but from the various administrations in the west, particularly the United States. The documentary does not just reveal information from one side, but it works towards showing what people from the other side think. Among those who are interviewed is Josh Rushing who is a media liaison for the American military and has a strong belief in the correctness of America’s mission in Iraq. There is also one Hassan Ibrahim, a journalist who works for the BBC and whose only mission in his work is to find out the truth. Both of these people reveal their true feelings concerning America’s mission in Iraq and the role of the media in its coverage. The stance taken by these men on various matters can be a surprise to many who watch the documentary as they show just how difficult it is to achieve objectivity in the coverage of any news story. There is also the revelation from some of those interviewed that they have a strong commitment to democracy and that they, in fact, immensely admire the constitution of the United States. This would surprise many in the wet because of the fact that most of the countries of the Middle East, in which Al Jazeera is based, are autocracies or absolute monarchies. This crumbles the common western stereotype that Al Jazeera is for the sole purpose of inflaming the Middle Eastern public against the American government and people. Instead, the image of a news network that is dedicated to the objective presentation of news to the world is revealed. The documentary serves as a redeemer for the tarnished image of Al Jazeera and presents it as a network deserving of merit for the work that it does.

Factors that Determine Regime Stability

Introduction

Political stability is a concept that is often discussed as an extremely valued condition because it brings about a situation where there is good political development. Instability, on the other hand, is considered to come about because of a lack of political development on the part of the state involved. This project presents a case study of the determinants of regime stability with specific reference to the Middle Eastern countries of Egypt and Iran, on one hand, and Mexico on the other.

Hypothesis

Most definitions of regime stability tend to be based on the prominence of regularity which has a positive effect on the system of government involved, and fail to consider that stability depends on the unique circumstances facing each regime.

Definition of key concepts

Regime – a government, especially one that is considered authoritarian.

Stability – the state of being stable, in this case political or concerning government.

The justification for dependent variable: positive representations of regime stability

A considerable number of studies present regime stability as the having a positive effect on the system of government involved. It is a means through which governments are assessed by internal actors and brings about a situation where there is the advancement of policies towards such regimes by external actors.

The justification for independent variable

Regime stability is dependent on the prevailing political conditions at home. Some regimes might seem to be highly stable yet prove to be quite vulnerable in the long run. Moreover, those that are seen as being highly volatile end up proving more durable.

Other significant variables

Lack of democratic space: despite the relative stability of a regime, there are instances where the population might end up revolting because they do not participate in politics.

Slow move towards change: the world is rapidly changing and this process has also come into politics. Lack of political reforms could lead to regime instability.

Influence from external actors: there might develop a situation where external actors seek to influence internal events, leading to considerable instability.

Review of Studies on the Topic

The belief in political stability is one that has for the most part promoted the policies of most countries towards others. This is because stability tends to be given more prominence than any other aspect of politics because it enables the achievement of goals that would otherwise be extremely difficult to bring about. Therefore, there is a constant need by countries, especially those that are international players, to ensure that they bring about the maintenance of regime stability in order to serve their own interests (Game III, 2011). Under such circumstances, predicting abrupt political change is often an extremely difficult task because it is often influenced by the way that political analysts conceptualize regime stability. Countries such as the United States and those that make up the EU have pursued varying policies in the Middle East with the aim of promoting a situation where their interests are based on the stability of the non-democratic regimes in the region. A consequence has been that whenever political changes have taken place, they have happened in such a way that has caught them by surprise. Therefore, there is a need to ensure that there is the advancement of greater efforts aimed at bringing about a greater understanding of the stability of regimes in the Middle East and other parts of the world in order to help in the development of more effective policies. There seems to have been a failure in the foreign policies of both the United States and the EU when it comes to understanding the determinants of regime stability in the Middle East and this has been an extremely costly mistake as seen with the events of the Arab Spring and their aftermath.

Apart from the Middle East, another area of concern for the United States for decades has been Latin America (Holden & Zolov, 2000). The political instability in Latin America has been represented through the Roosevelt Corollary and the revolutionary movements that pervaded the Central American nations for decades (Ricard, 2006). A sense of urgency to ensure an understanding of the factors that lead to the development of stable political systems, especially when considering the extralegal means through which power has been seized in the history of some South American countries, has been a hallmark of American policy in the region (Hart, 1977). Despite these events, a study of the political development of Mexico can be considered an essential one when it comes to regime stability. This is because despite revolutions taking place in the country, unlike other Latin American countries, Mexico has been able to ensure that it enjoys a relatively stable political environment for more than half a century (De Janvry, Gonzalez-Navarro, & Sadoulet, 2014). Despite considerable pressure having been placed on its political system due to rapid economic growth as well as other challenges, Mexico has been able to ensure that it continues to remain stable. Under such circumstances, Mexico can be considered a country that has remained fairly stable despite facing similar challenges to its Latin American counterparts, which have not fared as well.

