Arab Spring
What was it about? What did they want?
Quoting Arab Spring (Wikipedia), 2010–2012
Quoting Second Arab Spring (Wikipedia), 2018–
Themes common with other movements and protests include human rights, democracy, and such. Other themes include economics and unemployment.
At a glance, the causes are fair enough, though some resulting violence not so much. (History seems to indicate that societal change often is accompanied by strife and violence.)
Were the causes reasonable? What might we expect in the future (if anything)?
Quoting Arab Spring (Wikipedia), 2010–2012
It began in Tunisia in response to corruption and economic stagnation.[sup](1)(2)[/sup]
A major slogan of the demonstrators in the Arab world is ash-sha?b yur?d isq?? an-ni??m! (Arabic: ????? ???? ????? ??????, lit.'the people want to bring down the regime').[sup](4)[/sup]
Ultimately, it resulted in a contentious battle between a consolidation of power by religious elites and the growing support for democracy in many Muslim-majority states.[sup](18)[/sup] The early hopes that these popular movements would end corruption, increase political participation, and bring about greater economic equity quickly collapsed in the wake of the counter-revolutionary moves by foreign state actors in Yemen,[sup](19)[/sup] the regional and international military interventions in Bahrain and Yemen, and the destructive civil wars in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen.[sup](20)[/sup]
As of May 2018, only the uprising in Tunisia has resulted in a transition to constitutional democratic governance.[sup](3)[/sup] Recent uprisings in Sudan and Algeria show that the conditions that started the Arab Spring have not faded and political movements against authoritarianism and exploitation are still occurring.[sup](21)[/sup]
Numerous factors led to the protests, including issues such as reform,[sup](43)[/sup] human rights violations, political corruption, economic decline, unemployment, extreme poverty, and a number of demographic structural factors,[sup](44)[/sup] such as a large percentage of educated but dissatisfied youth within the entire population.[sup](45)(46)[/sup] Catalysts for the revolts in all Northern African and Persian Gulf countries included the concentration of wealth in the hands of monarchs in power for decades, insufficient transparency of its redistribution, corruption, and especially the refusal of the youth to accept the status quo.[sup](47)[/sup]
Quoting Second Arab Spring (Wikipedia), 2018–
Economic protests also took place in the Gaza Strip.[sup](3)(4)(5)(6)(2)[/sup]
Sustained civil disobedience in Sudan resulted in the overthrow of president Omar al-Bashir in a military coup d'état,[sup](10)[/sup] the Khartoum massacre, and the transfer of power from a military junta to a combined military–civilian Sovereignty Council that is legally committed to a 39-month transition to democracy.
However, in this wave of protests "the similarities and differences suggest more an upgrading than a replay of the Arab Spring."[sup](12)[/sup] The wider call for democracy and human rights was replaced by more day-to-day demands, on issues including excessive costs of living and high unemployment rates.[sup](12)[/sup]
Habbal and Hansawi described the process as having "profoundly changed the political consciousness of the region", overcoming fear of political activity and "setting a crucial precedent for challenging the persistence of authoritarianism". Habbal and Hansawi argued that the October protests in Syria "[proved] that even ruthless repression and tyranny cannot deter the resistance."[sup](13)[/sup]
The protests have often been described as being inherently "anti-systemic" to the entirety of the political establishment instead of opposition to a single policy, fueling this is large scale unemployment specifically youth unemployment. As well as frustration towards many Arab government policies, reliance on international aid for basic necessities, corruption and reliance of hydrocarbons (fossil fuels) has all led to discontent towards the often cronyistic system widely in use in Middle Eastern countries.[sup](14)[/sup]
Themes common with other movements and protests include human rights, democracy, and such. Other themes include economics and unemployment.
At a glance, the causes are fair enough, though some resulting violence not so much. (History seems to indicate that societal change often is accompanied by strife and violence.)
Were the causes reasonable? What might we expect in the future (if anything)?
Comments (39)
Peaceful as all heck. Despite the burned out buildings
Is that to be measured against what people might reasonably expect for themselves or some degree of freedom that they have no control over?
Are you referring to people arguing for some version of the status quo because of particular circumstances?
The violence seems, in the majority of cases, to have originated with the rulership. The protests began peacefully - as they often do - and the oppressive regime reacts with force, whereupon the populace, which is already unhappy, frustrated and justifiably angry, responds in the most natural human way: they fight back. Of course, they haven't got a chance. Quoting jorndoe
More than reasonable. Decades overdue.
Quoting jorndoe
More of the world will keep erupting into violence.
