Brainwave#2 – Islamism: A Solution to Islamism

            Dealing with Islamism has been a major problem in the Arab politics. Islamism has presented the strongest challenge to the authority, performance, and power of the Arab States causing political instability in the region and skepticism in the world (particularly, the West). Ignoring Islamism is not an option and suppressing it no longer feasible. While Islamist groups exist in all forms: radical or moderate, violent or non-violent, traditional or modernist, democratic or authoritarian, it is only the challenge presented by moderate Islamist groups that is in discussion here.[1] These mainstream moderate Islamist groups operate peacefully within national boundaries, and seek to influence the politics of their societies by working within the system.[2]             Before attempting to propose a solution, a brief explanation of the causes of the popularity of Islamism is necessary. Key historical events, such as the Arab defeat in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, Iranian Revolution and the Hostage crisis, created disdain for the nationalistic endeavors and a demand for Islamism as an alternative ideology.[3] While these events explain the growth of Islamism, the root cause of its inception is the failing and illegitimate authoritarian rule in various Arab states. Where the authoritarian state delivers, protest is rare. But for many reasons, that have nothing to do with Islamism, such as falling oil prices, rapidly expanding populations that inhibit economic growth and unwillingness to open up markets, the authoritarian regimes have ceased to be efficient. [4] Paradoxically, by eliminating secular opposition movements and parties, these regimes created a political and intellectual space that Islamism quickly occupied. Even the most repressive Arab state cannot control opposition expressed through the religious idiom.[5] Due to these reasons, Islamism’s influence rose in Arab politics and continues challenge the authority of the Arab States, causing political instability through opposition movements.            An analysis of the causes behind Islamism’s popularity provides the foundation through which Arab states can meet the challenge of Islamism. Islamism thrives on the weakness and inability of the current governments. Islamist groups particularly engage in activities such as community service to provide the people what they don’t get from the governments and therefore, appear as a better option compared to nationalist governments. In order to counter its challenge, Arab states will have to take measure that will undercut the popularity of Islamist groups and will win some goodwill of the public. Countering the demand of Islamist groups and ideology will require certain systemic changes and some grass-root level cultural changes.             The first step in undercutting the popular support of Islamist groups through system reform is testing their adherence to the principles they advocate. The only way this is possible is if moderate Islamist groups are allowed to directly participate in politics. The suppression of opposition parties and movements created the vacuum, which Islamism has moved into. In the past, three Islamic state models – Iran, Sudan, and Taliban’s Afghanistan – have all failed dramatically, revealing the inability of Islamists to run effective and moderate governments. [6]  Just like Islamism thrives on the weakness of the state governments, state governments would benefit if the weakness of Islamism as a political alternative is exposed, thus reducing the challenge it presents to its authority. Giving political voice to Islamist groups might seem like a risky endeavor, however, it seems less so when the effect that election campaigns have on Islamist groups is taken into account.             The decision to participate in elections divides Islamist groups into radicals and moderates. Radical Islamists defy state-dominated elections and believe them to be meaningless and manipulated. Moderates, who consistently bring a majority with them, push for a gradualist approach and “seize on the legitimacy” derived from competition. Given this, the state’s decision to exclude Islamists from election, ironically, ends up solidifying the radical Islamist movements and weakening the beneficial moderate ones. For those who believe that once in office, Islamists would adopt radical postures on Islamic issues (possibly to embarrass the government), history has provided examples that puts such claims to rest. “The examples in Jordon, Kuwait, and Lebanon clearly show a willingness to play by the rules, at least while in minority. More important, the process of inclusion promotes pragmatism and moderation; service in government and inclusionary politics then to reduce radicalism”[7] Still others may wonder what would motivate state governments to share its power with Islamist groups. The answer is simple: “Sharing power through inclusionary reform is means of preserving some power.”[8]            Besides thriving on the weakness of the current states, Islamist groups boost their popularity with charitable actions. Islamist groups focus their attention on “charitable and education work, on trying to inculcate certain values and standards of behavior.”[9] The reason Islamist groups are able to carry out these activities is because they don’t, unlike the state governments, have any responsibility towards meeting societal obligations. If they are elected to office, the burden of state obligations might strain Islamists resources in the same way it has for the nationalist governments and may prohibit them from engaging in such these activities. It would then be apparent that engagement in these activities does not symbolize the efficacy of Islamism or the inefficacy of state governments, but rather is just a cause of systemic benefits enjoyed by Islamists.             While these systemic changes will help undercut Islamism’s popularity by challenging its principles and activities, the true impact against Islamism will come from grass-root level cultural change. In 1960s, nationalist ideology reigned supreme in the Arab States. In 1960s, President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt evoked the ideology of Pan-Arab nationalism. He fought the 1967 Arab-Israeli war under the nationalist ideological banner. However, the failure of such nationalistic endeavors created a demand for an alternative ideology. This is when Islamic politics exploded and by 1973 it had replaced nationalism. Unlike Nasser, his successor Anwar Sadat fought the 1973 Ramadan War under the banner of Islam, using it to unite all Arabs. Between 1967 and 1973, the Arab States had undergone a cultural change. Throughout history, ideologies have constantly replaced one another.[10] Islamism’s challenge with decrease as the ideology is replaced by another. What this new ideology is will be left up to time. Keeping up with modern society, this new ideology is likely to be globalization. Globalization means increased military, economical and political interdependence of a set of sovereign states, expanded flow of individuals among societies with socio-economic migration and travel, and expanded interdependence of expressive culture through enhanced global communication. Globalization, thus mediated by migration, commerce, communication technology and classification pushes nation-states to accept secularism, as it is the instrumental tool in surviving in a “global society.”[11] Where globalization (and, the resulting global integration) has been embraced, like in Dubai, Islamism has weakened. The systemic changes and political reform are short-term solutions to the problem of Islamism’s growing popularity. A change in ideology is the only long-term solution.             Islamism is a force to reckon with in current politics. While judgment on the philosophy of Islamism is up to the public to decide, it cannot be denied that its existence has presented a challenge to the political stability of Arab governments. The short-term solution to the problem of Islamism’s growing popularity entails systemic changes that give moderate Islamist groups more direct participation in politics. The long-term solution can be achieved through gradual steps where Islamism is replaced with another ideology through natural grass-root level change. The path of finding a solution to curb the popularity of Islamism will be strewn with risks for both the current governments and the opposition. However, if the threat of reform invites apprehension, the risks of clinging on to total authoritarian rule driven to completely suppress Islamism are even more troubling. One can only hope that each side finds motivation to reach for the solution. Last but not the least, global integration achieved through the trade and commerce can provide a long-lasting alternative to Islamism.    BibliographyAyoob M. “The Future of Political Islam: the Importance of External Variables,” International Affairs, 81:5 (2003), 951-960Dawisha, A. “Arab Nationalism and Islamism: Competitive Past, Uncertain Future,” International Studies Association (2001), p. 79-90 Fuller, G. “The Future of Political Islam,” Foreign Affairs, 81:2 (March/April 2002), p. 47-60.Kramer, Martin and Graham Fuller, John Esposito, Daniel Pipes. Is Islamism a Threat? A Debate by Patrick Clawson. Washington, 2 September 1999. http://www.meforum.org/article/447.  Meyer, John.”Globalization: Sources and Effects on National States and Societies,” International Sociology, 15:2 (June 2000), p. 233-248 Norton, A.R. “The Challenge of Inclusion in the Middle East,” Current History, (January 1995)

