Just figured that I am missing one research journal. So here is how my paper was framed. It begins with laying a conceptual framework to both political participation and citizenship education. Afterward, the paper revisits the previous literature about the topic of citizenship education with a particular focus on post-conflict, Middle East North African countries. It then proceeds to investigate the Civics and National education textbooks as well as the “Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Education 2009-2013” considering themes such as the rhetoric around democracy, citizenship identity, and civic skills as well nationalism and belonging. Finally, the paper concludes that Citizenship education in Jordan aims to promote “blind patriotism” and seeks the “functionalization” of Islam for political legitimization. Moreover, democratic priciples are often idealized and depicted as contingent to cultural relativism.
To answer my second research question (To what extent historically turbulent Nepal have been enduring democratic practices in the country?), I crafted the definition of democracy from Lipset and Schumpeter. I emphasized on the legitimacy of the government and reciprocity between citizen and government. Applying the definition, I argued that historically Nepal has never been able to adopt democratic practices. The reasons are ethnic conflict (not inherited, rather infused), elite dominance and lack of legitimacy in government’s actions.
I am reading about the program approach and stages of DDR:
The first two components of DDR, are Disarmament and demobilization. take place before the reintegration phase in order to create the security and trust necessary for implementing peace agreements and starting reconstruction Gilligan (2012). Following disarmament and demobilization, the goal is for ex-combatants to find a livelihood and submit to laws and norms that govern civilian society. The risk is that demobilized combatants may have difficulty finding a productive position in the legal civilian economy and may maintain an oppositional stance toward society and government. Such marginalization may increase the propensity to engage in crime or renewed violence. By providing economic benefits, reintegration programs try to make civilian life more attractive to ex-combatants and thus reduce the risk of political disorder Gilligan (2012).
Poorly conceived and executed programs can themselves also become a factor in the creation of future conflicts (knight and Ozerdem, 2005). This paper includes a theoretical model for DDDR. I will continue to delve into the idea of DDR during this weekend.
Well as we are approaching the submission deadline and now that I am done with the methodology section, I started working on the case study part. So far, I divided this section to four parts: (1) Citizenship identity (2) attributes of a good citizen (3) civic activities and skills (4) the disconnect form reality.
For the methodology, I Use Van Djik’s Content Analysis (CA). Since the paper is seeking to read and interpret the state’s underlying logic from engaging in Civics education , I concluded that that Content analysis is the best fit as it “tracks power enactment and discourse production” (Van Dijk, 1993, p.261).
I got the feedback on how to move forward from where I am now. The good news is I have articulated my research question. The bad news is, I spent too much time in reading Nepal’s history (I must say this is getting really interesting though). Now I need to develop the conceptual framework in order to analyze the challenges of democratization in Nepal.
I am reading the articles on Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) approach. From my initial search, there are a lot of scholarly article out there on Africa, some on Columbia, Ireland and some other on Afghanistan.
The discourses say, the end of a war does not necessarily guarantee a country about stability. The introduction of a ceasefire, peace agreement or even discrete interventions seeking to disarm warring parties, does not necessarily guarantee improvements in the safety of either civilians or former combatants. Many so-called ‘post-conflict’ environments yield even more direct and indirect threats to civilians than the armed conflicts that preceded them (Muggah, 2007). For next few days, I will continue reading about the basic argument, challenges, and factors for DDR. I will also look for case studies on which triggered the success and failure of DDR.
After the meeting with Dr Kendhammer, I have a sense on how to reframe my research question and orient my literature review to render it more precise and relevant to my case study or let’s say the region I am interested in.
Since I need to start working on my case study, I began going through the textbooks I have and translating the content. I am working on Post Arab Uprisings Civics textbooks in Jordan from 5th to 10 th grade. Most Arab countries start teaching Civics from the 5th grade and discontinue it on 10th. The argument is that students must focus on “more relevant” subjects to their envisaged career. The other argument is that by that age students are made aware of political participation and can follow politics with informed opinions.
