̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - revolution

Military spending did not 'crowd out' welfare in Middle East prior to Arab Spring

fpjl2 — Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:00:34 +0000

Research casts doubt on the widely-held view that spiralling military expenditure across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) 'crowded out' investment in healthcare and public services, leading to civil unrest that eventually exploded in the Arab Spring revolutions.

̽��ֱ��so-called 'guns versus butter' or 'welfare versus warfare' hypothesis – that prioritised military spending resulted in neglect of health and education, thereby creating conditions that fomented public rebellion – is considered by many experts to be a root cause of the uprisings that gripped the region during 2011.

However, a team of researchers who analysed economic and security data from MENA nations in the 16 years leading up to the Arab Spring found no evidence of a trade-off between spending on the military and public services, specifically healthcare.

̽��ֱ��researchers from Cambridge and the Lebanese American ̽��ֱ�� argue that much of the evidence for the ‘guns versus butter’ causal link come from analyses of wealthy European nations, which has then been assumed to hold true for the Middle East.

They say the study’s findings, published today in the journal Defence and Peace Economics, provide a “cautionary note” against a reliance on simplistic correlations based on data from OECD nations to draw important policy conclusions about the causes of turmoil in the Middle East.

“Our research finds reports of this apparent spending trade-off prior to the Arab Spring to be somewhat spurious,” said Dr Adam Coutts, based at Cambridge ̽��ֱ��’s Department of Sociology.

“Academics and policy-makers should be careful in assuming that models and results from studies of other regions can be transplanted onto the Middle East and North Africa,” he said.

“Determining the cause of unrest is a rather more complex task than some experts may suggest. Historical experiences and political economy factors need to be considered.”

While only Saudi Arabia is in the top ten global nations for military spending in terms of hard cash, when calculated as a share of GDP six of the top ten military spenders are MENA nations.

Coutts and colleagues ran World Bank data through detailed statistical models to explore the trade-off between spending on military and on welfare – health, in this case – of 18 different MENA nations from 1995 up to the start of the Arab Spring in 2011.

̽��ֱ��team also looked at casualties resulting from domestic terror attacks in an attempt to estimate security needs that might have helped drive military spending in a region plagued by terrorism.

They found no statistically significant evidence that increased military spending had an impact on health investment. “Contrary to existing evidence from many European nations, we found that levels of military expenditure do not induce or affect cuts to healthcare in the Middle East and North Africa,” said co-author Dr Adel Daoud from Cambridge’s Centre for Business Research.

̽��ֱ��researchers also found no evidence for casualties from terrorism affecting either health or military spending – perhaps a result of the routine nature of such occurrences in the region.

“There may have been a policy adaptation in which regional conflicts and security threats are no longer the main influence on government security and military spending decisions,” said Daoud.

Adam Coutts added: “It has been argued that Arab populations accepted an ‘authoritarian bargain’ over the last forty years – one of societal militarisation in return for domestic security – and that this came at the expense of their welfare and social mobility.

“However, health and military spending cannot be predicted by each other in this troubled region. Policy analysts should not single out military spending as a main culprit for the lack of investment in public goods.

“Once again we find that straightforward explanations for unrest in the Middle East and North Africa are tenuous on close analysis.”

Findings dispute 'guns versus butter' narrative as a major factor behind the Arab Spring. Researchers caution against uncritically applying lessons from Western nations to interpret public policy decisions in the Middle East.

Policy analysts should not single out military spending as a main culprit for the lack of investment in public goods

Adam Coutts

Hossam el-Hamalawy

Medics transferring injured protesters in Abbassiya Square, Egypt

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-ShareAlike

Can the Revolution in Kurdish Syria succeed?

fpjl2 — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:29:02 +0000

Since the descent into civil war in Syria, revolutionary forces have seized control of the Kurdish region of Rojava. ̽��ֱ��mainstream media has been quick to publicise who the revolutionary forces in Rojava are fighting against: the brutality of Islamic State (IS); but what they are fighting for is often neglected. In December of 2014, we had the chance to visit the region as part of an academic delegation. ̽��ֱ��purpose of our trip was to assess the strengths, challenges and vulnerabilities of the revolutionary project under way (read the Delegation’s Joint Statement here).