---

[1] Fuller, G. “The Future of Political Islam,” Foreign Affairs, 81:2 (March/April 2002), p. 49.

[2] Ayoob M. “The Future of Political Islam: the Importance of External Variables,” International Affairs, 81:5 (2003), 956

[3] Norton, A.R. “The Challenge of Inclusion in the Middle East,” Current History, (January 1995)

 

[4] Kramer, Martin and Graham Fuller, John Esposito, Daniel Pipes. Is Islamism a Threat? A Debate by Patrick Clawson. Washington, 2 September 1999. http://www.meforum.org/article/447.

[5] Ayoob M. “The Future of Political Islam: the Importance of External Variables,” International Affairs, 81:5 (2003), 957

 

[6] Fuller, G. “The Future of Political Islam,” Foreign Affairs, 81:2 (March/April 2002), p. 52

[7] Norton, A.R. “The Challenge of Inclusion in the Middle East,” Current History, (January 1995)

[8] Norton, A.R. “The Challenge of Inclusion in the Middle East,” Current History, (January 1995)

[9] Dawisha, A. “Arab Nationalism and Islamism: Competitive Past, Uncertain Future,” International Studies Association (2001), p. 79-90

[10] Norton, A.R. “The Challenge of Inclusion in the Middle East,” Current History, (January 1995)

 

[11] Meyer, John.”Globalization: Sources and Effects on National States and Societies,” International Sociology, 15:2 (June 2000), p. 233-248 

’08 Election Polling Report: The New York Times on Dec. 11

Global Warming: A Reality and What We Can Do About It

Don’t let the cartoon mislead you, Global Warming is no laughing matter. Many people, myself included, have heard about in passing and never attempted to know about it greater detail. That was until I saw An Inconvenient Truth.

We have all heard those jokes about Al Gore and his Global Warming documentary. Jay Leno said “According to Time magazine, global warming is 33% worse than we thought. You know what that means? Al Gore is one-third more annoying than we thought.” On his Daily Show, Jon Stewart said “If any of you at home are wondering about the former vice president’s seeming largess, I will have you know, he has not gained weight. He is so passionate about saving this Earth, he is trying not to exhale. … Here’s an inconvenient truth: cake isn’t a food group.” In spite of all the humor around it, Global warming remains a serious problem. The average temperate of the Earth’s near-surface air and oceans has been increasing in the recent decades and will continue to do so if we don’t do anything about it. But many of us are unaware of what we can do to help. So that’s what this blog is for!

Here is a list of 10 simple things (source: www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/) we can do to help …

1. Use less hot water
   It takes a lot of energy to heat water. You can use less hot water by installing a low flow showerhead (350 pounds of carbon dioxide saved per year) and washing your clothes in cold or warm water (500 pounds saved per year) instead of hot.
2. Turn off electronic devices you’re not using
   Simply turning off your television, DVD player, stereo, and computer when you’re not using them will save you thousands of pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
3. Unplug electronics from the wall when you’re not using them
   Even when turned off, things like hairdryers, cell phone chargers and televisions use energy. In fact, the energy used to keep display clocks lit and memory chips working accounts for 5 percent of total domestic energy consumption and spews 18 million to
   
4. Buy recycled paper products
   It takes less 70 to 90% less energy to make recycled paper and it prevents the loss of forests worldwide.ns of carbon into the atmosphere every year!
5. Plant a tree
   A single tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. Shade provided by trees can also reduce your air conditioning bill by 10 to 15%. The Arbor Day Foundation has information on planting and provides trees you can plant with membership.
6. Buy fresh foods instead of frozen
   Frozen food uses 10 times more energy to produce.
7. Eat less meat
   Methane is the second most significant greenhouse gas and cows are one of the greatest methane emitters. Their grassy diet and multiple stomachs cause them to produce methane, which they exhale with every breath.
8. Buy organic foods as much as possible
   Organic soils capture and store carbon dioxide at much higher levels than soils from conventional farms. If we grew all of our corn and soybeans organically, we’d remove 580 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere!
9. Use a clothesline instead of a dryer whenever possible
   You can save 700 pounds of carbon dioxide when you air dry your clothes for 6 months out of the year.
10. Move your thermostat down 2° in winter and up 2° in summer
    Almost half of the energy we use in our homes goes to heating and cooling. You could save about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple adjustment. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy has more tips for saving energy on heating and cooling.

(For more ways to help Click Here)

Every little change we make will accumulate to make a huge global change. True, Climate Change is a global crisis, but its cure starts with every individual. Its my resolution to make those changes, and I intend to keep it. What about you?

Anti-Americanism in Europe: Are differences in the Political Systems the Cause?