While consulting the textbooks, I am focusing on the definition of active participation, equality and the in-class activities after every unit. What is drawing my attention so far is the very sophisticated way politics are defined and presented to students. Moreover, it is interesting that the type of in class activities are based on memorialization rather than practice. I continue to explore the textbooks and take notes.
I think I am in a relatively advanced stage for my paper. Pending Dr Kendhammer’s feedback and my group’s feedback as well, I think I only have the case study to delve into.
As my paper indicates, it goes as follows; “The paper subscribes to the democratization processes but extends its analysis to one specific institutional arena; democratization through education in post-conflict Middle Eastern societies. First, it broadly reviews the most relevant literature on citizenship education. Then, it narrows its focus to state construction projects in post- conflict contexts, the portrayal of politico-historical facts in national narratives, as well as citizenship education as far as the MENA region is concerned.
In the section that follows, the paper illustrates these theoretical points with reference to the case of Jordan by means of a longitudinal study. This study juxtaposes previous findings and scholarly work with post-Arab Uprisings educational curriculum in the same country. The purpose of this study is to bring two periodization into conversation with the Arab Uprisings as the cut point.”
I guess I have the preliminary outline for my paper so far. I changed a lot and need to meet with Dr Kendhammer.
- Democratization Theory; a brief conversation of the literature
i. Democratization and the Middle East North Africa
ii. Democratization Through Education
- Citizenship Education
i. What is Citizenship Education; definition
ii. Literature review on Citizenship education (overall)
iii. Literature review on Post-conflict citizenship education in the MENA region
- Jordan as a case study
i. Longitudinal study; Jordan
Civic education has tended to emphasize one or the other of these approaches: Either civic education tends toward being reflexively patriotic and insufficiently critical, or it is weakly patriotic and hypercritical. As I am examining Citizenship education in post-conflict context, I picked a book recommended by my advisor. Sigal R. Ben-Porath in Citizenship Under Fire works on a two dimensional context; Israel and the US post 9/11. The book brings several important and useful perspectives to bear on civic education and is prompted by the U.S. war on terror. The author ‘s approach makes a link between all-important question of education for democracy. As of where I am right now in terms of reading the book, the author suggests that conventional approaches to civic pedagogy may promote antagonism rather than encourage attitudes that lead to peace. Which is exactly what I am looking at through my case studies.
Political history of Nepal (To be continued)
Brown (1996) wrote about the history of early Rana period starting from 1846. Jung Bahadur Rana came from Chetri family and achieved the power by murdering opponents. In his regime, he established few long-lasting practice in Nepalese politics. First. he downplayed the political role of King (Shah) and enhanced the divine identity of him. Second, he started the culture of intermarriage between Shah dynasty and Rana family to elevate his family’s class status. Third, he started family patronage to secure power. Fourth, Jung Bahadur’s Nepal was heterogeneous in terms of politics, culture and identity. In order to unify them, he passed a law (Mluki Ain) to integrate independent social system into Hindu caste hierarchy structure. As a consequence, ethnic groups previously known by their territories, defined by their caste.
The effects of these initiatives enabled the Rana elites to dominate the Nepalese political and economic arena in the nineteenth century.
Rana’s continuation of power had a British connection as well. He realized that with the declining power of China, he would not be able to fight with British. So he decided to befriend the British with maintaining an isolation at the same time. Britain, on the other hand had two interest in Nepal. First, the supply of mercenary troops for Indian army. The Gurkha troop was considered as legends and they were not influenced by Indian culture, therefore mitigated the risk of mutiny. Second, keeping Nepal as a “buffer state on the periphery of British Raj” (p. 10).
Nepal had high strategic value for Britain. The Oligarchy of Rana family ended with the end of world war II. I will continue reading about the history with an objective to understand the influence of such events in contemporary Nepalese politics.