A worthwhile read.
FYI, author Gamal M Selim, published Summer 2013:
Quoting Gamal M Selim · Summer 2013
Egypt voted in the Muslim Brotherhood in the 2010s and so they were to become a sort of theocartic state. The army took it back under Sisi.
Democracies need guard rails like separation of powers, personal and civil rights, and rule of law. They are a network of interlocking, and often layered parts. It needs all levels of government to accept this legalistic-oriented entity. Just voting in people does not a democracy make.
Largely, it seems to me, religion has to be secularized to a major extent as to matter less than upholding personal freedoms. The US prospered because of its separation of church and state, despite conservative notions of "values". Values can inform your decisions, but values that favor a religion should not. Relatively speaking, most liberal democracies should come to the same spectrum of conclusions: No cruel and unusual punishment, respect one's personal beliefs- whatever they may be as long as they are not harming others, due process and rights of representation, people should be able to peacefully protest and write their thoughts, things like this. It might be vanilla and boring, but it's what it is. The excitement of some apocalyptic and mystical notions of a theocratic state should have no considerations in a liberal democracy. On the other side, the army is absolutely beholden to the civilian body-politic.
January 6th, 2021 in the US was a very minor version of what happens when peaceful protest turns violent. If a country has many January 6th like events, then you get room for the use of marshal law. On the other side, marshal law can be used for perceived enemy threats real or not. Thus, it is easy for a fragile liberal democracy to get permanent military control.
Basically it comes down to how people handle differences of opinion and grievances respectfully. That takes a culture that allows respectful differences of opinion.
Especially if it's corrupted and systematically undermined.
then weakened by a global economic depression and crushing debts from a previous war
and then coerced
Yep., seems to be an eerie playbook.
and a spookily familiar sequence of events
At the end of the day it's up to people to be vigilant about keeping democracies. America is a bit different, being it is one of the oldest and longest running ones.
Germany really never had a democracy prior to Weimar from its 1866 origins as a modern state. It had various military regimes run by Bismarck and the Kaiser.
The Arab states also never really had an internal democratic movement. Hell, one can argue even France had multiple cycles of democracy, mob rule, and dictators.
So by-and-large, democracies are hard to come by and maintain. It needs a sort of civic tradition that is instilled both top-down and ground-up.
The big factor in much of this is economic instability. Economic disparity creates resentment, and this gets harnessed by anti-democratic forces. You blame an external force perhaps, or you turn towards ultra-nationalism, or radical religious elements. Then you have larger players in the region like Iran, crate para-military groups within states.
Also in the mix, that cannot be denied in the Global South is the influence of Russia/the Soviet Union in creating socialist "liberation" movements that used ideas of liberation and hatred of the West and the Global North. All of it becomes one corrupt and authoritarian government after the other, some more religious, some more authoritarian. Of course you cannot deny that some people have control of resources, and some do not. Since the Global North was the first to exploit these resources, it becomes a target for the woes. Nationalism and religious radicalism dominate over liberalism, as liberalism seems the tool of the West. However, I would argue that this is a false notion that is often magnified from the religious radicals and the anti-Global North folks. Rather, if harnessed correctly, it could lead to booming development with less economic disparity. Radicalism is not the answer to injustices perceived in economic disparities. More well-rooted liberalism is proven to work pretty well, and provides the maximum personal freedoms, which some would say in a political sense, is the optimal and most just circumstance.
Sure. How does that take root in oppressed, economically and socially exploited populations?
By working with pro-democratic forces. See Japan, post WW2 for example on a society that went from feudal to militarist (ala Germany), to democratic. Indeed it did keep its isolation so that helps.
Turkey (prior to Erdogan era) can be another example of reform.
Who is to do do this "working with"? And how would it possible without an economic upswing in that country?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I guess there are any number of characteristics, transparency, freedom, ... And non-characteristics, authoritarianism, oppression, ... There's no magic bullet. Involves ethics.
Quoting Vera Mont
It takes democrats (I don't mean the US party :grin:). A democracy where the people have become infatuated with a would-be dictator is less likely to stay (as) democratic. Demagogues can democratically undo democracy. Academic critique by itself might not do. It takes people standing up for those things.
So, it must happen internally. But what if an outside, much bigger power - say the USA or some imperialist nation - interferes? Or actually invades? Or undermines the economy? How are the democratic factions in a small country supposed to defend it?