Pan-Europeanism is the new state of Europe, and this is hidden from no one. European countries have come together, economically and politically, to tilt the balance-of-power on their side through cooperation and collaboration. It cannot be denied that Pan-Europeanism is more than just a political union; it is also a cultural union. With this growing Pan-Europeanism, many notice the birth of strong Anti-Americanism. Political theorists such as Mark Leonard and T.R. Reid believe that differences between Europe and the US outweigh their similarities, and that these differences fuel a transatlantic rift, or in many cases, a growing European anti-Americanism. This thesis raises many questions: Is Europe bound by their similarities or do they stand united only to reject the US? What are these similarities and differences in the political systems? And to what extent are these political differences the cause of the growing anti-Americanism? In order to begin answering these questions, I will first profoundly evaluate the differences and the similarities between US and the European countries. Having done so, I will then move on to assess whether these differences are really the cause of the anti-Americanism, or is the rift caused by something more than just differences in political structure and philosophy.

In comparing the political systems of the US and the European countries it is best to start with the comparison of the constitutional arrangement of their governments. While both aim for a democracy, the European countries, such as Germany and Great Britain, in general embrace the Parliamentary Democracy, where as the US is a Presidential Democracy. Phillips Shively lists the some of the key aspects of a Parliamentary Democracy:

• “A parliament of representatives is elected by the citizens of the state […] the parliament is the only elected body in the state.
  
• “The executive power of the state is lodged with a cabinet of women and men who are selected by the parliament to conduct the affairs of the state.
  
• “The cabinet retains executive power only as long as it has the “confidence” of the parliament. That is, only as long as it can command a majority of the votes.
  
• “Just as the parliament holds the cabinet in jeopardy, the leader of the cabinet usually has the right to have the parliament disbanded, forcing a new election that will lead to a new distribution of power” (Shively 315).
  

Shively, then, goes on to list the key aspects of the Presidential system, such as the one following in the US:

• “Parties are often more loosely unified in presidential systems than in parliamentary systems. […] the president has little control over the careers and advancement of members of the legislature and cannot force unity on them. Even when the president’s party has a majority of the seats in the legislature, the president will usually not be able to control what happens in the legislature […]
  
• There is no guarantee that the party that holds the presidency will also control the legislature. The two parts of the government apparatus are elected independently […]” (Shively 335).
  

These are some very basic differences in constitutional arrangements. Germany and Great Britain use the Proportional Representation (PR) System in their Parliamentary democracies. . In PR system, the number of parliamentary seats won by each party is directly proportional to the votes cast in favor of it. Pippa Norris describes PR as follows, “PR electoral systems focus on the inclusion of all voices, emphasizing the need for bargaining and compromise within parliament, government, the policymaking process.” Unlike the voters, who vote strategically, in a First Past The Pole (FPTP)
system [as in the US], in which the party that is first to pass a threshold wins the majority, voters in PR system are able to vote for the party that they most relate to, even if it is a small party, because they know that their vote is not wasted. However great the difference between Europe and the US may seem because of these different approaches to democracy, it is important to note that France is a Presidential democracy which uses a fusion of the PR and the FPTP systems. The difference, therefore, between Germany and the US, for example, is only fractionally more than the difference between Germany and France.

Along with constitutional arrangements, it is also worth examining the labor market and the welfare system for the similarities and the differences between Europe and US. As far as the labor market goes, American labor force works much differently than the European. In his article in the New Yorker titled The Financial Page: No work and No Play, James Surowiecki states that when compared to the average American, the French work 28% fewer hours per person and the Germans 25%. Although this does result in more wealth in America, he writes, “In terms of productivity – that is, how much a worker produces in an hour – there’s little difference between the U.S., France, and Germany. But since more people work in America, and since they work so many more hours, Americans trade their productivity for more money, while Europeans trade it for more leisure” (Surowiecki). So what caused these differences between the countries? “European labor unions are far more powerful and European labor markets are far more tightly regulated than their American counterparts” (Surowiecki).

The differences are increased further when the interaction between labor markets and welfare system is evaluated. The US has what Robert Goodin (and his co-authors) call a Liberal Welfare regime. They state, “The liberal welfare regime is characterized by (1) liberal politics, (2) capitalist economies and (3) residualist social policies” (Goodin 40). This model calls for the state to be ‘neutral’ among all competition. The residualist social policies in a welfare system like the one in US are for the least advantaged of the society. In contrast, Germany and France have an extensive welfare system that reaches all aspects of European life including health care, pension system, family insurance system, education system, and the unemployment insurance. While it is true Germany and France differ from the US greatly in terms of the welfare system, not all European countries do: an example of this is Great Britain. “Historically, [the American] model arose in the course of the industrial revolution, and it found its fullest flowering in England with the New Poor Law of 1832 (Goodin 40). While it is true that the British model has continued to change and evolve, it is important to recognize the common ground between Great Britain and US.

Having, thus, analyzed the differences between European and American political systems, the question arises: The growth of anti-Americanism in Europe cannot be denied, but is the rift due to these political differences or is it caused by something else?

In The United States of Europe, T.R. Reid states, “What really annoys the Europeans is that this nation perceived to be ignorant of the rest of the world has the wealth and the power to dominate much of it. The French parliamentarian Noel Mamere [argued] that it is appropriate to be downright anti-American because of this combination of strength and stupidity” (Reid 19). The resentment towards the American wealth can be explained by the differences in the political system: More Americans work many more hours than Europeans; as a result the wealth they generate is considerably higher. Reid cites a survey that gives a baseline reading on French attitudes towards US that states that 50% of the French public see the US as a nation of violence, 48% see it as a nation that uses the death penalty and 45% believe that US is a nation of great social inequality (20). The ‘nation of violence,’ which can be explained by recent foreign policy such as the Iraq War, shows the effect of contemporary politics on the rift. Mark Leonard supports this in saying, “Between 11 September 2001 and June 2004, US military spending grew to match that of the whole of the rest of the world combined. […] It has damaged America’s standing in the world” (Leonard 122). Most interesting though is the comment made by 45% of the French public that the US is a nation of social inequality. This statistic strikes at the heart of the difference in the welfare system. The American liberal welfare model, unlike the European, is residualist. This does result in the inequality of wealth and the fact that the US government refuses to change this inequality is appalling to Europeans who pride themselves on the extensive social welfare programs.

