The popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt seem already to be a good while ago. Later, other Arab countries have also experienced demonstrations and uprisings. Some old regimes withstand the demands from the masses, or should we say the vocal youth groups.
Libya seems to be a special case and different from the others. The Republic of Cote d’Ivoire is also different. Colonel Gaddafi in Libya had a point when he told a BBC reporter that the Westerners do not understand their regime. In Libya, it is more about the people’s democratic participation and jobs for young people. It is not about the sharing of resources, because Libya has been good at that, having had oil money to spend to benefit everyone in a country with a small population. But people also want their voice to be heard, especially if they have very different ideas than the regime. In Libya, which has been socialist oriented, many people with capitalist aspirations oppose the regime, and in our time that clashes with the world ideology, which is capitalist. Whether I believe that capitalism is good or bad (and I think it has many ugly faces), is another thing. It is the voices of the broad masses in each country that must be listened to, not some old leaders or outside social scientists.
In Tunisia and Egypt, the youth managed to get two presidents out of their palaces, through peaceful demonstrations, much overdue, of course, but out they went and into retirement. Well, they were probably already in semi-retirement, as they were indeed not young anymore. Somehow it must have gotten stuck in their heads that they should die on the ‘throne’. Yes, because they had made it into a royal throne, not an elected post in a world where we believe in democratic institutions. Presidents, who still after 30 years have not gotten around to implementing their ideas, must be quite inefficient in any case. And they must have become basically ceremonial leaders. And the two old men thought their sons should succeed them and continue the reign. Why, one wonders, and what would the justification for that be? Sadly, they had surpassed their time and age for logic reasoning. And they lived in an environment which did not allow much change, only continuation of old ways.
In this article, I will discuss aspects related to popular uprising and revolution, as opposed to parliamentary change and evolution. I am also concerned about real life after the honeymoon.
What we saw in Tunisia and Egypt were popular uprisings, but neither was deep and broad enough to be called revolutions. The lack of broad, organisational structures for the opposition worries me. Now it seems so quiet and little direct, practical change has yet come to the two states. The former presidents, the figureheads are gone, but most of the old politicians and, certainly, the civil service, are still there. The popular uprising showed that ordinary people could challenge the regime from the streets and squares, from downtown markets and meeting places. The modern mobile phones and internet connections helped in the process. The international (Western) TV channels showed it all. They were not neutral, as they are supposed to be, but got carried away, or for other reasons sided with the opposition. Under other circumstance, the media might have called them hooligans, rebels, insurgents, maybe some even terrorists.
No comments:
Post a Comment