Rojava is the de facto autonomous Kurdish region in northern Syria. It consists of three cantons: Afrîn in the west, Kobanê in the centre, and Cizîre in the east. It is, for the most part, isolated and surrounded by hostile forces. However – despite the brutal war with IS, the painful embargo of Turkey and the even more painful embargo of Barzani and his Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq – systems of self-governance and democratic autonomous rule have been established in Rojava, and are radically transforming social and political relations in an emancipatory direction.

As Saleh Muslim, co-president of the Democratic Union Party (PYD) representing the independent communities of Rojava, explained in an interview in November 2014: “[We are engaged in the construction of] radical democracy: to mobilize people to organize themselves and to defend themselves by means of peoples armies like the Peoples Defense Unit (YPG) and Women’s Defense Unit (YPJ). We are practicing this model of self-rule and self-organization without the state as we speak. Democratic autonomy is about the long term. It is about people understanding and exercising their rights. To get society to become politicized: that is the core of building democratic autonomy.”

At the forefront of this politicization is gender equality and women’s empowerment, with equal representation and active participation of women in all political and social circles. “We [have] established a model of co-presidency – each political entity always has both a female and a male president – and a quota of 40% gender representation in order to enforce gender equality throughout all forms of public life and political representation,” explains Saleh Muslim.

̽��ֱ��revolutionary forces in Rojava are not fighting for an independent nation state, but advocating a system they call democratic confederalism: one of citizenry-led self-governance through the formation of neighbourhood-level people’s councils, town councils, open assemblies, and cooperatives. These self-governing instruments allow for the participation of diverse political, ethnic, and religious groups, promoting consensus-led decision-making. Combined with local academies aimed at politicising and educating the population, these structures of self-governance give the populace the ability to raise and solve their own problems.

During our nine day trip to Cizîre canton, we visited rural towns as well as cities, where we met with representatives and members of schools, cooperatives, women's academies, security forces, political parties, and the self-government in charge of economic development, healthcare, and foreign affairs.

Throughout the visit, we witnessed discipline, revolutionary commitment and impressive collective mobilisation of the population in Cizîre. Despite the isolation and difficult conditions, a perseverance and even confidence seemed to dominate the collective mood among representatives and members of all the diverse groups we met. This collective optimism and willingness to sacrifice was in the pursuit of an admirable ideological program and genuine steps towards collective emancipation. We were particularly struck by the emphasis on education, politicization, and a consciousness-raising of the general population in accordance with a grass-roots democratic transformation of social and property relations.

Images by Jeff Miley. Click on images to enlarge.

An obvious and striking strength of the revolution clearly on display throughout our trip were the strides towards gender emancipation. Our meetings with government representatives, members of academies, women’s militias, and people’s councils all demonstrated that women’s empowerment is not mere programmatic window-dressing but is in fact being implemented. This, in the context of the Middle East and in sharp contrast to both the IS as well as the KRG, was most impressive.

Another feature of the programmatic agenda we found admirable was the insistence by the revolutionary government in Rojava that it is committed to a broader struggle for a democratic Syria, and in fact a democratic Middle East, capable of accommodating cultural, ethnic and religious diversity through democratic confederalism. In this vein, we witnessed proactive attempts by the revolutionary forces to include ethnic and religious minorities into the struggle underway in Rojava, including the institutionalisation of positive discrimination, quotas, and self-organisation of minority groups, such as the Syriac community – which even formed their own militias.

