Home

Follow Countercurrents on Twitter 

Why Subscribe ?

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Editor's Picks

Press Releases

Action Alert

Feed Burner

Read CC In Your
Own Language

Bradley Manning

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis

Iraq

AfPak War

Peak Oil

Globalisation

Localism

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence

WSF

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

About CC

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Search Our Archive

Subscribe To Our
News Letter



Our Site

Web

Name: E-mail:

 

Printer Friendly Version

Arab Revolutions: Illusions Of Hope And Delusions Of Possibility

By Nath Aldalala’a

20 August, 2011
Countercurrents.org

Over the last six months the Arab world has witnessed events that have instigated certain changes. These events have been inscribed with various names such as: ‘protests’, ‘demonstrations’, ‘uprisings’, ‘revolution’, ‘rebellion’. For the most part the political action taking place across the region has been most popularly perceived as a revolution, and particularised by naming it collectively as the Arab Spring. However any such term must be qualified based on the actual outcomes of each country, rather than, as in the case of Egypt, owing to the sheer numbers of participants. It is also commonly thought to be a revolution because it directly led to the overthrow of a corrupt leader. Yet, the penetrating question that must be addressed is: do the actions taking place across the Arab world really amount to a revolution?

There have been famous “revolutions” throughout history, figuring prominently amongst those is the Industrial Revolution in the late 1700s and 1800s, which began in Britain and spread around the world. It was seen as a revolution because of the significant change it brought to the world, through mechanisation and manufacturing, and the revolution of power which facilitated the development of steamships and railroads, amongst other things. This revolution impacted on social, cultural and political structures throughout the world. Yet when one speaks about this historical event the ‘word’ revolution is of secondary importance and ‘industrial’ is the indicative term to signify its specific nature. The French Revolution of 1789-1799 is another example. This was a period of radical social and political change in France, Europe, and then the World. Besides the consequences in France, where a centuries old absolute monarchy collapsed, this revolution opened the way for the constitutional recognition of Enlightenment values of citizenship and undeniable human rights. The French Revolution is often perceived as the dawn of the modern era and remains one of the most important events in human history. The Russian Revolution in 1917 can also be mentioned in the same breath, as the Tsarist autocracy was crushed with the ultimate creation of the Soviet Union. Again, a substantial event, which directed the entire history of the 20th Century.

My argument here is that to call these recent events in the Arab world revolutions is actually misleading, and undermines progress in this part of the world. By prematurely interpreting the wave of protests as a revolution one might be inclined to assume a conclusion has been reached. That is, a conclusion with fundamental and far reaching change to the political system(s) in the Arab world which effectively fosters opportunity and possibility within its societies; a revolution is defined by its outcomes rather than its processes. So far, the upshot of events across the region does not signify a change that amounts to a revolution. Therefore a question which should be posed is: what exactly is the significance of recent events in the Arab world to date? Or rather, have the protests instigated change of a profound nature? I would respond to the question with a resounding ‘No!’ Although I acknowledge there is some vital change taking place in social and political life, especially when compared with the last few decades, the protests fall short of being total uprisings. Action has taken different forms: peaceful protest in Egypt, factional and bloody battles in Libya, indecision in Syria, transience in Bahrain, tribal in Yemen, and a state of anticipation in other Arab countries. There are demonstrations, marches and protests on a regular basis in the Arab world. Some of these have managed to topple leaders such as Bin Ali and Mubarak, with Assad, Gaddafi, Saleh also on the way out, but it is particularly striking that in the Arab world there is no practice equates to the ethos of the picket line. Although the picket line is more generally associated specifically with the action of trades union movements, the recognition and legitimacy it is accorded by all sides is indicative of how popular protest functions in a democracy. Its significance is that it defines battle fronts based on existing political and social systems, and it is a physical demarcation between distinct parties drawn up by their demands and offers. Its absence can in fact affect the practice and the objectives of protest. Without the legitimacy of the picket line, protest is beset with difficulties as there are no clear cut, unified, channelled, and well organised groups to marshal specific and realistic demands, or to devise further avenues for negotiation. Furthermore, governments in the Arab world profit from this situation as they are able to exploit the protestors’ lack of clarity and unity and merely offer whatever they deem satisfactory. Thus, when the protestors in the Arab world resort to the over-riding slogan “down with the regime” their lack of specificity actually undermines their intent. As in reality, the regime is the persona of the leader, which over the years becomes manifest in a system of governance which consequently infiltrates the socio-political structures of the country, as in say, Egypt or Tunisia. Subsequently, the fall of the leader/persona does not dismantle the system.