Presentation and Justification of Cases

Claude Ake promotes the idea that political stability is essentially the regularity in which there is the flow of political exchanges within a society (Ake, 1975, p. 273). This is especially the case considering that political stability can only come about because of the decision of members of a society to put restrictions on themselves in such a way that they conform to the limits that have been imposed on them through the expectations brought about by political roles. Moreover, there is need to ensure that there is no confusion between political stability and the lack of political change. Ernest Duff and John Mccamant define a stable political system as one that can essentially withstand change, but also within the political structure that has been developed in society (Duff & McCamant, 1968, p. 1125). Leon Hurwitz identifies five approaches to the study of political stability and concludes that the most effective is to study political stability as a multifaceted social attribute. This view sees political stability as systemic stability and is a synthesis or integration of the other approaches (Hurwitz, 1973, p. 449).

Stability is considered to be desirable for a vast number of reasons and these are based on the need to ensure that there is the provision of an advantage to external players when it comes to the predictability of government actions. The predictability of government actions can be considered to be essential in helping in the development of policy because it determines the direction that a government or regime is likely to take at certain times (Rodrik & Zeckhauser, 1988). Under such circumstances, it becomes possible to make sure that there is the advancement of a situation where external players are able to adjust their policies accordingly in order to bring about the achievement of the most advantage to themselves in their dealings with the regime. This is especially considering that dealing with a failing state can be an extremely daunting initiative, because it is often difficult to identify a counterpart that can be interacted with effectively in order to ensure that there is the establishment of strong policy initiatives. It is normal for countries to make use of a diversity of initiatives aimed at ensuring that their counterparts are able to accept their point of view and become influenced towards achieving desirable outcomes. However, in the case of an unstable regime, it becomes troublesome because the latter does not have full control over the state (Aisen & Veiga, 2013). Therefore, it becomes necessary for government to ensure that there are efforts to get as accurate an understanding of regimes and the possible risks surrounding them before undertaking to bring about a threat to their stability. The ramifications of an unstable regime can be catastrophic not only to the said state, but also to the region within which it is situated. There is need to promote the creation of a scenario where there are limited foreign interventions that might end up risking the stability of states, because regimes, especially authoritarian ones, can end up proving to be highly unstable whenever challenges by massive popular discontent.

The concept of regime stability is one that has a diversity of definitions and this creates a situation where they end up becoming quite controversial (Hurwitz, 1973). A broad definition of this concept is that it involves a situation where there is the absence of any sort of domestic civil conflict or widespread violence that might end up marring the functions of the state. Instead, the regime can be considered to be one that has essentially rid itself of instability in such a way that there are no systematic attacks on persons and their assets within the boundaries of the state. Furthermore, there is the advancement of a situation where there is need for the regime to ensure that there is the creation of an environment where it is in full control of the situation and it can enforce its will on its people. However, this definition might prove to be problematic, because there are instances where despite the political situation of a country looking stable at the moment, the entire system of governance can end up collapsing quite quickly. This means that despite there being no systematic attacks on individuals or property, the regime could actually be quite fragile; only awaiting an incident to trigger unrest and show its fragility for what it really is. An example of this situation is President Jimmy Carter in 1977 praising pre-revolutionary Iran as being one of the most stable countries in a region that was extremely troubled (Carter, 1977). At the time he made this statement, little did he know that the entire regime would end up unraveling within two years and that there would be a revolution in Iran that would overthrow the Shah. Thus, regime stability cannot be effectively defined based on the above definition because the signs of stability tend to end up actually being only a veneer that hides the decay that is actually being experienced within the political system.