That said, the integration of the local Arab population into the revolutionary project remains a critical challenge, as does coordination and the formation of alliances with groups outside of the three cantons. Extra-Kurdish coordination and alliances are certainly prerequisites for ensuring the survival of the revolution in the medium and long term and are especially critical if democratic confederalism is to spread across Syria and the Middle East. Such a task is as difficult as it is urgent. It is crucial that the revolutionary authorities do everything in their power to assuage Arab fears of a Greater Kurdistan agenda, and include them in this struggle. Avoiding a Kurdish-centric version of history, literature and even the temptation to push for a Kurdish-only language educational system will help prevent the alienation of ethnic and religious minorities.

Revolutionary symbols (e.g. flags, maps, posters) are particularly important when it comes to integrating ethnic and religious minorities, as well as publicising the revolution across the world. More inclusive imagery would certainly facilitate the task of winning support and sympathy – both in the Middle East and more globally. References beyond the Kurdish movement were strikingly absent from the symbols we saw. ̽��ֱ��positive side of the Kurdish revolutionary symbols cannot be ignored and certainly plays a significant role in facilitating the mobilisation of the Kurdish population. However, at the same time it is likely to alienate non-Kurds and Kurds who might misidentify the struggle as one for a Greater Kurdistan.

Listen to Jeff Miley's talk on Rojava and the Kurdish revolutionary movement

Our biggest concern is that the revolution will be compromised – if not sacrificed – by broader geopolitical games. ̽��ֱ��current close alliance between the KRG and the United States, and the recent US-led airstrikes in Syria, fuel the suspicions of many – especially Sunni Arabs – that the Kurds are but pawns to yet another imperialist intervention in the region in pursuit of oil.

̽��ֱ��politics of divide and conquer employed by the imperialist powers have a long, bloody and effective history in the Middle East and beyond. This sad reality reinforces how crucial it is to build alliances, and to transcend the Kurdish nationalist imaginary within the ranks of the movement. Indeed, one of the principal strengths of IS has been its ability to mobilise militants both locally and globally in seemingly implacable opposition to imperialist powers.

It is especially important for the Kurdish revolution to appeal to the Turkish left, and to encourage them to denounce and fight against the crippling embargo enforced by the Turkish state on Rojava. ̽��ֱ��effects of and challenges created by the embargo were all too evident with respect to the basic health needs of the population we encountered. Unexpectedly, it was not a lack of medical expertise but rather a lack of medicine and medical equipment that most threatens population health.

̽��ֱ��effects of the embargo also reach beyond the immediate needs of the population in Rojava. ̽��ֱ��environmental toll was evident, most notably in the oil-seeped soil around the rigs. Given the circumstances, it is certainly understandable and indeed inevitable that the revolutionary authorities are nearly exclusively preoccupied with the tasks of providing for immediate energy and food needs of the population while searching for financial assistance to keep the revolutionary project afloat. Nevertheless, the revolution offers a unique opportunity to carefully establish an environmentally sustainable and democratically managed economy.

In the broader context of tyranny, violence, and political upheaval rocking many countries in the Middle East, it is highly unlikely that problems can be understood in isolation or solved on a country-by-country basis. One of the best things about the model of democratic confederalism institutionalized in Rojava is that it is potentially applicable to the entire region – a region, it should be recalled, the borders of which were largely drawn in illegitimate fashion by imperialist forces a century ago. ̽��ֱ��sins of Imperialism have yet to be forgotten in the region.

Democratic confederalism, however, is not about dissolving state borders, but transcending them. At the same time, it allows for the construction of a local, participatory democratic alternative to tyrannical states. Indeed, the model of democratic confederalism promises to help foster peace throughout the region, from the Israeli-Palestine conflict, through Turkey, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, etc. If only this democratic revolution could spread.