Also, to call them Arab revolutions they must be truly Arab in every sense of the word. I shall dignify them as being Arab in memory of Mohammed Bouazizi who, when slapped by a police officer, sought to make a complaint, After being rejected an audience with anyone in authority he doused himself with flammable liquid and set himself on fire. What is truly ‘Arab’ about this is that the body has less value without dignity, and that was the initial noble action which triggered the protests. But on closer inspection of how matters have developed one would understand the extent of tyranny and domination being practiced in the Arab world. In each and every case with regard to the ‘revolutions’ taking place there has been significant Western and, of course, particularly American, interference in the developments.

Consequently, as the protests in the Arab world were sparked off by the self-immolation of a desperate man, his action symbolises the extent of the humiliation felt by the ordinary Arab on the street. To set oneself on fire is an extreme transgression within Islam. The visual drama and repellent nature of such action left both youth and others in the Arab world reflecting on the degree of degradation being experienced in everyday life. Bouazzizi’s action, although it could be condemned on strict faith grounds, became a motif for disillusioned Arab people. The embryonic moment of what is termed as the Arab Spring is then Arab in spirit and Arab in practice. The reception, however, of this Arab Spring and its long term effect are dependent on the grace (the approval or disapproval) of American and Western nations. Examples on this point are many. First of which are two ongoing situations; in Libya where NATO forces are seeking to remove Gaddafi, yet they have held back from any involvement in Syria. The images of brutality which have emerged from Syrian cities are far worse than those that have taken place in Libya. I can expand on such comparisons to illustrate the argument further. Bin Ali and Mubarak were ousted only when America recognised the situation was well out of their sphere of influence. Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, when the protests were at and advanced stage in Egypt, stated that “[Egypt], which like many countries in the region has been experiencing demonstrations, we know that they’ve occurred not only in Cairo but around the country, and we’re monitoring that very closely. We support the fundamental right of expression and assembly for all people, and we urge that all parties exercise restraint and refrain from violence.” This cautious language of the diplomat soon changed after the overthrow of Mubarak – Clinton effectively marched on Tahrir square in a demonstration of love and passion to the youth of the revolution. Another notable figure started on this course: David Cameron, was the first leader to visit Cairo after toppling Mubarak, accompanied by a business delegation which included eight firms involved in the arms trade, and was the first world leader to strut his nation’s faithful loyalties to the ‘alleged’ coming generation of leaders in Egypt. Tunisia and Egypt were of course crucial allies to the United States during the reign of the now ousted leaders.

My point is further underlined by turning to the Yemen, where protests started on 15 February, notably prior to those in Libya which began on 12 March with UN air strikes then underway by 19 March. The U.S. did not seem to desire the departure of Saleh as much as they wished for that of Gaddafi. The banners of protests in Sana’a read: “America you like Saleh, take him out”. Yet America kept its silence until recently when it was reported that, with the support of their Saudi counterparts, it put pressure on Saleh not to return to Sana’a, in return for immunity from prosecution. In Syria, the Assad regime was not a particular friend of the United States, but his rule maintained a certain status quo of power in the region which did not pose any severe threat to their interests. Besides the Russian and Chinese objections to any military intervention in Syria, the United States and its European allies did not seem willing to respond to the cries for help from besieged Syrians who have been butchered for months now in several cities. I do not claim that this argument is a revelation nor are my observations about the blessing or condemnation from the United States or Europe unique. My contention is that for the Arab Spring to be understood as a revolution, is to be dependent on external forces which ultimately determine its outcomes. This affects the ongoing tension in the region and it influences the possibilities for conclusion.

