Review of Danahar's The New Middle East

Danahar, Paul.  The New Middle East: The World After the Arab Spring.  New York City: Bloomsbury Press, 2013.  468 pages.

Book review by John M. Thomas, Jr., MA. Thomas graduated with distinction in social science from The Citadel (Military College of South Carolina) in 2012 and currently works as a journalist for The Summerville Journal-Scene and as an independent scholar in the Charleston, South Carolina area in the United States.

Paul Danahar’s The New Middle East: The World After the Arab Spring is an exceptional account of the experiences, research, and journalistic writings of a prominent BBC Middle Eastern bureau chief written shortly after his tenure as head of the news agency office at the time of the ‘Arab Spring.’  Danahar’s very well written book is filled with detail that brings one into the mindset of the Middle Eastern milieu in an informed and highly elucidating manner.  From 2010 until 2013, Danahar lead the effort at the BBC to cover the tumultuous and historic events that transpired in many states across North Africa, the Levant, and those on the shores of the Persian Gulf.  These events, part of the still-unconcluded chaos ignited by a sole self-immolation in Tunisia, are explained with a fitting historical and cultural context that weaves the story of the progression of recent Middle Eastern history into a fascinating work.

  Danahar leaves few stones unturned in achieving this synoptic book, especially for those new to Middle Eastern studies or politics or for those in need of an update focused on the developing facets of the political struggles of the region.  Scholars will find the book useful as supporting material to monographs written on the subject of the Arab Spring, as Danahar places a great deal of emphasis on actual interpersonal occurrences and clear and concise treatment of the Middle Eastern environment.

A large portion of the text is devoted to ‘the Arab Spring’ in Egypt, the state which has developed into the ‘center-of-gravity’ in this unfolding story, both in terms of the size of affected population as well as the overall degree of tumult in the country.  Hosni Mubarak’s fall and the eventual succession of the Muslim Brotherhood is described by Danahar to be fraught with the difficulties associated with the diametrically opposing factions, one Islamist and the other more secular, whose interactions lead to the “long war” in Egypt.  The book also details the treatment of the various Palestinian populations, challenges caused by Israel, the surrounding states, and the various Palestinian leaderships, all of which effect Israel.  The book also explores past and recent developments in Iraq, Syria, and Libya that are equally as excruciating as the Egyptian and Levantine problems.

 Danahar rounds out his spectrum of journalistic analysis with a brief historical chapter entitled “The Collapse of the Old Middle East,” which highlights continuing issues that contribute to the current state of affairs in the region.  Long-lived governments under leaders like Muammar Gaddafi and the Shah of Iran are explained in perspective, and the government and politics of Tunisia is explained in terms of how the history of the country led it to the point of producing the genesis of the ‘Arab Spring.’ The author also gives a rather distressing overview of, what Danahar argues, is the grossly inadequate American foreign policy which has been implemented in the region.  Danahar posits this generally mishandled and ill-informed approach by America as dating back to the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War which was followed in 1924 by the secularist Mustafa Kemal Ataturk becoming the first President of what is now modern-day Turkey.  Much of the Middle East was left to flounder with arbitrarily drawn borders that did not create viable nation-states and have been largely dysfunctional politically, economically, and in terms of cultural and religious interactions among people living in these countries.

The overall elucidating effect of the book is achieved by Danahar’s meticulous journalistic research and participation in the events which shook the Middle East, including his interactions with some of the principal Middle Eastern figures both past and present, which adds a significant personal touch to the work.  Danahar met with Bashar al-Assad at his presidential palace in Damascus and relates details of the personality of the Alawite dictator as being more appropriate to “the mild mannered ophthalmologist he had trained to be,” which stands in complete opposition to his bloodthirsty repression of the Syrian people starting long before the Arab Spring began.

Danahar also had the chance to meet with Gaddafi in “a seaside restaurant in downtown Tripoli” in 2011 while Libya was in the throes of revolution.  The regime had at that time lost the east of the country, all the while the eccentric Libyan dictator living in a tent near Tripoli and claiming a distaste for money.  There are many passages in the book where the idiosyncrasies of the various leaders and dictators in the Middle East are discussed, either from first-hand, verbally-related, or documentary information.  The texture of the work is created in part by these high-level encounters, a testament to Danahar’s journalistic gravitas in the region and in the world of professional media in general.