̽��ֱ��long siege on Kobanê, facilitated by the criminal complicity of the Turkish state, constituted not just an assault on the Kurdish people but on a revolutionary democratic project. ̽��ֱ��region is being torn asunder in a destructive process protagonized by a variety of reactionary brands of political Islam. ̽��ֱ��revolutionary project of Rojava, based on democratic participation, gender emancipation, and multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, and even multi-national accommodation, represents a third way, perhaps the only way, for achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. For these reasons the recent liberation of Kobanê should be hailed by progressives, indeed, by all advocates of peace, freedom and democracy around the world.

Watch Sociology PhD Candidate and Kurdish activist Dilar Dirik's talk on the Kurdish Women's Movement at the New World Summit in Brussels last year.

We can but hope, argue sociologist Dr Jeff Miley and Gates Scholar Johanna Riha, who here summarise some of their observations following a recent field visit to Rojava in northern Syria, and give a brief overview of the political and social ideologies underpinning the Kurdish revolution.

Democratic confederalism is not about dissolving state borders, but transcending them. At the same time, it allows for the construction of a local, participatory democratic alternative to tyrannical states

Jeff Miley

Deliberations among a Local Women's Council in Qamişlo, Rojava

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page. For image rights, please see the credits associated with each individual image.

Yes

̽��ֱ��Creative Campus

sjr81 — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:05:32 +0000

This was 1960s Britain, when radical students dramatically tipped the power balance of education. Their movement: bold, polemical and revolutionary, transformed the university system conclusively.

̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge historian Dr David Fowler is an academic with special interest in youth movements and student protest of the 1960s and ’70s.

He will be discussing student sit-ins, lock-outs and their impact in a talk entitled ̽��ֱ��Creative Campus on Thursday 20 October, 5.30-6.30pm, at Mill Lane Lecture Rooms as part of Cambridge ̽��ֱ��’s Festival of Ideas.

̽��ֱ��Festival of Ideas is the UK’s only arts, humanities, and social science festival and this year offers over 160 free events to participants of all ages between October 19-30.

Dr Fowler, who teaches in the interdisciplinary Faculty of Human, Social and Political Science, has formerly argued that “ ̽��ֱ��Beatles were capitalists”, stating that a clear distinction should be made between ‘pop culture’ which is media driven, and ‘youth culture’ which he describes as organically driven.

Despite his argument sparking an indignant backlash of musical patriotism, it cannot be denied that a dark chasm existed between the rock ‘n’ roll life of ̽��ֱ��Beatles and the Rolling Stones and their fainting teenage fans.

In his new book, ̽��ֱ��Creative Campus: Student Protest and the Remaking of British Culture in the Global 1960s, Fowler seeks to re-define the interpretation of ‘Youth Culture’ during the 1960s and 1970s.

Not largely documented in historical literature, Fowler uses sources uncovered at British universities such as Cambridge, Oxford, Essex, York and Queen’s Belfast in Northern Ireland. His book is an analysis of the motivations, methods and consequences of both prominent and underground student movements. ̽��ֱ��research throws light on a fascinating topic. Ideas disseminated by students during this period completely transformed the education system, posing challenging questions examining the interaction between youth and culture. These questions still hold huge importance and relevance today, as students are back in the spotlight of the media and universities come under further intense scrutiny.

Post-war Britain saw a huge increase in the number of young people going to university, doubling during the 1960s alone. This new cohort included more women, working-class and lower middle-class students than ever before, becoming the active ingredient in this new recipe for change. ‘Swinging London’ had put on its dancing shoes, allowing liberation in the workplace, personal relationships and British culture.

Fowler said: “ ̽��ֱ��1960s was a period of joy, music and optimism. By the early 1970s, there was a huge change in the economic and educational climate, culminating in the Oxford and Cambridge protests which erupted in 1972-4. Were the students reacting to political events? Or were they forming a cultural movement bigger than their own focus?”

This generation of university students took on the challenge of a complete re-invention of the education system and, according to Fowler, had “clear, concrete, tangible educational goals”. Feeling increasingly constrained by stuffy traditional subjects in a rapidly evolving world, students were keen to explore cutting-edge areas of research.