Another interpretation of regime stability is one that essentially equates regime longevity with stability (Harymawan & Nowland, 2016). This is an extremely challenging definition because it involves the definition of a country that experiences constant changes in government as unstable. There is a failure to consider that there are some countries in the world that have experienced constant changes in government yet have for the most part maintained the same policies as their predecessors. Such states might even have very stable administrative systems that are not adversely affected whenever there is regime change. A country such as Italy, which had over sixty changes in government over a similar number of years, was able to maintain a fairly stable policy throughout this period without undergoing any form of instability that would have made the nation extremely vulnerable (Curini, 2011). Under such circumstances, this definition becomes redundant because there is a lack of consideration for those states that remain stable even when there is regime change. Another example is that of Belgium, which had to undergo over a year without a cabinet and would have ended up being ranked even lower that Egypt when it came to regime instability (Hooghe, 2012). However, these circumstances proved wrong because Belgium was able to ride out the storm through the ability of its institutions to not only weather the political storm, but also keep administrative activities going throughout the period. This can be compared to the uninterrupted thirty year old rule of the Mubarak regime in Egypt, which despite its longevity ended up falling within days of public protests in the country (Shehata, 2011).

Moreover, another approach to regime stability is based on the concept of lack of structural change (Maoz & Russett, 1993). This is an approach that seeks to promote the idea that a stable regime is one that essentially has the absence of internally or externally induced change in its basic configuration; resulting in a situation where it remains stable at all times. While this approach can be considered pertinent when it comes to the discussion of regime stability, it is also quite problematic because it promotes the idea of structural change, which is often quite difficult to define. Furthermore, there are instances where deep changes take place in regimes that despite the changes end up remaining quite strong to such an extent that there is a level of continuity in their economic, social, and constitutional formations (Eckstein, 1988). Therefore, the stability of regimes can be considered to be based on the unique situation of each state because there are instances where change can happen in a positive manner to such an extent that it leads to the advancement of stability rather than a failure of the regime. Furthermore, there are instances where it becomes possible for the progression of strong regimes through the development of locally induced changes that gradually bring about positive shifts in the power structure that enhance rather than break regime stability.

Speculative Conclusion

The review of literature above has shown that there is a diversity of definitions of the determinants of regime stability. This is because each regime has to be considered based on its own unique situation rather than being generalized. A study of the regimes has shown that those that seem to be the most stable could turn out to be extremely vulnerable and vice versa. It is therefore essential to make sure that the stability of each regime is studied based on its own unique development and the manner through which it has been able to develop towards the promotion of its institutions and their durability.

References

Aisen, A., & Veiga, F. J. (2013). How does political instability affect economic growth? European Journal of Political Economy, 29, 151-167.

Ake, C. (1975). A definition of political stability. Comparative politics, 7(2), 271-283.

Carter, J. (1977). Tehran, Iran Toasts of the President and the Shah at a State Dinner. The American Presidency Project, 31.

Curini, L. (2011). Government survival the Italian way: The core and the advantages of policy immobilism during the First Republic. European Journal of Political Research, 50(1), 110-142.

De Janvry, A., Gonzalez-Navarro, M., & Sadoulet, E. (2014). Are land reforms granting complete property rights politically risky? Electoral outcomes of Mexico's certification program. Journal of Development Economics, 110, 216-225.

Duff, E. A., & McCamant, J. F. (1968). Measuring social and political requirements for system stability in Latin America. American Political Science Review, 62(4), 1125-1143.

Eckstein, H. (1988). A culturalist theory of political change. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 789-804.

Game III, F. G. (2011). Why Middle East Studies Missed the Arab Spring. Foreign Affairs, 90(4), 81-90.

Hart, J. A. (1977). Cognitive maps of three Latin American policy makers. World Politics, 30(1), 115-140.

Harymawan, I., & Nowland, J. (2016). Political connections and earnings quality: How do connected firms respond to changes in political stability and government effectiveness? International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 24(4), 339-356.

Holden, R. H., & Zolov, E. (2000). Latin America and the United States. A Documentary.

Hooghe, M. (2012). The political crisis in Belgium (2007–2011): a federal system without federal loyalty. Representation, 48(1), 131-138.

Hurwitz, L. (1973). Contemporary approaches to political stability. Comparative politics, 5(3), 449-463.

Maoz, Z., & Russett, B. (1993). Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review, 87(3), 624-638.

Ricard, S. (2006). The Roosevelt Corollary. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36(1), 17-26.

Rodrik, D., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). The dilemma of government responsiveness. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 7(4), 601-620.

Shehata, D. (2011). The fall of the Pharaoh: how Hosni Mubarak's reign came to an end. Foreign Affairs, 26-32.

The War in Syria: American Blindness to its Realities

The war in Syria has become one of the most controversial issues in the modern world, and mainly because of its beginnings, divisions between major political parties in the United States have been developed. The Syrian war has brought with it huge human casualties, and although it was expected that it would be completed quickly like the Libyan War, thanks to the support of the United States and its allies, the war is currently continuing. This situation has left a lot of doubt among both the Democrats and the Republicans about whether it was reasonable for the United States primarily to participate in the Syrian conflict.