While Leonard and Reid’s arguments prove that the differences in the politics of US and Europe lead to anti-Americanism, Josef Joffe, in his Überpower, states that there is a difference between policy anti-Americanism and the “Real Thing.” He writes, “to attribute American behavior to inbred imperialism (“look what they did to the Indians”), to American capitalism (“blood for oil”), or to religious bigotry (“they claim divine guidance”) transcends policy criticism. […] They denounce not the policy but the polity” (Joffe 73). Although Joffe does not disagree with Leonard and Reid, he believes that anti-Americanism is more than just a resentment towards policies or political structure, it is the denouncing of a culture.

It is true that America and Europe share many differences, and some similarities. And to a great extent, as Leonard and Reid assert, these differences lead to prejudiced views that cause Anti-Americanism in Europe. However, Anti-Americanism can and is, as Joffe asserts, caused by certain cultural perceptions and misconceptions. While both Europe and the US share a strong desire for democracy, they approach it in different ways, and these different ways, would perhaps, lead the European countries and the US to different destinations.

Works Cited

James Surowiecki. 2005. “No Work and No Play,” The New Yorker (November 28)

Josef Joffe. 2006. Überpower:The Imperial Temptation of America (New York: Norton)

Mark Leonard. 2005. Why Europe Will Run the 21^st Century (London: Fourth Estate)Phillips Shively. 2005. Power and Choice (Ninth Edition) (New York: McGraw Hill)

Pippa Norris. 2004. Electoral Engineering (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Robert Goodin et. Al 1999. The Real World of Welfare Capitalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

T. R. Reid. 2004. The United States of Europe (New York: Penguin)

The Stories We Are Told: Media Bias in the News Coverage of Middle East

 

A complex world is made more complex with conflicting perceptions and ideologies. A strange dichotomy prevails in our global community today: as citizens of the world who desire to live in harmony and peace, we embrace the concept of relativity and agree to disagree; yet, when it comes to areas of knowledge such as new reporting, we want the perfect impartial account of global events. The logic here is that only after we have received the unbiased account of an event through a news source can we form our own personal opinions, which may or may not agree with anyone else’s. The truth remains however, that media bias is prevalent in all sources. The two-week long project of tracking news coverage of the Middle East reveals remarkable evidence that speaks to media bias, in general, and the manner in which Middle East is covered in various sources, in specific.The four sources that were tracked for the news coverage assessment were: (1) New York Times (print edition), (2) AlJazeera.net, (3) Economist.com and (4) BBC Radio. The aim was to select diverse sources, both in the manner of their news distribution and the region they are based in. Despite the journalistic ideal of “objectivity,” every news story is influenced by the attitudes and background of its interviewers, writers, photographers, and editors. The following sections present an assessment of the selected four sources, categorized, for the sake of clarity, into different kinds of biases.

Bias through selection and omission

A news source reveals its bias by choosing or not choosing a particular story. Some biases are explicitly legitimate: Economist.com, as the name suggests, has economic and business issues as its prime focus. Therefore the Economist editors would most like select a business-related story over a political one. While it does cover political news, its coverage of the Middle East in the last two weeks was limited in terms of the quantity of articles it published. In contrast to Economist.com, New York Times published a great volume of articles concerning the Middle East. However, when the variety of topics is analyzed, Economist.com surpassed New York Times. Most of the New York Times coverage dealt with the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (in some cases, its extension into regional conflict with other states), the War in Iraq, Terrorism, the Blackwater Incident and the visit of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad. When compared to the number of articles published, the variety covered was minimal. While Economist.com did cover these topics, it also covered stories related to Lebanese Presidential Deadlock, Oil Money, and the growing Media Business. In the limited number of articles that Economist.com published, they covered a variety of different issues and usually provided more details and historical background in the articles. The third source, Al Jazeera.net provided both a good quantity of articles and a great variety of topics. It covered developmental issues such as Egypt’s strike for better work conditions, economic issues such as Morocco’s protests due to increased bread prices, environmental issues such as Lebanon’s Forest Fire and its dire effects, humanitarian issues such as Israel’s admittance of 500 Darfur Refugees in addition to all the political issues mentioned earlier. BBC Radio was limited in both its coverage quantity and variety.

The AlJazeera.net coverage of the Middle East is extensive covering a broad range of topics and assessing each topic in detail. Many of the articles go beyond just the facts and report the effect of that particular incident on the local population. When compared to the other sources, AlJazeera.net also reported more news about internal conflict in the states, providing an insider’s point of view.

New York Times reported many articles but most of the time it reported just the surface of the news. It also over-covered issues such as the Blackwater Incident and under-covered important stories such as the Future of Lebanon’s Presidency and the progress towards Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations. In most cases, it did not go into the history or other background information. Most of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict articles simply reported the number of people who died or prisoners released. While this may have been a way to avoid taking sides and being accurate, it proved inadequate in reporting the complexity of the issue/event.

BBC Radio covered very few stories about the Middle East, to name a few, Egypt’s textile strike, death of Lebanese MP, Israel-Palestinian Negotiation. In its reporting, however, BBC Radio went into detail and broadcasted various aspects of the issue and in some cases, engaged in deeper analysis of the problem. The same was true of Economist.com. Although the quantity was limited, the topics at hand were covered with extensive detail and thorough attention.

Bias by Headline and through Placement

Ideally, headlines are supposed to capture the reader’s attention and summarize the article. They are perhaps the most read part of the paper/website. However, different news sources use headlines to highlight different aspects of the story, revealing their underlying bias. For example, New York Times and AlJazeera.net both reported that Israel released 29 prisoners on October 2, and during this release Israeli security forces opened fire at the crowd to deter the surge toward Israeli side. The New York Times headline read “Israel Completes Prisoner Release as it Frees 29″ [1]The AlJazeera.net headline read “Shooting mars Gaza prisoner release”[2]. While the information provided in both the headlines captures what happened in the event, the New York Times headline reveals its bias towards Israel and, on the flip side, the AlJazeera.net headline reveals its bias towards the Gaza Strip.

