Link: Civil Society Aid Must be Tied for Political Support

*Hegemony Bad DA*

Link: Civil Society Assistance

Dionysis Markakis, Center for International and Regional Studies- Georgetown University, 2016, US Democracy Promotion in the Middle East: The Pursuit of Hegemony, p. 22

It is further demonstrated by the G.W. Bush Administration’s emphasis on funding civil society programs in the region, which followed a template established by Clinton. The Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) of 2002 and the Broader Middle East and North Africa (BMENA) initiative of 2004 are two examples. These initiatives were devised with the intention of cultivating civil society in the region, in the express belief that “reform in the GME [Greater Middle East] must be driven internally.” The perception of the integral role of civil society owes much to the experiences of the Eastern European states during the Soviet era. There, civil society organizations, most notably the Solidarity trade union movement in Poland, assumed a central role in overthrowing Soviet proxy governments with covert US assistance. This eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and its communist ideology.
CLINTON’S EMPHASIS ON STRENGHTENING CIVIL SOCIETY AND ECONOMIC REFORMS IN THE MID EAST IS PART OF A REGIONAL HEGEMONY STRATEGY

Dionysis Markakis, Center for International and Regional Studies- Georgetown University, 2016, US Democracy Promotion in the Middle East: The Pursuit of Hegemony, p. 64

Ultimately the Clinton Administration was seeking to facilitate the conditions for a gradual, eventual transition to democracy in the Middle East, through an emphasis on economic reforms and strengthening civil society, as preconditions of political reform. Clearly this varied from country to country, and while this was true of the administration’s policy in Egypt for example, it was not the case in Saudi Arabia. Clinton’s approach in the Middle East can be compared with earlier US policies in Latin America, which in many ways have served as the template for the contemporary strategy of democracy promotion, and where the advocacy of free market reforms either preceded or coincided with US efforts to facilitate political reform. In Chile, for example, neoliberal reforms were introduced under the authoritarian Pinochet government with direct American assistance during the 1970s. Yet with Pinochet facing intensifying popular opposition in the 1980s, the US supported a transition to elite-based democracy. The Clinton administration’s championing of economic reform in the Middle East, a precursor to the Bush administration’s more direct emphasis on political reform, can therefore be seen as contributing to the strategy of democracy promotion and the pursuit of hegemony.
AID TO CIVIL SOCIETY DESIGNED TO EXTEND U.S. GEOPOLITICAL CONTROL

Denise M. Horn, Professor International Studies-Northeastern University, 2010, Women, Civil Society and the Geopolitics of Democratization, p. 20

Given the discussions in Chapter 1, it should be clear that the model I outline in this chapter is based upon the following assumptions: US and Western European foreign policy is a transmitter of values and culture, and as such, their democratization policies will seek to inculcate these values in others. Second, the role of gender in the development of civil society will also be tied to US or Western European expectations regarding the role of the individual within civil society, whether or not this may hold true in every case. Finally, hegemonic policies regarding civil society are based on these liberal ideals while also advocating for neo-liberal economic structures that privilege free market reforms and privatization of social services while limiting the possibilities for different forms of citizenship and participation, particularly for women. All three will have important effects on the attitudes and values reflected by civil society, because they will shape the way NGOs behave within civil society. Civil society will look, act, and behave in ways that reflect hegemonic influence, thereby increasing opportunities for geopolitical control.
CIVIL SOCIETY ASSISTANCE IS A WAY TO EXTEND HEGEMONIC CONTROL INTO DEMOCRATIZING COUNTRIES

Denise M. Horn, Professor International Studies-Northeastern University, 2010, Women, Civil Society and the Geopolitics of Democratization, p. 25-6

Ironically, in those states with high political affinity to hegemonic powers and a high degree of receptivity to the growth of the NGO sector and civil society, the impact of a gentle invasion strategy is reflected in the tapering effects of such policies. Once local NGOs become sophisticated enough to survive and succeed on their own and civil society is capable of supporting them, foreign funders become less influential. Thus, the gentle invasion strategy should show to be quite effective in the early stages of democratic transition, but these effects will diminish as transitional states, their citizens, and local NGOs become more accustomed to democratic institutions. As civil society matures and NGOs seek wider funding both domestically and internationally, this strategy becomes less effective for the hegemon, while also becoming less costly. At this point, however, political affinity between the donor state and local NGOs should have increased, and the lessons learned by NGOs will have created a system of NGOs that closely resemble that of the hegemon. In this way, civil society will behave very much like that of the hegemon, while also sharing many values of the hegemon—a gentle invasion, then, is at once a utilitarian strategy and a normative process. Thus, this tapering effect is a marker of success, not an indication of the failure of these policies. These effects can be seen most clearly in successfully transitioned states, such as Poland or Estonia, which have been “graduated” from US assistance.