When President Obama announced his intention to attack Syria after what was allegedly the use of the Syrian government's chemical weapons against its own people, the PPS, it is expected that there will be that wide gap between the two sides in Congress. However, this was not so, because in a rare demonstration of unity between Republicans and Democrats, it was widespread to resist any airstrikes against the Syrian government or direct participation of the United States in the conflict. The fact that there was widespread opposition to the United States Participation in Syria on both sides is a true statement about the sensitivity to this issue of the American that the public feels. In the rare case of unity, representatives of both sides seem to have almost unanimously chosen to represent the true feelings of their constituents, who are mostly tired of the war. In fact, the polls showed that the United States should stop concentrating on solving external conflicts and instead focus on solving a growing number of problems in the domestic arena.

Despite the seeming unity of the two sides with regard to Syria, the fact is that the United States government does not have a clear policy towards Syria, and this may be the reason that the conflict lasted for the past two years. This conflict has, however, also created a situation where it has become difficult for the United States to deal with the diverse consequences such as the development of the refugee problem. It is more likely than not that the continuation of the Syrian conflict will create a refugee problem, as Syrian refugees seek to settle in the United States. The fact that Syrian refugees will likely continue seeking asylum in the United States has become a worrying subject in both parties and this is likely to be another issue which will unite the Democrats and the Republicans in a bipartisan way. In addition, the Syrian war has caused US allies in the region, Turkey and Jordan to have such as the influx of refugees that has created a sad situation in these countries. The fact that Democrats and Republicans, despite having been proven that they can work together, have not yet come up with a clear policy towards Syria, is the most alarming. The United States Congress must exert pressure on the government so that it creates a clear policy that will put an end to the Syrian conflict that will provide lasting peace for the Syrian people.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans believe that the Assad regime lost its mandate to rule the Syrian people, and because of this, it must go. It has been a standing position of both of these parties since the onset of the conflict. However, because of the changes of the status on the ground due to Russian and Iranian intervention has led to a situation where it is essential to come to an accommodation. The latter step would an extremely important one because it would curb the number of internally displaced persons in the country, but the number of refugees in neighboring countries creating similar situations to those that failed states the situation.

However, the United States has only been indirectly involved in Syria. This process has involved the government, supported by the Democrats, working to support the Syrian rebels in providing weapons and training. There has been coordination with the allies in the region to train militant groups and help them transit to Syria to fight government forces. Although the United States has not been directly involved in the conflict, in the form of boots on the ground, it has worked with its allies to provide logistic support to the rebels, which apparently has been approved by both Democrats and Republicans.

The Arab Spring

The Arab Spring is the series of events which happened and are still happening in the Arab world when the people of the various Arab nations started mass protests and open revolts against the autocratic regimes ruling over them. These events started taking place in Tunisia and they spread through Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Bahrain, and currently, it is happening in Syria. The Arab Spring has seen the fall of several autocratic regimes whose toppling has surprised many in the world. There are several ways through which these revolutions came to be and were organized. In this paper, we shall discuss some of the events which led to the Arab Spring and how most of the public protests were organized.

The Arab Spring came into existence as a response to the lack of political freedom in the various countries in which it has occurred. At first, they were peaceful protests some of which became armed struggles whose aim was to topple the autocratic regimes ruling over these countries. According to Ben-Meir (106), the rebellion against such governments was due to the fact that instead of taking into consideration the calls of their people to allow them more political freedom, these autocratic regimes responded with violence against peaceful protesters, a move which may have been spurred by their conception that their authority was being threatened and that there was a need for them to reclaim such authority by using brute force. The use of force against unarmed civilians led to the discrediting of the legitimacy of such governments and calls for the stepping down of these leaders were made from many international organizations and governments. Moreover, in cases such as Libya and Syria, the peaceful protests suddenly became fierce armed rebellions against the government which attacked the unarmed civilians.

Jones (447) states that protesters in the Arab Spring made very good use of modern technology such as social networks in order to organize protests as well as making people outside their countries aware of what was really going on because of the media blackout that had been created by the autocratic regimes. Many of these regimes had banned and continue to ban international journalists from having access to their countries perhaps because they do not wish for their crimes against their own people to be revealed in the international arena. To counter this, many protesters have devised ingenious ways of getting the information out of their countries including hacking through the heavily censored internet to sites which are most suitable for them to relay their messages. The violent crackdown on civilians by their own governments has also led many military personnel to defect from the government ranks and these have joined the protesters to form the core of the armed rebellion against the government. These military defectors have been very instrumental, through their skills and experience, to bring a semblance of discipline into the ranks of the rebels.

