The Public Diplomacy Blog: Islam

Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts

Tuesday

The politics of perception in Charlie Hebdo

As world media discusses and debates the impact of Charlie Hebdo massacre on freedom of expression, Noam Chomsky, offers, as always, a point of view that is unique.

Chomky brings to our attention a serious concern with regards to the dominant media narrative on the Charlie Hebdo incident. Speaking on the commentary that followed, Chomsky writes,

“The crimes also elicited a flood of commentary, inquiring into the roots of these shocking assaults in Islamic culture and exploring ways to counter the murderous wave of Islamic terrorism without sacrificing our values. The New York Times described the assault as a "clash of civilizations," …

Chomsky juxtaposes this against media commentary that followed recent act of violence across the world such as:

NATO missile attack on the headquarters of a Serbian TV station, termed as an "enormously positive development" by Richard Holbrooke
July 2011 massacre of 77 people by Anders Breivik, a Christian Ultra Zionist in Oslo
Assault on Fallujah by US Marines, and,
Recurring themes such as Israeli violence against Palestine.

All the above incidents were marked by violence against civilians, public institutions, journalists but never quite qualified to feature in narratives of attacks against freedom of expression, freedom itself, or even narratives of outrage and concern on a scale similar to reactions received by the Charlie Hebdo incident.

It's only sensible to wonder why.

In the politics of narrative and perception, Chomsky’s position is significant. The “media power structure” of our world is no different and is the same as the political power structure in international politics. We don’t often realize this, but as stories compete, some voices tend to get lost or are never expressed.

Chomsky states,

“These few examples illustrate a very general principle that is observed with impressive dedication and consistency: The more we can blame some crimes on enemies, the greater the outrage; the greater our responsibility for crimes -- and hence the more we can do to end them -- the less the concern, tending to oblivion or even denial.”

This awareness surprisingly resulted in some Middle Eastern states like Qatar to take the initiative and establish their own international media outlets (Eg. Al Jazeera).

However Middle East’s media landscape, as I experienced in the last couple of years, is completely dominated by experienced professionals from the West or from Asia, who come with great knowledge, but not necessarily always with a “contextual perspective” that is required to tell a story of the “other”.

Coupled with controls over free media in the entire region, difficult questions remain unasked; indigenous experiences remain hidden and the introspection that is required to understand “why is it happening to us” never happens.

Instead, people are told what is wrong with them, often by groups who have no context. The tradition of the story is alien.

As Chomsky states,

Contrary to the eloquent pronouncements, it is not the case that "Terrorism is terrorism. There's no two ways about it." There definitely are two ways about it: theirs versus ours. And not just terrorism.

Wednesday

Assassination, symbolism and implications for Public Diplomacy

5389! Yes, that’s the number of articles a simple Google search shows as I surf the web now to read about the assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Libya. It is reflective of the immense symbolism of the incident across the world, especially in the Arab world currently undergoing significant political transformations. The world awaits the American reaction, and, maybe a lot of us are expecting spectacular retributive justice from the Americans. It makes for a good show!

This unfortunate incident was powerful for its immense symbolism. Real close to the anniversary of 9/11, in a country recently ‘liberated’ from a dictator, in the lands of the Arab Spring with aspirations of becoming free and open societies. It is indeed great media fodder, especially the imagery of protests, the burning of the American flag and civilian assaults on the American embassies. An American response has to take into account this context and maybe a measured response will be beneficial if the United States wants a long term strategic involvement in the region.

Palestinians burn the US flag during a demonstration against an anti-Islam on September 12, 2012 in front of the UN headquarters in Gaza City. Source: www.presstv.com

In my previous posts I had written about the possibility of a counter reaction to the Arab Spring in the next few years. Viewed in context of the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, and rising tide of millenarian aspirations post the fall of the older political order, incidents such as these can play on popular imagination and provide the reactionary forces with just the ammunition to seize power. Enhanced strategic communications is now more important for United States than ever to counter such a possibility. This will call for more action from State Department to build ‘networks of influencers’ and deepen engagement rather than going out all guns blazing. Can these story tellers be crisis managers? Can PD/ Public Affairs be expected to manage such conflicts?

Policymakers must not lose sight of the fact that this battle will be fought over ‘24 hour media’ all across the world. This will be as much a battle of ideas and attitudes. Every action by both the parties will create different narratives that would shape perceptions, form opinions in societies currently undergoing tremendous change. The implications will be significant and it might help if policymakers indulge in some ‘scenario gaming’ from this perspective.

Can there be an internal foreign policy dialogue in the United States? While freedom of expression is sacrosanct, does it give the right to pull down other faiths, beliefs and way of life? Especially in a country that is committed to protect every community, every faith, and every belief in its land? If the action of a minority in the name of freedom of expression can bring mayhem, war and destruction to their own people what good is the right? Is the principle of “reasonable restrictions”, as it exists in Indian legal system, the answer to these issues that arise out of such incidents in the western world?

In an age of pervasive media and ‘continuous conversations’ these are important questions. I don’t know the answers, but what I would like to stress is that this is not a job for the marines alone, but communicators of the State Department have a battle in their hands too! A protracted struggle!

Suggestions/Critiques welcome.

-- Madhur

Monday

Revolutions and emotions in the Middle East

There is considerable hope and optimism all around that political churn in the Middle East would eventually lead to a democratic transition in the entire region, overcoming political Islam and dictatorships. I feel this is where we need to be careful and understand how revolutions tend to unravel.

As I sit to write, news comes in of Operation Odyssey Dawn entering a crucial phase with coalition forces firing hundreds of Tomahawk cruise missiles into 'military targets' inside Libya. Gaddafi, meanwhile, has declared the coalition's intervention in Libya as "war on Islam." Nearby in Egypt, where a referendum is underway, critics are wary of Islamists becoming a major political force in Egyptian politics.

Expectations tend to rise to unrealistic levels during revolutions. Revolutions also create powerful emotions. The measures that follow, more often than not, may not be able to meet such expectations resulting, very often, in a reactionary tide against the revolution. In the Middle East, lack of economic dynamism, unstable political culture and a closed society may very well lead to a gap between expectations and delivery. This is when reactionary forces might set in, and in the Middle East, it may very well be Islam. Because when people lose hope, become desperate, they often turn to God. Besides religion is something deeply emotional and personal and is in the heart. It appeals to emotions unlike a political concept - democracy.

This might be bit of a stretch, but I would like to apply Gartner's Hype Cycle to the above argument as it is applied to new technology in the world of communications. There might be the possibility of Islam emerging as a force in the "Trough of Disillusionment" as illustrated below:

Stages in the Gartner's Hype cycle hypothetically applied to revolutions in Middle East

Freedom, as the West understands it, may not appeal to some societies in these regions. Besides, be it the French Revolution or the Iranian revolution, examples of a strong counter current are many in history. Hence, it is too early to write Islam off as a political force in the Middle East. In this entire debate, there is a tendency to assume that Islam is antithetical to democracy. In fact, India is the best example where the second largest Muslim population in the world have embraced democracy. To pit Islam against democracy, and, adopt a line of discussion/news reporting that encourage such a demarcation will only lead to a "clash of emotions."

Suggestions/Critiques welcome