  The ideological bent of The New Middle East, focused on Danahar’s own moderately liberal perspective, is an appropriate lens through which to view the events of the ‘Arab Spring,’ The author sees the Middle East as a relic from Ottoman days that has much of the decay of that empire having never been surmounted since the Sykes-Picot partition of the region.  Danahar sees the Middle East for what it could be from a hopeful Western perspective, all the while seeing the realities of the situation on the ground there as harsh and bitter.  Danahar’s perspective does not, however,  represent the only perspective on the ongoing revolutions in the Middle East, and many conservative scholars would take exception to some of the conclusions and analysis of various types of information presented.

The scrutiny placed by Danahar on issues within the Levant is gritty, brutally honest, and representative of the preponderance of sheer and unmitigated frustration with the enormous depth of the seemingly irreconcilable problems inherent to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  The cultures and political contributions of both groups relevant to the current situation within the hotly-contested regions of Israel and the Palestinian territories are explained in clear and extensive detail.

The full spectrum of religious and political participation in modern Israel is also surveyed carefully and with much precision. Particular attention is given to the ultra-rightist groups in Israel, such as the Haredi and other Orthodox Jewish factions whose uncompromising and stringently anachronistic views effectively prevent Israel from having the flexibility to negotiate settlements and agreements due to the ‘hard right turn’ that such a segment in society brings about in Israel.  The more secular Israeli Jews also have their societal demands and own interpretation of what the state of Israel should be, complicating an already intractable morass even further into irreconcilability.

The reader is left with the rather dreary impression of the futility which all sides involved experience with respect to the unfolding political and social condition of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.  The spectrum of accommodation, argues Danahar, cannot be extended long enough to accommodate all interest groups in the general political equation which composes the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.  Hard feelings and difficult history since the unilateral declaration of the founding of the state of Israel in 1948 have accumulated over the years, creating an inertia which cannot be mitigated thoroughly by any form of diplomacy that has been attempted during the duration of the conflict.  Such is the story told by Danahar, a discouraging but probably accurate indication of the more difficult days to come in the Levant, next door to the Syrian civil war, which rages along with the ISIS-spawned conflict in Iraq to this day.

The hard-hitting style and content of Danahar’s book, The New Middle East, makes it a key work for those interested in the ‘Arab Spring,’ and the book should be used in future analysis of the situation on the ground as a primary resource.  The basis of the work, rooted in Danahar’s outstanding brand of journalism, should be coupled with scholarly material to provide a strong, palpable presentation of the true consistency of the current state of affairs in the Middle East, as witnessed by those on the ground who are having to live through the implications of the various revolutions and their eventual outcomes.

Political Participation of the Homeless

This paper was written for a class taught by Janet Key in the nonprofit administration program at the College of Charleston in December of 2012.

Political Participation of the Homeless

The plight of the homeless in the United States has been one of frustration and disenchantment and is largely characterized by dissociation of this community from the mainstream of society.  The various institutional structures that have been put into place to assist the homeless, including nonprofit organizations,  have brought about a myriad of  results.  Many of these outcomes have not been effective as solutions to the problems at hand.  Nonprofits involved with the homelessness debacle are continually frustrated and continue to be unable to arrive at satisfactory resolutions to these issues here in the United States, the wealthiest country in the world.

One of the primary conceptual difficulties of dealing with the homelessness problem lies in the apparent inability of experts and other interested parties to define the phenomenon with any level of confidence or satisfaction.  If the problem cannot be defined, it is difficult to determine a solution for lack of a satisfactory “starting point” for the complex sociological analysis needed to begin to unravel the causation components.  The situation is somewhat analogous to trying to effectively solve a quantitative mathematics problem without the necessary starting values of the variables in a given equation.  The mathematician in question might know something about the mechanics of the problem but be entirely unable to produce a satisfactory solution due to insufficient information.

Attempts to define homelessness have been made by scholars and organizations, including by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which has identified four broad categories of homeless persons which may effectively encompass a large portion of this community: 1) those who live in places not meant for human habitation, 2) people who do not have a nighttime residence, 3) families or youth with unstable housing situations, 4) those who are fleeing the violent behavior of others that has been directed against them (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2012).  Yet even here we are delineating the visible results of the homelessness problem; our view of these situations does not include a core cause of the plight of the homeless and only lends itself to a partial illustration of all aspects of the problem.

Nevertheless, we can proceed with a tentative and non-empirical conception of what homelessness is based on the above HUD definitions.  Arising from the demarcation of these four groups are several possible avenues for analysis, including the explication of numerous political factors that are contributive to the condition of homelessness.  The politics surrounding the various actors in the homelessness milieu are a substantial piece of the puzzle that must be assembled in order to understand some of the quandary at hand.

Perhaps the most troubling of these political factors has to do with the “political will” of all the non-homeless actors visible in the homelessness panorama.  In other words, why, in a nation as wealthy as the United States of America, do the institutions, organizations, governments, and businesses of this country allow the problem to exist at all in any form?  Financial capital seems to be the key to solving a great deal of the homelessness problem, at least as it relates strictly to making housing and shelter available and usable to everyone who needs it.

Simply put, even though the amount of financial investment to simply put a roof over the head of each homeless person would be a minimal part of overall governmental outlay, politicians stay away from the issue of housing the homeless due to the powerlessness and political inertness of the affected population.  Politicians can avoid servicing the homeless population in general due to negligible electoral consequences stemming from this highly indigent and unregistered population, altering the political landscape substantially against the homeless.

Compassion is apparently eschewed in acts of apparently cold legislative fiat concurrent with a void of political services for the transient homeless population.  Although there may be occasional exceptions, the political world is largely inaccessible to homeless persons.  This, along with vacuum of accountability, leaves the homeless largely bereft of more powerful forms of political advocacy.

But the “shutting out” of the homeless from access to political power structures is not the only political issue at hand.  Even when an interest is taken by a politician in the homeless, usually the first instinct of the official is to “hand off” the problem to a much less well-funded nonprofit community (Daly, 1996, p.192).  Politicians may not be able to sell homelessness remedies to typical constituents who are in possession of housing (Daly, 1996, p.39).  These constituents may regard the housing situation of the homeless as being due to factors controllable by the homeless rather than being characterized by a victimology related to various social, financial, health, or other issues.  In this sense, the homeless are seen by many as being completely responsible for the genesis of their situation and should not receive a “bail-out” or other assistance (Wagner, 2012, p.17).  Indeed, in some jurisdictions, homelessness and concurrent activities were made increasingly illegal, particularly in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s in California and New York City. Adding insult to injury, the homeless were persecuted during this time period much as they have been, although sometimes intermittently, throughout the course of the modern era (Wagner, 2012, pp. 121-131). 

Since the expense of solving the salient housing issues involved with homelessness may not be an item which can be appended to the agenda of all of voting citizens and thus some politicians, the nonprofit community is largely left on its own to attempt to surmount the homelessness issue.  Public funding, particularly from local governments, is substantially less in this scenario than in a conceptualization of a predominantly civilly-funded and -administered solution, a circumstance which is not often if ever achieved in the United States.  Public and private donations to various forms of homeless care-providers have also substantially decreased during the economic downturn in the United States that began in 2008 and persists in some form at the time of the writing of this paper (Fang, 2009, p.18).

Faced with these substantial budget cuts, the economic downturn has reduced services in nearly all non-profit arenas, including among homeless care-providers.  As well, the downturn initialized in 2008 has increased demand for shelter and other services substantially as new homeless have been created by the shifting sands of the American financial system and the runaway malevolent effects of gross mismanagement of that system.  Already overworked nonprofits have had additional demands placed on them as a result of the recent financial chaos and struggle from a place of attempting to fulfill a mission largely abrogated by the government, which also has its financial difficulties at the risk of gross understatement.

 “Occupy Wall Street” and subsequent demonstrations have grown in part out of this dilemma (Ehrenreich, 2011).  Nearly every economic interest, including individuals and families, has been pushed further toward the margins, and some of these financial actors have been pushed into insolvency, which can cause an increase in the rate of homelessness in the general population.

Further dislocated from the assets that facilitate modern life, the homeless have become more distant from political loci of power.  As has been mentioned earlier in this paper, the homeless lack electoral voice in general.  The mechanisms for this disenfranchisement are often as simple as lacking a permanent address which to offer for voting registration.  While jurisdictions have increasingly allowed homeless shelter addresses to be used on government and other official documents, still there are barriers to registration and voting as simple as unavailable or limited transportation to government offices and polls, illiteracy affecting both the administrative prerequisites to voting, the actual casting of ballots, and the generally inferior state of health of the homeless decreasing their turnout on election days (Levinson, 2009, p.280). 

Actions of political parties and nonprofits have increased homeless participation in the voting process in recent years, particularly through the work of Democratic and liberal-leaning groups (Levinson, 2009, p. 309). Yet it is hard to imagine that the homeless population receives the same amount of political attention per capita as the suburban or wealthy urban populations do individually or through corporations.  The recent case of Citizens United vs. FEC  heard and ruled on by the US Supreme Court in 2010 strongly facilitates the virtually unlimited amount of wealth that can be poured into politics by those of means, effectively dwarfing the indigent person or the hourly worker and further entrenching a plutocracy that is strongly contrary to the interests of the homeless and their recovery from a highly disadvantaged situation. 

Other political difficulties that the homeless may experience include a considerably compromised ability to stand for office.  It is easily observable that campaign funds would not be easily forthcoming to someone without any geographical establishment whatsoever.  Equally daunting would be the production of a “political image” given cosmetic and nutritional constraints as well as the modification of personal physical appearance brought about by the continual stress of being homeless.  Over time, the often emaciated and disheveled appearance of the homeless would act against gaining political strength through image production, a crucial element for securing public office in the United States. 

The advancement of personal knowledge necessary to be a “political player” is also considerably more difficult without a base of operations or the funds to enable continued gathering of such information.  The homeless are frequently more educated and intelligent than the average citizen might think, but it is the compromised ability to accrue knowledge in the homeless condition due to critical distractions related to material state of being that would tend not to inform political ability and knowledge.

Other such political disadvantages exist, including proximity of the homeless to many of the illegal activities associated with “the street” disrupting any campaign or civic political efforts; difficulties of politically-oriented nonprofits in contacting homeless persons to develop their participation given the general lack of a location to solicit during the day; and the inability or difficulty in accessing the text of state and federal law and records of public and current affairs, except possibly in public libraries where the homeless may or may not be welcome.

This analysis of how politics affects the homeless and the nonprofits that attempt to benefit them cannot be completed in a paper of this length.  As long as individuals have political imperatives, they will be expressed, whether it be at the highest or lowest tiers of American society.  The issue becomes problematic when the nonprofits that attempt to facilitate the lives of the homeless are not financially or structurally empowered to bring realistic levels of political participation to the affected population.

Whatever a person’s plight might be in our society, the human voice should not be silenced by the circumstances of homelessness.  The interaction of the homeless with the political forces that affect them is a “two-way street”; the homeless should be empowered to affect the system so that structural changes can be made not only by institutions but also by homeless and formerly-homeless persons.  The real-life experience that potential leaders from the homeless population possess can be exploited to lead to better solutions to the homeless problem and to better ways for the homeless to interact politically with their environment.

The beginning of the preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .” (1787).  The inexorable conclusion of these statements is that the rights of a homeless person are identical to the rights of a person with a home.  There is no leeway to remove homeless persons from the political mainstream or for them to be treated differently politically due to plutocratic or elitist influences.  Principles of social justice must be applied to facilitate the constitutional equality of the homeless population to be in compliance with the bedrock of our public sphere, our remarkable constitution, without regard for their current circumstances.  The empowerment of the homeless toward political action will certainly speed the end to this great shame of our great nation.

The author is a former board member of two homeless shelters in the Charleston, South Carolina metropolitan area, the Good Neighbor Center and Palmetto House, serving in both capacities in the early and mid-1990's.