Roger Cohen wrote this rather interesting, though wrong, account of the chaos in Tunisia and Egypt. Cohen has been pushing the line in his last few editorials that social networking technology like Twitter and Facebook is facilitating some kind of instant revolution in the Arab world. As a friend of mine pointed out, commentators are confusing the word "revolution" for "revolt." Here's a little excerpt from Cohen's piece:
Organization, networking, exposure to suppressed ideas and information, the habits of debate and self-empowerment in a culture of humiliation and conspiracy: These are some of the gifts social media is bestowing on overwhelmingly young populations across the Arab world.
Above all, the Internet’s impact has been to expose the great delusion that has led Western governments to buttress Arab autocrats: that the only alternative to them was Islamic jihadists. No, the Tunisian revolution was middle-class, un-Islamic and pro-Western. The people in the streets of Cairo are young, connected, non-ideological and pragmatic: They want a promise that Mubarak won’t stand in the presidential election this year or hand power to his son, Gamal, who, by the way, has a nice pad on London’s chic Eaton Square.
In his previous editorial, Cohen wrote:
Anders Colding-Jorgensen, a Danish psychologist, conducted an experiment in 2009 in which he implied that Copenhagen’s Stork Fountain was about to be demolished and started a Facebook group to save it. The threat was fictitious but the group soon had two new members joining every minute...
The Tunisian revolution was that experiment on steroids. Castro spent years preparing revolution in the Cuban interior, the Sierra Maestra; Facebook propelled insurrection from the interior to the Tunisian capital in 28 days....Tunisia was a Facebook revolution. But I prefer a phrase I heard in Tunis: “The Dignity Revolution.”A nice thought, but I think it's gravely naive and oversimplified. I was pleased to see that my comment on Cohen's latest editorial was actually highlighted--yes, my ego really is that easy to stroke. Here is my comment:
I think Cohen is mistaken in calling these massive protests "revolutions," even in the case of Tunisia where the head of state was actually thrown out.
A revolution isn't throwing out a government; it's what happens after you overthrow the government. It requires a balancing act of carrying out the mandate of the people while retaining order. A spontaneous uprising can be the beginning of a revolution, but it's not the end or even the middle of a revolution. If you don't have anything to replace the ousted regime with, you'll simply end up with another authoritarian to fill the vacuum.
In a previous article Cohen compared the speed of mobilization in Tunisia with Castro's years in the Sierra Maestra, arguing that social networking technology did in days what it took years to happen in Cuba. But this comparison is deeply flawed. Castro spent those years creating a sustained popular momentum, building lasting political alliances/networks, defeating utterly Batista's forces, establishing a new military force to replace them, carrying out tentative reforms in the countryside and planning for the post-war period That's the kind of work that goes into any lasting revolution.
Since the end of the Cold War, US policy makers have leaped at every opportunity to call any government-toppling mass uprising a "revolution," especially when they were favorable to us (as in the former Eastern Bloc/Soviet satellite countries). This has now extended to our authoritarian allies in the Arab world. But all of these so-called revolutions are already in danger of petering out or being crushed under tighter restrictions from new and existing authoritarian governments. And that's because few of them have the leadership, ideology or planning in place to permanently take charge and implement reform--I hope for the best in Egypt, but I think it's going to go the way of Iran, the last "revolutionary" hot spot. All the social networking technology in the world isn't going to change that. Only by building real, permanent alliances, creating comprehensive programs, and sustaining long-term public action will these groups become true revolutionaries--and that's not going to happen through Facebook alone.
I do believe that all this can be the beginning of revolutions, especially with the heavy-handed suppression tactics we're seeing from the states. As any historical revolutionary will tell you, it's often the brutality of the state against reformists and protesters that leads to more radical and subversive action from the people. Spontaneous uprisings are important in a revolution, but they're only one component of the larger public struggle.
It's simply too early to call what we're seeing in North Africa revolutionary. There were people claiming that the post-election protests in Iran were part of a revolution, and we see how that worked out. The events unraveling now are, at most, the first tentative steps toward revolutions.
All that said, I do think Cohen is a smart dude with a better handle on the situation than most. His main problem is a bottomless faith in American technological know-how and its capacity to save the world.This contagious optimism afflicts many people who devote their life to public service.
I do welcome these protests. Sure they're not genuinely revolutionary (in the sense of fostering lasting change), but in 20 years time though, who knows what these countries will look like?
What I do like about all this is that it brings to the fore the fact that, no, Arab and Muslim societies are not static homogeneous blocs stuck permanently in the 12th century, contrary to popular western stereotypes. Yes, even the Arab/Muslim world desires change, though not always the kind the West favors. The fact that these protests are against authoritarians propped up by the West speaks volumes about US/European priorities in that part of the world: security and stability at any cost. Fear or Islamic states and the understandable desire to protect Israel has led the US to support brutal regimes in the region well beyond their shelf dates. It's like South America in the 1970s.
Of course, these popular revolts do open a door to Islamists seeking to replicate Iran's Islamic Revolution. But it must be emphasized that like the different strains of dissent in pre-revolution Iran, radical Muslims represent just one piece of the pie. These uprisings represent a very broad spectrum of Tunisian and Egyptian society. Personally, I think the US should change course now and back pro-democracy movements in the region regardless of whether or not their aims fall into direct line with US goals because failure to do so will mean more radical forms of protest, and more radical ideologies, becoming the dominant forms of dissent in the future. People forget that the post-WWII crop of radical Muslims came out of Egyptian prisons.
Not that the US will grow a pair and change course. The perceived economic and security risks are too high to get all teary eyed for populist democracy now.
What I do like about all this is that it brings to the fore the fact that, no, Arab and Muslim societies are not static homogeneous blocs stuck permanently in the 12th century, contrary to popular western stereotypes. Yes, even the Arab/Muslim world desires change, though not always the kind the West favors. The fact that these protests are against authoritarians propped up by the West speaks volumes about US/European priorities in that part of the world: security and stability at any cost. Fear or Islamic states and the understandable desire to protect Israel has led the US to support brutal regimes in the region well beyond their shelf dates. It's like South America in the 1970s.
Of course, these popular revolts do open a door to Islamists seeking to replicate Iran's Islamic Revolution. But it must be emphasized that like the different strains of dissent in pre-revolution Iran, radical Muslims represent just one piece of the pie. These uprisings represent a very broad spectrum of Tunisian and Egyptian society. Personally, I think the US should change course now and back pro-democracy movements in the region regardless of whether or not their aims fall into direct line with US goals because failure to do so will mean more radical forms of protest, and more radical ideologies, becoming the dominant forms of dissent in the future. People forget that the post-WWII crop of radical Muslims came out of Egyptian prisons.
Not that the US will grow a pair and change course. The perceived economic and security risks are too high to get all teary eyed for populist democracy now.
No comments:
Post a Comment