These are all the tropes. I said in another thread:
There is a tendency (of anti-Westerners), to romanticize or glorify the "little guy" no matter what- to admire their way of causing small areas of chaos. But at the end of the day it is for an awful goal. Simply saying, "Well they are against imperialism!" is disregarding all things you are mentioning. Their actions lead to heightened pain and suffering, transforming them into a force resembling the very "Great Satan" they claim to fight against, especially when they fuel smaller paramilitary groups resisting integration into the global system.
Whether we're talking about Iran or their Sunni counterparts, it's imperative to view such ideologies as disastrous, and with contempt. Their actions, teetering on the edge of destruction without going over, aren't admirable or clever. This ideology, akin to a suicidal, apocalyptic death cult, needs to be cast aside from the collective mindset of an entire region, thrown into the dustbin of history.
While acknowledging that the West might sometimes act against its own interests, solely pointing fingers at "the West" for these issues oversimplifies the intricate geopolitical landscape. Yes, NGOs and governmental entities might sometimes support internal resistance to authoritarian regimes, but cynically highlighting the West's interests without considering the nuanced reality doesn't contribute to a balanced perspective.
The West's failures lie in its inconsistent promotion of freedoms using soft power or, at times, misusing hard power. Yes, colonialists might eye resources, but it's infinitely better to engage with nations that knew how to quickly develop and integrate with the West, like South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, which have embraced liberal democracy, anti-corruption measures, and the rule of law. Development, championed by leaders prioritizing structured growth over export-based economies, is the key to creating more just societies and promoting global welfare.
That is to say, just as much as you think it is the lie that the West doesn't want to work with liberal democracies because it's not in their interest, I think the West does prefer to work with them over authoritarian or just any regime. It brings stability, and more chances for trade anyways. "The boogie man" of the West, shouldn't be used as an excuse to not internally resist authoritarian, corrupt, or fundamentalist regimes by pro-democratic forces. External forces are willing to help, but it takes a large internal movement to do so. France didn't help the US right away, but eventually they did in 1778 when they saw the the US was winning at the Battle of Saratoga, and their involvement is what tipped the scales to defeat the British in the American Revolution.
What's romantic about helplessness? Quoting schopenhauer1
Really? It's okay for a big global power to overthrow the democratically elected and set up a horrible shah, for contempt?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I wasn't. All major powers interfere with other nations to promote their own economic and strategic ends.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Did i forget to mention the USSR? And China? In other times, England, France, Spain, Portugal, Japan... All great global powers, in all eras, have their own agenda and use the weaker nations as pawns.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Now, that does sound partisan.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yeah, and it helped bring about their own revolution.
Not that their regime wasn't riddled with inequities and stupidities, but that decision, because they had a long-standing feud with England, was very bad from their own POV.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yep, here we are again. All the big bad West. Why didn't they overthrow the Shah and form a democratic government then? That would REALLY show the West. Yes, American foreign policy during the Cold War was short-sighted, and in this case was going along with the last gasp of Britain's imperialism.
Quoting Vera Mont
Pretty much. Self-interested nations are the default. That doesn't necessarily mean exploitive. It's up to the other side to understand how to tango correctly -- to let the exploitation be engines of growth. That takes the fortitude to not take money in autocratic and kleptocartic ways. And in that sense, it is not the West's fault for the failure of internal pressures to create a better way. Tunisia, though not perfect, has definitely gotten better than where it was.
Quoting Vera Mont
Countries have the ability to change from internal pressures. Not everything is from external exploitation. It's not that you are wrong, it is just what you choose to focus on and make excuses with.
Quoting Vera Mont
Again, I am acknowledging that external forces can make decisions that are not beneficial, but those external forces ("The Western economic system) is the reality. The fantasy is the "liberation" from it. North Korea and Iran aren't better off because they represent an anti-Western, oppositional stance. The West is still the best orientation to head towards- liberal democracies, integrated strategically, with Western economic systems. Again, that just takes leadership. Often what appears to be Western exploitation is simply government ineptness and corruption. It's hard to parse it out completely.
Quoting Vera Mont
Indeed, but were the circumstances great to begin with? That was again, the violent extremism of France's unique political dynamics. And yes, just like Iran didn't have to "revolve" into a theocracy, France didn't necessarily have to revolve into the chaos of the Sans-Culottes, Jacobins, Hebertists, Dantonists, and their Reign of Terror. The roots of the Enlightenment were there - but it was the irony of taking the rhetoric of the Enlightenment of Voltaire and Rousseau and using them to illiberal extremes.
Quoting Vera Mont
Well anyways, you actually make my point that the unintended consequences of interfering in volatile revolutions (like the Arab Spring) are why it was a "way and see" approach under Obama. But there are plenty of Western organizations willing to help those on the inside, if they are willing to make the first moves to implement the revolutions (without turning them into illiberal democracies).
Cos they wanted him in power, silly! Quoting schopenhauer1
And then took over primary role with its own form of imperialism. It's still short-sighted, Look at the mess they made of the middle east in the last 30 years.
Quoting schopenhauer1
and the American war of independence...
Yes, I do see where you're coming from.
I meant the Iranians.. not the Americans. Why didn't they "revolve" into a better democracy and not a theocratic regime? It's not like they had to form a theocratic regime. But that's what they wanted, silly!
Quoting Vera Mont
A lot of the mess originated in Cold War policies. However, to be fair, it's not like they had great players to choose from internally... In the left corner you have Saddam Hussein.. in the right even worse...
People are silly a lot of the time. Especially when they're disillusioned and feel betrayed, they tend to reach for the security blanket of tradition.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sure. they were instrumental in making that. Big Four, you know? And the whole Israel mess.
Indeed they are. For whatever sociological or psychological reason, they chose poorly as to how to formulate their new government. That is an internal failing. That decision and impulse itself cannot be blamed on the West, EVEN if the West did interfere in their politics earlier.
But the first coup wasn't their idea. That was interference from a world power with hugely disproportionate economic resources.
Quoting jorndoe
Especially when you're in prison, in exile or dead.
That doesn't address my point. I stated:
Quoting schopenhauer1
In fact, it wasn't the "impulse" but that impulse that was ACTED UPON. I mean, I could argue that my first impulse might be, "Screw you, I'm going to show the West how great we are by going back to a theocratic state." But the impulse was followed through and enacted. Rather, the eventual response could have been, "Oh wait, I could form a more robust democracy that becomes an economically thriving state for its citizens, without being exploited".
I think your implicit premise is that if "the West" interferes, the ONLY response is to then move to radicalism or authoritarianism. That is not the case, nor is the West forcing that to be the case, once a revolution takes place. Or alternatively, the West isn't "stopping" the populous from doing a mass revolt.
No, I didn't imply anything of the kind. No nation is a single unified entity that feels, thinks and acts with a single mind. The premise I was attempting to back up was that when there is external interference, the balance of power between/among existing factions shifts or even collapses. When a democratically elected regime is overthrown before it's well established, because of massive financial and/or military support for one of the authoritarian factions, the democratic forces are weakened, often fatally. Then the fear-mongers, the scapegoaters, strongmen and religious revivalists gain ascendancy. They are able to consolidate power far more rapidly than a democracy that depends on consensus from the people. By the time the liberal factions can recover and regroup, all the repressive mechanism are in place.
Quoting Vera Mont
If nobody intervened, you'd be justified in saying "It's all their own fault. They made the wrong decision." But when they've been seriously wounded, failing to rebound stronger than ever, a people should not really take all of the blame.
No but a sufficient amount of a revolutionary mob, will act as if a single mind (pace French and Iranian Revolutions.. and ensuing reigns of terrors).
Quoting Vera Mont
"Who" is CHOOSING to support this these authoritarian factions? You gloss over it like it's a law of nature and not groups of people deciding things.
Quoting Vera Mont
Not on their own. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Hitler gets a majority from a parliamentary procedure of coalitions trying to gain a majority and then using the fascist-type by promoting him as leader.. and then precedes to wreak havoc. Trump is a much less dire circumstance, yet corrupting nonetheless, erodes the guardrails of democracy, currently. It takes support for those who want it, don't mind, or are indifferent to it. But here I am giving you examples of internal weaknesses in structure WITHOUT direct external interference. So, your theory fails that it is some axiom. It is all people doing human things, like making decisions to throw their support for things that are detrimental to justice, personal freedoms, or economic viability.
Quoting Vera Mont
As is the case consistently shows in history, correct.
Quoting Vera Mont
But to only focus the blame on the external force is also wrong-headed. This is the tactic of the Left. You MUST show it to be the Elephant.. and the Tiger is always justified and can be explained away as not the Tiger but the Elephant. The violence too becomes explained away as "really" being the elephant FORCING the tiger.. as if they are simply the beaten animal lashing out. And here we get the roots of all the defenders, admirers, hedgers towards the Tiger's violent action.
Not quite an accurate depiction of either event.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Factions always exist. They are always supported by their supporters, who are not always of a single mind. Left-leaning organization tends to resemble herding cats, while far-right groups tend to be far more regimented, usually with a much more forceful leadership than the democratic ones. When the left loses power and influence, the right is ready to move in and consolidate power. After that, it doesn't matter whether the population at large support them: they have the army and police and no compunction in using either.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It was a general observation from history, no more.
Quoting Vera Mont
is not the same as Quoting schopenhauer1
But... whatever... The Left is just wrong.
This is what I thought because it gets repeated all the time as an explanation for the poor US - Iranian relation.
Having later looked into the relationship in more detail, I discovered this is a quite skewed look. The influence from the world power with "hugely disproportionate economic resources," amounted largely to a single junior case officer with a suit case of $100,000 (worth more then, but still not THAT much) making lots of phone calls. The most effective bribes were probably for paying protestors, but all three sides were already in the habit of paying protestors at the time, making this nothing too exceptional. Large numbers of demonstrators don't appear to have been bribed anyhow, and were instead moving against Tudeh (who had previously supported the Soviets staying in Iran) engaging in their own revolt, and against Mosaddegh and his dismissal of Parliament.
For example, the book below has a blow by blow and, as the subtitles suggests, is not favorable to the intervention. However, it does show how the "CIA coup," wasn't some great plan by the CIA, but largely the work of a single guy calling together wavering figurines, and the biggest thing the US did was pump up the Shah to go back. Maybe it was just the right leverage at just the right time, but given how little it took for Iranians to do the overthrowing, the idea that it was smooth sailing for Iranian democracy and Mosaddegh had Kermit Roosevelt not been around seems unlikely. A right wing coup was still probably likely, and then left wing groups with Soviet support were also jockeying for position, fighting in the streets, etc.
But the image of full American control, as with Chile, gets support from two directions. On the one hand, you have intelligence services and their retired operatives wanting to play up their influence and involvement in world affairs. On the other, you have critics of the US who want to paint it as single handedly running Middle Eastern and Latin American politics.
Which is not to say it wasn't horrendous or perhaps a determining factor in the history of Iranian politics, but it could only be determining because there was a three way power struggle that was already very close to tipping one way or the other. It's often painted though like the situation was one between stable, liberal democracy and the coup, which is not the case.
I don't claim that the US actually controlled any Middle Eastern state; that might have had a better outcome. Their (and Britain's) bungling interference, strong support of despotic rulers, and their failure to apprehend the local conditions, resulted in the present mess.
Right, I am speaking to my own prior ignorance. Just the way it is usually talked about, I had always assumed the Iran coup was something more like a Bay of Pigs situation (but successful) rather than the slap dash, somewhat halfhearted bungling that it was.
Certainly a contributing factor. It's rather dizzying to try to compare what went right in South Korea and Taiwan (originally American support for military despots) with what went wrong in Iran, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. The move directly to liberal democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq went poorly, but then slow pressure campaigns aimed at reform also only worked in a few cases (with backsliding in the case of Hee). Ultimately, I think the US could do far more to prop the KMT up in China, or the Shah in Iran, etc. as militarily viable, then it could to influence their internal politics. With Mosaddegh, the case for action was particularly weak because, by all accounts, the communists were not in a particularly strong position for their own attempts to gain control, and Mosaddegh himself seemed committed to a middle path. It wasn't a Vietnam-like situation where pulling backing obviously meant the victory of the Soviet aligned forces, but rather a rare case with a viable non-aligned centrist.
I suspect the biggest problem with American foreign policy is that there isn't one. They don't seem committed to any long-term vision or plan; each administration just prods and pokes, pushes and pulls, tries to put out the fires left by the previous administration - sometimes by pouring gasoline on it, sometimes by throwing dollar bills on it, always wheedling and rattling their big rusty sword at the same time.
Well put.
American foreign policy is basically just the President and the White House reacting to events as they happen. That's it. Nothing else. The State Department hardly can do anything by it's own, and it isn't meant to do so. The Congress is fixated in it's domestic political struggles and seems like this administration is overwhelmed by the issues and has already thrown in the towel. Or the towel simply dropped (in Afghanistan) and the fighter just noticed it and said "Oh well, the fight ended".
If asked what the foreign policy is, you will get this tree hugging list of everything positive about embracing American values... which bare no resemblance to actual events and actions that the US is doing. Not only are there no real objectives set fourth, there also isn't any understanding of the historical continuation of US foreign policy. Long term policies are basically guided by lobby groups, which guard their own fields.
Quoting Vera Mont
This is what you get when people think the US President is some kind of Superman. Yet when there aren't any long term plans that the State Department could simply follow, everything becomes questions that the President has to answer. And since he is one man who has only so many hours a day that he can decide on foreign policy matters, the end result is this.