They championed the study of subjects such as sociology, psychology and development studies, among many others. He added: “There was huge demand for a different approach – it really was history from below. Students wanted to study the politics of Latin America, radical political movements and the lives and thought of revolutionary leaders such as Che Guevara, alongside the Henrician Reformation. This imaginative, interdisciplinary engagement was completely unheard of, especially in Oxford and Cambridge.”

̽��ֱ��pressure for a new curriculum was coupled with demands for a new type of university to house it: the campus. Visionary students dreamed of creating a new physical and intellectual community to cater for their progressive philosophy. A campus university, built on rural greenfield sites outside towns such as York, Warwick, Sussex and Leicester, appealed to their ideas of an educational and enriching sanctuary. Everything that a modern student may desire was available on campus, from everyday amenities to birth control to chaplaincy. Fowler notes that iconic architectural additions, such as the man-made lake on York ̽��ֱ�� campus, are clear indications of the students’ grandiose plans for a utopian learning experience.

̽��ֱ��Free ̽��ֱ�� Movement, started by students at King’s College Cambridge, was at the forefront of cultural change. Consisting of young students from all socio-economic backgrounds, its members included Guardian journalist Simon Hoggart, and historians Simon Schama, David Cressy and the late Roy Porter.

“King’s College especially was a laboratory for creating a new culture which included both students and workers. It was not socialist, but anti-establishment, taking the monopoly of culture away from the high-brow, middle-aged, metropolitan establishment,” Fowler explained.

̽��ֱ��movement was apolitical and egalitarian, and its aims were to cultivate a national environment of mutual learning between teachers and pupils. ̽��ֱ��first classes were held at the ‘Arts Lab’ on Mill Road, where teaching consisted of discussions, seminars, talks and film showings with members of the public invited to participate. Fowler claims that “Despite being run by an intellectual elite, the movement itself was far from elitist”; it represented a fervent attempt to overcome the problems of ‘Town and Gown’ which had metaphorically separated residents and students of Cambridge for centuries.

Most importantly, Fowler underlines that the students were an “iconoclastic generation”. Articulate and outspoken, they accompanied their struggle with the publishing of books and newspapers, and regular appearances in the media. ̽��ֱ��universities became centres to nurture this ambitious social and political change with peaceful and intelligent action. With this in mind, it is not surprising that Fowler remains unsympathetic to the November 2010 student protests; the crimes committed by Charlie Gilmour and Edward Wollard only demonstrate a lack of creativity, imagination and true egalitarian objective when compared with the student movement of the 1960s.

Fowler worries that contemporary student radicalism lacks real ideological depth. He points to the closure of Grammar schools under the Labour government in the late-1970s (he attended one of the last surviving state grammar schools, Nunthorpe, in York), which he argues significantly reduced the number of working-class and lower middle-class students.

He added: “Many working class students became revolutionary spirits and iconoclasts of cultural movements of the 1960s. ̽��ֱ��most creative of these students were Grammar school educated, and affected social and political movements outside of the education sector. Today, universities shamefully lack this diversity in the student body, which can only serve as a lesson to education policy makers.”

Dr David Fowler will be speaking on Thursday 20 October, 5.30-6.30pm at Mill Lane Lecture Rooms. Please visit /festivalofideas or phone 01223 766766.

Students ripped up their university exam papers in protest against established authority and in rejection of formal qualifications; a progressive sociologist assigned his students the storming of a public office as field-work; avant-garde writers, street theatre and poets moulded a bohemian sub-culture was dramatically reshaping university life.

̽��ֱ��1960s was a period of joy, music and optimism. By the early 1970s, there was a huge change in the economic and educational climate.

David Fowler

Student protests, London, 2010, via chrisjohnbeckett on Flickr

Dr Fowler believes that contemporary student protests, such as the one in London last year, are a pale imitation of their 1960s counterparts

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes