by Kane » Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:33 am
Aaron's distinction between the two types of decentralized movements is crucial. The majority unfairly depriving a given minority of rights in any respect eventually comes under scrutiny and it's cause can galvanize a specific demographic to rise to the occasion under one banner and/or one spokesperson. Slavery, racism/Jim Crow, woman's suffrage, interracial marriage, gay marriage, anti-war, etc. These are singular issues the can be honed in on given the proper environment for reform exists (ideally some bill of rights, rule of law, representation, etc).
When we start talking about the Arab Spring, Syria, etc we are arguing over the best method/means of representation that allows for those things, those grievances, to have a day in court at all. Here it isn't an issue of centralization being at fault, it's an issue of people and thus power coalescing around groups that don't seek to promote that kind of an environment or where the fragmentation itself, the decentralization makes it too difficult to find a leader strong enough to achieve enough uniformity to create an effective form of governance. In the Middle East this is especially prominent due to arbitrarily drawn borders following WWII and is well represented in places like Syria, Iraq, and also Egypt.