The difference in reporting did not stop there. Readers also judge the importance of certain information by where it appears in the article. The information that is reported first is considered of prime importance. In the case of earlier example, AlJazeera.net opened its article saying “Israeli security forces have opened fire on a crowd of Palestinians waiting for 29 prisoners freed by Israel to cross into the Gaza Strip.”[3] In contrast, the New York Times did not mention this fact until the third paragraph of the article (after it had mentioned that Israel had freed another 57 Palestinian prisoners).”[4] The placement of ‘the shooting information’ in the article dramatically changes its impact on the reader.[5] BBC Radio can similarly affect its audience by announcing a story in the beginning of the radio broadcast as opposed to later in the program. Most of the BBC Radio discussion on the Middle East was saved towards the middle or the end of the program. Biases by Headline and through Placement reveal what the writer/editor thinks is most important and he/she can then influence to the leader to think in the same way.

Bias through Use of Names and Titles

News media’s often used labels and titles to describe people, groups, places, etc. say a lot about the source’s bias. Whether a group is described as a “terrorist organization” or “armed political party,” for example, has a clear implication. When it came time to labeling Hezbollah, news sources differed greatly. AlJazeera.net described it as “the powerful Shia group”[6]. New York Times described it as “the Syrian-backed Shiite party that Washington considers a terrorist group.”[7] Economist.com referred to it as “Shia party-cum-guerrilla army.”[8] The different labels assigned to the group by the News Source show their bias – either pro-Hezbollah (AlJazeera.net) or leaning anti-Hezbollah (New York Times and Economist.com). Similar bias was seen when the sources reported news about Hamas. AlJazeera.net called it “an armed group.”[9] In contrast, one New York Times article said the Israel and Western Powers consider “Hamas a terrorist organization and refuse to deal with it.”[10] Whether this bias relates only to the group, or it extends to the region or states (Lebanon, Gaza Strip, Syria, and Iran) is unclear. However, knowing that it is present helps the reader see the news in a more appropriate light.

Conclusion

The News Coverage of Middle East Assessment was informative and thought-provoking. While the overall quality of all sources was decent, the media bias was also prevalent: New York Times, BBC, and Economist.com were liberal but still encapsulated a western outlook, apparent in its favoritism of Israel, its hesitancy in blaming Blackwater, and its assessment of President Ahmadinejad’s visit. AlJazeera.net was predictably pro-Arab. In contrast to the other sources, AlJazeera.net addressed issues from an insider’s point of view, frequently discussing the internal conflicts in the Arab world. While the biases that exist are undeniable, what caused them is a bigger question. What comes first: bias in media reporting or the prejudicial notions that people have? This question is far from being answered. Until then, it is best to be aware that the biases exist and absorb all news with a critical and skeptical eye.

---

[1] The New York Times. “Israel Completes Prisoner Release as it Frees 29.” The New York Times 3 October 2007.[2] Al Jazeera. Shooting Mars Gaza Prisoner release. 2 October 2007. <http://english.aljazeera.net/News/aspx/print.htm>.

[3] Al Jazeera. Shooting Mars Gaza Prisoner release. 2 October 2007. <http://english.aljazeera.net/News/aspx/print.htm>.

[4] The New York Times. “Israel Completes Prisoner Release as it Frees 29.” The New York Times 3 October 2007.

[5] Also, AlJazeera.net reported that Israeli forces had fired at the legs of the crowd when the air shots failed to stop the surge. This actually ended up wounding 2 prisoners. The New York Times article does not include this information, revealing a bias through omission.

[6] Lebanon Parliament Set to Convene. 25 September 2007. <http://english.aljazeera.net/News/aspx/print.htm>.

[7] Naylor, Hugh. “Syria, Seeking Investors, Turns Cautiously to Iran.” The New York Times 4 October 2007.

[8] Economist.com. Who’s for President? 27 September 2007. <http://www/economist.com/world/africa/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=9867448>.

[9] Janabi, Ahmed. Iraq’s armed groups form alliance. 1 October 2007. <http://english.aljazeera.net/News/aspx/print.htm>.

[10] Kershner, Isabel. “Israelis Kill Up to 9 in Gaza.” The New York Times 27 September 2007.

 

Brainwave#1 – Islamism: A Challenge to the Authority of Arab States

Islamism is the most powerful political ideology in the Arab States. Multiple forms of Islamism are spreading across Middle East: radical or moderate, violent or non-violent, traditional or modernist, democratic or authoritarian.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–> There is no denying that this ideology has gained popular support and that it has been the biggest opposition to the many nationalist governments in the region. Opposition presented by Islamist groups has challenged the authority, performance, and power of the Arab States causing political instability in the region and skepticism in the world (particularly, the West). Ignoring Islamism is no longer an option and suppressing it no longer feasible. Dealing with Islamism has been a major problem in the politics of Arab world. The diverse, and often contradictory, goals and workings of Islamist groups prevent a clear understanding of the ideology and make a simple solution impossible.

Islamism is often associated with militant organizations such as Al-Qaeda. It is important to note that dealing with these militant organizations is also a challenge for the Arab States, it is mainly the challenge presented by moderate Islamist groups that is in discussion here. Even though violent Islamist movements and organizations “loom large in the West’s imagination as a result of their dramatic acts of terror [they] are marginal to the large majority of Islamist movements and ineffective as far as the day-to-day political struggles within Muslim countries are concerned. Most mainstream Islamist movements operate peacefully within national boundaries, and attempt to influence and transform their societies and polities largely though constitutional means even when the constitutional and political cards are stacked against them.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[2]<!–[endif]–> The complexness surrounding Islamism is excellently manifested in the debate surrounding its meaning.