Therefore, there is no Arab revolution, no Arab Spring, and not even a minimal hope of a bright future in the region. Take Egypt for example as it is the largest and most influential country in the political mapping of the region. Amr Moussa, aged 74, is a veteran of the ousted regime. He served as Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1991 until 2001 when he became the head of the Arab League. He also served as an advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1977 to 1981. Moussa as the first candidate for presidential elections, expected next year, has just kick-started his election campaign to become the president of Egypt. Whilst my objection to this is not a personal indictment, I consider the idea of his candidacy as rather shameful as it simply serves to undermine any real prospect of change. The death of over 800 protestors at the hands of a regime, in which Moussa was a key figure during its zenith in the 1990s, is reason enough for him to withdraw and open the way for a younger, more dynamic generation to takeover the leadership in Egypt. This would be more indicative of real and vital change in the political system. Moussa’s candidacy, let alone his possible election, signifies ‘a’ system - an old system is still governing the country. Say, for the sake of the argument Moussa wins the elections the prevailing questions would be: what persona will prevail, and what kind of politics would emerge, and how would (or could) it be different to those of the 1990s? The ultimate question then would be why was there a “revolution” at all? Moussa could have been appointed by the public goodwill and 850 lives of innocent protesters could have be prevented and billions of dollars of lost revenue could have been saved. A revolution would at least have the momentum to produce laws which ensure the old regime is consigned to the dustbin rather than the recycle bin.

Received wisdom suggests that a revolution is grounded in its own causes of initiation and throughout history they have been determined by their own specific features and mechanisms. Revolutions follow a path from acts of protest to substantial change whether that be political, industrial, cultural or social in nature. Also, a revolution is synthesized by certain acts which help to shape an identity, as did the American Revolution, often referred to as the American Enlightenment. This transformed the intellectual spirit and political structure of America. In practical terms its trajectory was the American Revolutionary War, or War of Independence 1775-83, which then culminated in the United States Declaration of Independence. This affirmation determined the formation of a new identity, and germinated a body historique. The sense of history accorded to this revolution still provides a spiritual and emotionally invoked refuge of belonging in the collective American consciousness. Arab consciousness in these times of tension is diffused, much like the potency of the protests is dispersed. As seen when Assad’s forces hit out with brutality, not only physically on the streets, but with the alienating degradation they impose on the human spirit of the Syrian- the Arab. Also, Saleh, although now seemingly half dead and living in Saudi Arabia, still hovers over the streets of Yemeni cities, menacing, threatening, and intimidating those who would give voice to their plight.

These considerations validate my claim that there is no revolution in the Arab world: certainly, the concept of Arab is present in terms of its physicality, but it is lacking a moral presence. Human will is crushed by forces of intimidation, uncertainty, outside intervention, occupation of Arab land, and by the pressures of poverty and degradation. The current situation is testimony to how the masses on the street are dependent on the sentiments of Obama, Sarkozy, or Cameron being relayed across the world’s TV screens: anxious as to whom they will give their support- will they denounce the regime or a regime or will they not? A nation’s history consists of internal judgements and/or postulations. Recent Arab history is lacking in both. It is a historical narrative in which Arabs have metaphorically been knocked on the nose for the past six decades. Libya, Sudan, Iraq, and the Palestinians figure as an overwhelming symbol of desperation and humiliation. Amr Moussa’s intention to stand for election is simply a continuation of this narrative: to oust President Mubarak is not much of triumph when his ‘midwife’- Moussa - plans an audacious “come-back” to govern Egypt. This gesture and the climate – local and global – which sanctions this actually diminishes the possibility of total revolution in Arab politics or society. The credibility of any interpretation of recent invents must be within the context of an objective study of the past six decades. Orientation of the future is dependent on how the past is mapped out. There are many facts available but as yet there are no sincere interrogations: in which form and shape do Arabs exist?

Dr. Nath Aldalala'a, School of English Literature, Language and Linguistics Newcastle University,
[email protected]



 

 



 


Comments are not moderated. Please be responsible and civil in your postings and stay within the topic discussed in the article too. If you find inappropriate comments, just Flag (Report) them and they will move into moderation que.