Structured Response #3- Hanna

   Before reflecting on the legitimacy and authenticity of the civil society of the MENA region, it is helpful to reflect on the characteristics of our own civil society. To what extent are our political and non-political groups intertwined? For instance, the relations of political groups and religious/social groups in the United States are deeply rooted in one another. Here we see the same "contentious and messy process of alliance building between groups actively working towards gaining political power (such as political elites and parties) and groups working on the framework for politics (such as NGOs)" as we see in the US. We, as a public, recognize these groups as legitimate and fundamental parts of our society. Why would this be any different in another part of the world? Why do we not question this the way we question the civil society of MENA countries?

    For Civil Society actors to be able to claim legitimacy in their society means for them to further their agenda and it provides a basis for idle behavior. It is like choosing Coke over Shasta: Shasta is only sold in pockets of the country, while Coke is a nationally recognized product. Apply that thinking to Civil Society actors. If a CSO can be recognized throughout its state as a fundamental and unwavering figure than they can only increase in power and they will be able to further their ideals. 

    If you only ever buy Coke then you won't ever know if you like Shasta. That is the problem that arouses from having these concrete Civil Society actors. Why would Coke change its formula or start advertising more if it doesn't have Shasta coming up as a competitor? I'm not sure if my analogy is making any sense, but what I am getting at is this: Constant change, evolution, and the challenge of other civil society actors saying 'Hey, I can do more for the people' is what brings about a vibrant civil society. A vibrant civil society is the key to democratization. The people of the MENA region need new civil society players to come out and say 'I can do more' if they want to continue on a path to democratization.

    As the area stands right now (from my humble understanding), the political and non-political groups are so heavily intertwined with members of the state that they may be comfortable. They can bicker among themselves and cut each other deals without any serious trouble coming from it and without anything of substance getting accomplished. In order for democratization to be furthered, something must come along and uproot those ties. Shasta needs to start advertising, essentially. The people are equally responsible, for if they accept these CSO's as organic parts of society than nothing will happen. The people need to demand Shasta be sold nationwide. Shasta, in this case, is a political or non-political group that is not intertwined with members of the state. Since Shasta is not rooted with members of the state, then they must work twice as hard to earn legitimacy in the Civil Society. This leaves no room for idle behavior and deal cutting.

    Not sure exactly how to wrap this up....or if my analogy makes any sense outside of my own brain. The problem with the civil society (in most nations, not exclusive to the MENA) is that it has become a part of the political sphere. Everything is intertwined and that leaves the public out of the decision making. Which doesn't exactly flow with the idea of democracy.