Although many have attempted to define as been Islamism – or political Islam, few have agreed on one particular definition. The Middle East Quarterly, a leading scholarly journal on the politics of the region, hosted a debate in order to gain an understanding of Islamism. The deliberation included four renowned political scientists of Arab states: Martin Kramer, Graham Fuller, John Esposito, and Daniel Pipes. When asked to define Islamism, the four came up with four different definitions. Graham Fuller’s definition offers a concise explanation of what is generally believed to be Islamism. According to him, “Islamism is largely synonymous with political Islam – an effort to draw out meaning out of Islam applicable to problems of contemporary governance, society, and politics.” Esposito adds to this definition by stressing that the ideology supports “political and social activism,” <!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[3]<!–[endif]–> Yet another definition is offered by Mohammed Ayoob in his article in International Affairs. He describes Islamism as “a form of instrumentalization of Islam by individuals, groups and organizations that pursue political objectives. It provides political responses to today’s societal challenges by imagining a future, the foundations for which rest on reappropriated, reinvented concepts borrowed from the Islamic tradition.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[4]<!–[endif]–> No matter which definition is accepted as optimal, the thing that is certain is that Islamist groups have political goals and their popularity challenges the authoritarian nationalist governments.

In order to understand the challenge presented by Islamism in Arab States it is important to understand the causes that foster its growth and popular support. The modern-day introduction of Islam in political life of Arab States has its roots in various critical historical events. In 1960s, President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt evoked the ideology of Pan-Arab nationalism. He fought the 1967 Arab-Israeli war under the nationalist ideological banner. However, the failure of such nationalistic endeavors created a demand for an alternative ideology. This is when Islamic politics exploded. Unlike Nasser, his successor Anwar Sadat fought the 1973 Ramadan War under the banner of Islam, using it to unite all Arabs. In Libya, Mu’ammar Qaddafi used Islamic symbols to legitimize his populist rule, adding to the power of Islamism. Of all the regional developments in the 1970s, the two most important events that boasted the popularity for Islamism were the Iranian Revolution and the Hostage Crisis. Explaining the role of Islam in the 1979 Iranian revolution, Augustus Richard Norton writes: “By mid-1978, sensing the resonance of Islamic symbolism, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi decreed the adoption of the traditional Persian solar calendar and took other superficial steps intended to “Islamicize” his regime. We all know how the story ended.” The success of Islamism in form of the Iranian revolution added to its popularity.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[5]<!–[endif]–> The successful use of Islam as a political tool in these historical events put Islamism at the center of Arab politics, and secured its place as a viable opponent to the Arab states.

The question that is still left unanswered is why these Arab leaders were able to use Islam so successfully in political realm. What conditions created popular support for Islamism? While the above mentioned historical events explain the growth of Islamism, it is important to dig a little deeper to find the root cause of its inception. Certain political conditions provide Islamist groups to assert their credentials and gain support by criticizing the incompetence and corruption of existing regimes. Fuller discusses the importance of state politics with the assertion that “most regimes see almost any form of political Islam as a threat,” and dealing with these regimes presents a major problem in the Arab States. He goes on to say, Islamism “embodies a major challenge to their unpopular, failing, and illegitimate presidents-for-life or isolated monarchs [as in the case of Iran prior to Iranian Revolution]. How the regime responds to the phenomenon often plays a major role in determining how the local Islamist movement develops.” He provides a list of questions such as the state of social and economic conditions, the degree of violence and repression in the political culture, the permission of legitimate election and free political discussion that determine how Islamists operate in a particular country. He adds that in some “local political scene […] Islamists are routinely suppressed, jailed, tortured, and executed. Such circumstances encourage the emergence of secret, conspiratorial and often armed groups rather than liberal ones.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[6]<!–[endif]–> Fuller’s arguments invariably lead to the notion that Authoritarian regimes are the cause of Islamism’s growing support.

During the Middle East Quarterly debate, Martin Kramer elaborates of Fuller’s point about authoritarianism. He states:

 

“I wouldn’t so much speak of the authoritarian state as a paternalistic state. A paternalistic state is part of the historical and cultural legacy of the region. When the paternalistic state delivers, protest is rare; an efficient paternalistic state can last, as the Ottoman Empire did, for hundreds of years. Yet, for many reasons having nothing to do with Islamism, the paternalistic state has faltered in recent years. Falling oil prices are one reason; rapidly expanding populations, which are a drag on economic growth, another. The unwillingness to open markets, largely because of old nationalist dogmas, has hurt growth, as has aping the Soviet model of development. These elements have created a state that has ceased to be efficient enough to satisfy many of its beneficiaries, and they have responded by turning against it. Islamism is a leading expression of that discontent.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[7]<!–[endif]–>

Kramer’s argument depicts how closed political systems and authoritarian regimes are highly conducive to growth in the popularity of Islamist political formation an ideology. Dawisha provides supports Kramer by arguing that Islamist groups are “focused on charitable and education work, on trying to inculcate certain values and standards of behavior.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[8]<!–[endif]–> Such activities of the Islamist groups gain them popular support while creating disdain and challenges for the regimes. While this explanation for Islamism’s growth might seem to be unquestionably accurate, it is important to note that there is much debate about this as well. During the debate, Daniel Pipes challenged Kramer saying:

“I wonder. Do all these reasons you just gave apply to the United States? Clearly not – and yet Islamists dominate American Muslim institutions, publications, and mosques. […] I can find you plenty of cases of dictators without much Islamism, or democracies with Islamism. I can also find you poor states without it, rich states with it.” <!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[9]<!–[endif]–>

While Pipes does not back up his claims with any particular examples, his comment is enough to show that even though the domestic policies authoritarian regimes can be an important cause, it cannot be the only one. The political systems argument holds even more merit however, when party politics in Arab States is taken into account. Ayoob writes, “Paradoxically, these very regimes, by successfully eliminating secular opposition movements and parties and banishing ‘normal’ politics, have created the political and intellectual space into which the Islamists have moved. This is because not even the most efficient repressive state can fully suppress opposition expressed through the religious idiom.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[10]<!–[endif]–>

In addition to the historical and systematical causes for the popularity of Islamism, the international power structure also increases support for Islamist organizations. Islamist groups assert that “if Muslims are able to recreate a true and pure Islamic society, they will be able to regain their former glory – or at least compete with the West [the implementer of direct and indirect domination, both during the colonial era and the post-cold war era] on a basis of equality. Their slogan ‘Islam is the solution’ emanates from these interlocking arguments.” Moreover, major international powers and their policies are perceived by Arabs as being primarily responsible for keeping them in the sad plight they are in today. Going back to the earlier point, this Islamist prescription gains popular support because nationalist governments were unable to “provide dignity, freedom, power or wealth to most Muslims around the world” and have not gained any significant standing in international politics.

