Introduction
Social movements are integral in promoting the welfare of a society. Scott (2014) asserts that social movements include purposeful and systematized entities that are comprised of a group of people whose objective is to resist or promote change in specific aspects of society. Social movements (herein referred to group) are founded on two main aspects that include the party that the movement targets to change or the locus of the intended change, and the degree or extent of transformation that the movement is pursuing. The locus of change may either target the entire society or an individual. The degree or amount of change sought may be partial or total (Markoff 2015). Stolley (2005) accentuates that social movements can either foster drastic or minor changes. Social movements advocate for different aspects, for example, trade unionism, feminism, and environmentalism (Wendt & Moulding, 2016).
Robins (2008) emphasizes that social movements may act as catalysts in promoting democracy in society. This underlines that democracy is integral to the existence and operation of such groups. Leslie (2006) notes that most social movements tend to position themselves against the state. Therefore, social movements are fundamentally political (Leslie 2006). This assertion is evidenced by the approach that modern social movements employ in pursuing their goals, which entail pressurizing the state to comply with their demands. However, to achieve the intended change, the state’s support for social movements is fundamental. In light of these aspects, this essay entails a critical evaluation of whether social movements can succeed in achieving some of their objectives in societies that are not democratic.
Analysis
In spite of democracy being essential in the social quest to achieve their objective, there are instances in which social movements can succeed in achieving some of their objectives even in societies in which democracy is not present. This assertion is founded on the fact that social movements take different forms depending on the goal/objective that they seek to achieve. David F. Aberle accentuates that social movements can either be regarded as alternative, reformative, revolutionary, or redemptive. This categorisation depends on the locus of the group and the degree of change that the group intends to achieve.
Alternative social groups are aimed at transforming individuals’ behaviours. An example of an alternative social movement includes ItCanWait, a social group in the US that is aimed at changing individuals’ behaviour with reference to driving and texting (Scott 2014). The goal of the movement is to minimise deaths and injuries as a result of accidents arising from texting while driving. Subsequently, redemptive social movements such as Christian missionary groups cannot achieve their goal in such a society. The success of such an alternative social movement in achieving its objective is not dependent on whether the state is democratic or not. This arises from the fact that the operations or activities of such a social movement do not threaten the state.
On the other hand, the goal of a redemptive social group is to promote total or extensive personal transformation. The different Christian missionary groups that have been established globally are a good illustration of redemptive social movements whose objective is to transform individuals into Christians. In spite of the remarkable success that the Christian mission groups have achieved in spreading the gospel globally, they experience difficulties in their quest to introduce Christianity in some states in which democracy is limited. O’Brien and Palmer (2007) accentuate that religious education in some states is considered a state subject that is taught by teachers who are mainly trained by the state. The teachers are required to strictly adhere to the requirements stipulated by the state. For example, some Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, restrict religious education to Islam only. Thus, the freedom of teaching other religions, such as Christianity, ty in Saudi Arabia is greatly limited (Sookhdeo 2014).
The goal of reformative social groups is to change specific acts of the prevailing social order. Therefore, they result in minimal change. Perry and Perry (2016) affirm that reformative social movements are mostly successful in democratic societies. Reformative social groups achieve their objective by criticising existing institutions. Additionally, the success of reformative social groups is also determined by the presence of the necessary channels to effect the intended social change (Perry & Pe, 2016). Therefore, the presence of democracy is vital in the quest for reformative social groups to achieve their goal. In line with this aspect, it is relatively difficult for reformative social groups targeting to pressurize certain social change to achieve their objective in some states where democracy is limited. For example, the likelihood of social groups such as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) achieving their objective to promote homosexuality in some countries is considerably difficult because of limited democracy. The success of LGBT organisations in achieving their goal in the United States is relatively easy compared to Arab countries, where same sex marriage is prohibited in law. The women’s movement groups and civil rights groups are some of the notable social groups in well-established democracies (Rahnema 2017).
Revolutionary social groups consider the prevailing social order to be inadequate and unjust, and hence the importance of undertaking a total overhaul. Unlike other social groups, which are based on the concept of non-violence, revolutionary groups often employ the use of force in pursuing their goal (Goodwin & Jasper, 2015). As a result of their violent approach, some social movements may achieve their intended goal. The Arab Uprising in some Arab countries, such as Egypt, is one of the notable social organizations that was successful in removing the Hosni Mubarak government, which was opposed to democracy (Povey 2015).
Conclusion
Social organisations are established to promote a certain change in society. Social movements vary depending on their locus of the intended change and the degree of change being pursued. From the analysis, it is evident that the success of social organisations is influenced by the level of democracy in a country. Depending on their focus, the likelihood of social organisations achieving the desired objective is considerably limited in undemocratic countries compared to democratic states. In summary, promoting democracy is fundamental in social organisations’ quest to achieve their desired objectives.
References
Goodwin, J, & Jasper, J 2015). The social movements read: cases and concepts. Wiley Blackwell, West Sussex, UK.
Leslie, A. 200). Social movements and democracy in Africa: The impact of Women’s struggle for equal rights in Botswana, Taylor & Francis, New York.
Markoff, J, 2015, Waves of democracy: Social Movements and Political Change, Routledge, New York.
O’Brien, J, & Palmer, M 200)., The atlas of religion.n, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Perry, J, & Perry, E 2016). Contemporary society: an introduction to social science. Routledge, New York.
Povey, T. 2015, Social movements in Egypt and Iran, PalgraveMacmillann, New York.
Rahnema, S, 2017, The transition from capitalism: Marxist perspectives, Springer International Publishing, Cham.
Robins, S, 2008, From revolution to rights in South Africa: social movements, NGOs and popular politics after apartheid, University of Kwa-Zulu Natal Press, Scottsville.
Scott, J, 2014, A dictionary of sociology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sookhdeo, P. 2014, Freedom to believe; challenging Islam’s Apostasy law, BookBaby, Cork.
Stolley, K 20).5, The basics of sociology. Greenwood Press, Westport.
Wendt, S, & Moulding, N 2016). Contemporary feminism in social work practice., Routledge, New York.