In conclusion, the Arab Spring has brought a lot of changes to the Arab world, most of which are positive especially in the political arena. Most of the countries formerly ruled by autocratic regimes have in the recent months had their first legitimate elections in decades and the majority of them have brought Islamist parties to power. Furthermore, those Arab governments which are afraid of what happened to their neighbors happening to them have started to allow more democratic space in their countries because they would otherwise lose their legitimacy. It is hoped that the Islamist parties which are currently coming to power in the wake of the Arab Spring will be more democratic than their predecessors.

Cited Works

Ben-Meir, Alon. "In all Or in Part: A Look at the Unique States in the Arab Spring and their Collective Future." The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations 13.1 (2012): 105-16. ProQuest Research Library; ProQuest Research Library. Web. 17 Aug. 2012.

Jones, Peter. "The Arab Spring." International Journal 67.2 (2012): 447-63. ProQuest Research Library; ProQuest Research Library. Web. 17 Aug. 2012.

Democracy is not always the best form of government

The end of the Cold War ushered a new political era in the world – that of the liberal political order. While this movement began in Eastern Europe, it quickly spread, in part, to every continent. The result was that it ended up leading to a situation where Western liberal democratic ideals were adopted, at least in part. A consequence was that the United States, and its liberal democratic allies, took it upon themselves to ensure that the whole world became a part of the democratic order. They sought to make sure that those countries that had previously been dictatorships ended up adopting democratic systems of government.

One of the most important events to take place in the twenty first century is the American invasion of Iraq under the pretext that it had weapons of mass destruction. The result was that a relatively stable government under Saddam Hussein that had been in power for decades was overthrown. Later evidence showed that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction, and in fact, had ended its chemical and biological weapons programs after the end of the First Gulf War. Since the overthrow of Hussein, Iraq has never known peace because it has not only faced considerable sectarian government, but it has also had to endure an American occupation, and the rise of terrorism. Under Hussein, such groups as al Qaeda had no way of getting into the country because of the powerful security apparatus that had been in place. However, with the overthrow of the secular Baathist regime, the situation changed with first the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq, and its later incarnation, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Iraq has since then been mired in conflict with the country being effectively divided into Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish regions; showing that Iraq as a nation might be doomed.

Another instance of an attempt to bring about democracy that has turned sour is the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Despite being an autocrat, Gaddafi had been at the helm of Libya for over forty years, and during this time, he had ensured that the country’s oil wealth was used for its development. Libya had risen from being one of the poorest countries in Africa to one of its most prosperous with its people having a high standard of living that people in some Western countries would have envied. However, the events that are called the Arab Spring took place and in Libya, the rebellion was based in the city of Benghazi. Gaddafi’s swift attempt to crush a rebellion that had the potential of destabilizing the whole of Libya was met with Western condemnation and active action, through NATO, to overthrow him. The success of the NATO operation created a power vacuum that has yet to be filled because since Gaddafi’s death, Libya has essentially been a failed state. It is divided between two main factions based in Tripoli and Tobruk, in addition to the presence of ISIS and largely autonomous tribal entities that have ensured the continued conflict in the country.

The promotion of Western liberal ideals had a direct influence on the development of the Arab Spring and the destabilization of Egypt, formerly one of the most successful states in the MENA region. Hosni Mubarak, the long-time Egyptian president who had been in power for three decades and had been a force of stability in the country ended up being forced to step down. He was replaced by Mohamed Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood candidate who actively sought to make sure that Egypt became an Islamic state. This highly divisive figure was overthrown one year later by the military under Fatah el Sisi. El Sisi, the current president, has returned Egypt to a semblance of stability despite being accused of repression. However, by the time he took power, the damage - following the chaos that had taken place in the aftermath of the fall of Mubarak in the form of continuous protest, and ISIS-affiliated groups taking root in the Sinai Peninsula - had already been done.

Therefore, imposed democracy is not always the best form of government within the various cultures, and countries across the world. Instead, it has to be allowed to evolve on its own because it will more likely gain wide acceptance, and institutions aimed at protecting minorities from oppression will be put in place. Overthrowing autocratic regimes that are a force for stability in many countries is an exercise in futility because it does not take into account the need to promote conditions aimed at bringing about the evolution of egalitarian systems of government.