The causes of the popularity of Islamism are varied yet interconnected. While inception of Islamism can be explained primarily explained by the effect of regional-state-level politics, the international standing of the Arab world and critical historical events has had a tremendous impact on its growth. Islamism is a growing problem in the Arab world because few states have been able to counter the powerful challenge it presents to the authority of state governments. Dealing with Islamist groups, and finding a solution that accommodates them in the political life of Arab states is the overarching phenomenon that will determine the region domestic politics and its international footing. It is the major problem in the Arab States that needs to be addressed in a manner that is pragmatic and effective.

 

---

<!–[endif]–>

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–> Fuller, G. (2002, March/April). The Future of Political Islam. Foreign Affairs , 81 (2), pp.49

[2]<!–[endif]–> Ayoob, M. (2005). The Future of Political Islam: the Importance of External Variables. International Affairs , 951-961.

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[3]<!–[endif]–> Is Islamism a Threat? (1999, December). Middle East Quarterly .

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[4]<!–[endif]–> Ayoob, M. (2005). The Future of Political Islam: the Importance of External Variables. International Affairs , 952..

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[5]<!–[endif]–> Norton, A. R. (1995, January). The Challenge of Inclusion in the Middle East. Current History .

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[6]<!–[endif]–> Fuller, G. (2002, March/April). The Future of Political Islam. Foreign Affairs , 81 (2), pp. 48-60.

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[7]<!–[endif]–> Is Islamism a Threat? (1999, December). Middle East Quarterly .

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[8]<!–[endif]–> Dawisha, A. (2001). Arab Nationalism and Islamism: Competitive Past, Uncertain Future. international Studies Association , 79-90.

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[9]<!–[endif]–>Is Islamism a Threat? (1999, December). Middle East Quarterly .

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[10]<!–[endif]–>Ayoob, M. (2005). The Future of Political Islam: the Importance of External Variables. International Affairs , 951-961.

Barack Obama Speaks

In his essay published in Foreign Affairs, Barack Obama discusses his take on the current American foreign policies and his intended plans as a possible-future president of America. He follows the footsteps of Republican candidates, and sells his candidacy in the marketplace of emotions with a lot of help from the grand narratives of fond leaders of the past …

clipped from www.foreignaffairs.org COMMON SECURITY FOR OUR COMMON HUMANITY At moments of great peril in the last century, American leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy managed both to protect the American people and to expand opportunity for the next generation. What is more, they ensured that America, by deed and example, led and lifted the world — that we stood for and fought for the freedoms sought by billions of people beyond our borders. Today, we are again called to providevisionary leadership. After thousands of lives lost and billionsof dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet thethreats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. We mustlead the world, by deed and by example.

Vendor of Ideas in a Marketplace of Emotions

An Analysis of Essays by Senator Clinton and Senator McCain

I am currently reading a fascinating book called The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding The Fate of The Nation by Drew Westen (Summary Available on Related Works Page). Very early in the book Westen writes,

“In politics, when reason and emotion collide, emotion invariably wins. Elections are decided in the marketplace of emotions, a marketplace filled with values, images, analogies, moral sentiments, and moving oratory, in which logic plays only a supporting role.”

Westen provides ample evidence to support his claim, including among others, examples of campaign advertisements and political speeches from past elections. He asserts that Republicans are better vendors in the marketplace of emotions than Democrats, and that is precisely why Republican candidates win most elections despite many polls showing that the average voter agrees with Democratic positions on most policy issues. Through his book, Weston wanted to help those many Democratic voters, and especially the Democratic leaders, in answering their pressing question: “Why the hell can’t we win?!”

Granted I haven’t read the whole book yet, but in my opinion, Westen answered their question very effectively. I (and I assume, he) would have thought that after so many failed elections and so much excellent analysis available, Democratic leaders will now know how to campaign better. But if Westen compared Senator Clinton’s and Senator McCain’s essays published in Foreign Affairs this month, I bet he was shaking his head in disappointment like I was!

Before I engage in any analysis of their essays, I would like to state clearly that I am no saint – I am biased like all other humans! I am a liberal, and in this particular election (although its too early to say) I really do support Hillary Clinton! I would also say here, I am not a fan of the current administration. There, now that that’s off my chest, we can move on…

Hillary Clinton has always struck me as a brilliant woman and a capable leader, who knows her politics – both domestic and foreign. Therefore, her essay in Foreign Affairs was no surprise to me! Her essay proved that she is intellectually qualified to be a president, and if she was given a chance, she would think out-of-the-box and lead America in restoring its standing in the world.

Clinton’s goal as a president is beautiful summed up in her essay’s title : Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-First Century. Clinton’s grand narrative, if you will, rests on those two simple words – Security, Opportunity. The task of achieving these two things, she says, rests on diplomacy. Throughout the essay she provides tangible ideas to bring a change in American foreign politics.

On Iraq, She Says: “As president, I will convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home, starting within the first 60 days of my administration.” She will do this by reallocating the financial aid given to Iraq; engaging in intensive diplomatic initiative that may devise appropriate incentives for Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to stay out of a civil war; working with UN High Commissioner for Refugees to address the Iraqi Refugee problem; and countering terrorism by using specialized units to engage in targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. She also presents various incentives to help the returning “brave soldiers,” such as modernizing GI Bill of Rights.

On Afghanistan, She Says: “The forgotten frontline in the war on terror is Afghanistan, where our military effort must be reinforced. The Taliban cannot be allowed to regain power [...] We must seek to dry up recruiting opportunities for the Taliban by funding crop-substitution programs, a large scale road-building initiative, institutions that train and prepare Afghans for honest and effective governance, and programs to enable women to play a larger role in society.”

On Energy Issue, She Says: “We must create formal links between the International Energy Agency and China and India and create an “E-8″ international forum modeled on the ‘G-8′ “

On Diplomacy, She Says: “Leadership requires a blend of strategy, persuasion, inspiration and motivation. [...] Avoid false choices driven by ideology: force versus diplomacy, unilateralism versus multilateralism, hard power versus soft. There is a time for force and a time for diplomacy; when properly deployed, the two can reinforce each other. [...] Use our military not as the solution to every problem but as one element in a comprehensive strategy.[...] Make international institutions work, and work through them when possible.”

Whether you agree with Clinton’s ideas or not, there is no debate that her essay was content-driven, and actually presented her ideas in a intellectual fashion. If we lived in a “Marketplace of Ideas,” and Clinton and McCain were the only two vendors, Clinton would be the richer one hands down! Unfortunately for Clinton, and fortunately for McCain, we live in a “Marketplace of Emotions” and there, McCain knows better the art of selling!

McCain’s essay was a cluster of narratives very close to the American heart. Every opportunity he got, he evoked the web of emotions (or networks, as Westen calls them) related to American political culture.

He began his essay with “Since the dawn of our republic,” making it seem like the reader is a not reading a political essay by a presidential candidate rather an inspirational story about a great nation called America. He quickly follows it up with: “We are, as Alexander Hamilton said, “a people of great destinies.”" This isn’t the only time McCain evokes the memory of the fond leaders of the past. Through out his essay, he quotes – President Truman, President Roosevelt, President Kennedy, President Reagan, President George H.W.Bush, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson. This list of leaders is complemented by his inclusion of landmark documents such as the Declaration of Independence.

It could be argued that McCain is addressing these past leaders and doctrines with genuine affection and respect for them, and not, as cynics like Westen and I might argue, as political tools in selling his candidacy. By no means am I saying that McCain doesn’t genuinely believe in the historical ideals of America. But quoting the past presidents and our country’s founders doesn’t prove that he believes in them anymore than Hillary Clinton. Before you dispose my view as a cynic’s opinion, let me prove to you that McCain is very conscious of the emotions he is trying to elicit from his readers and the effect his selection of words will have on them…

One of the few tangible ideas that McCain presents is a creation of a League of Democracies: a common organization linking democratic nations in addressing various transnational issues. Now if Westen’s theory of networks of neurons (“nerve cells that work together to generate our experience of the world”) is assumed to be true, the name ‘League of Democracies’ will immediately tap into our memory of the ‘League of Nations,’ which will then most likely remind any person with the basic knowledge of American history of ‘failure’, ‘doomed effort’,'weakness’. Anything paralleled to League of Nations will activate our association to a “diplomatic mishap.” If McCain was ignorant of the power of associations, he would not be concerned with the similarities in the names of the two organizations. But McCain, very smartly, writes: “This would be unlike Woodrow Wilson’s doomed plan for the universal-membership League of Nations. Instead, it would be similar to what Theodore Roosevelt envisioned: like minded nations working together for peace and liberty.” McCain’s immediate move to disassociate his League of Democracies from the League of Nations, proves my point: he is not only aware of the power of associations, He is using it to his advantage!

Also to his advantage, McCain openly embraces Ideology. He write: “As president, I will employ every economic, diplomatic, political, legal, and ideological tool at our disposal [...].” As opposed to McCain’s stance, Clinton writes: “We must return to a pragmatic willingness to look at the facts on the ground and make decisions based on evidence rather than ideology. [...] Avoid false choices driven by ideology.” Clinton is appealing to the readers’ rational mind, and McCain to their emotional one.

And as Westen already declared: “In politics, when reason and emotion collide, (*DRUM ROLL*) emotion invariably wins!”

To those of you who read my earlier blog, I want to say, “I know what you are thinking!” According to the latest Gallup Poll, Hillary Clinton is leading with 32% of the registered voters saying they will definitely vote for her. John McCain lags behind with only 11% of the voters. You are wondering: If John McCain is really a better vendor in the marketplace of emotions, how then is Hillary Clinton leading by not 1%, not 2% but 21%?!

I do have a couple of answers.

First, Clinton’s essay is not totally devoid of narratives of American values and ideals, just like McCain’s essay is not totally devoid of content! It is true that McCain evokes emotional narratives more than Clinton, but whenever Clinton does tap into those emotional networks, she too wins brownie points!

Second, Hillary may also garner votes from those who see her as a return to the emotionally-dear Clinton Era. After all, Bush’s approval rating according to the October Gallup Poll is at its lowest at 32%. If you want to get farther away from Bush, where better to go than Hillary?! While it is possible that voters might make this decision based on policy analysis, it is more likely that its their “gut” feeling that’s leading them towards Hillary. Afterall, even the name “Clinton” carries with it a certain charisma and fond memories of times-gone-by, of an era before terrorism was such a blatant reality, of a period when the world seemed a little simpler!

Third, policies do matter! I don’t intend to say (and neither does Westen) that policies hold no importance. But how you sell them is equally important for it decides how many people you will win over! Many people believe that what went wrong in Iraq is inadequate planing. In contrast to the current administration, Hillary Clinton is offering tangible plans to map out the course her presidency would take! It must be a relief to many Americans that someone is thinking ahead – not just when it comes to Iraq, but various other issues.

So what does Hillary have to do to win? Keep doing what she is doing, but do it better! She is right on the money in terms of her policies and plans. Now she really has to sell them! Pour her heart out to the American People! Appeal to their emotions, their values, their moral sentiments! Dress reason in the pretty and colorful clothes of emotions!

Only then will she be the last woman standing in the combined Marketplace of Emotions and Ideas!

Gallup Poll on Election 2008

Things are looking up for Hillary Clinton! Not only is she holding a considerable lead compared to all Democratic candidates she is also now slightly ahead of the Republic front-runner, Rudy Giuliani.

The following two graphs show the results of a Gallup Poll conducted on Nov. 2-4.

Welcome to Thinking Politics!

This blog is still under-construction. Soon it will be updated with some entertaining political humor, an update on U.S. Elections 2008, my personal reflections on some news, essays, and events! So tune-in again, and your political mind will be in for a treat!