It has been quite some time since the Arab Spring erupted and we have seen the domino effect it created - It was a novel trend in the history of revolutions that made perfect use of social media.
I remember a picture I saw back then of a Bedouin in Yemen holding his mobile phone up in the air and transmitting in real-time the image of an eruption of rebellious mass against the government to his contacts - his picture was transmitted to the world and affected so many people.
But what is the status quo of the Arab Spring? Is it still there?
Of course, you are absolutely right. Even so, the religious component is the "frame" if you may which mobilizes individuals to act. If you will look at all those youtube clips on and from the fighting you would not see fighters/terrorists advocating for oil lobby or that they have any link to the military industrial complex. They refer to religious ideas or to local ideas. And again it does not mean that there aren't any other forces at play. The problem with looking at those events only through the prism of Al-Quida/ good against evil is that it ignores the real local problem that are exploited by political actors that use religion/ethnicity/nationalism to influence and mobilize disadvantages populations.
The first issue of Critical Muslim, in early 2012, focused on this. See http://criticalmuslim.com/issues/01-arabs-are-alive There is also a good piece by Robin YassinKassab at the same site. Coverage of events has declined and not much has been written on this by social scientists.
Unfortunately, many foreign agendas were inter-mixed with the rightful movement of the popular masses, adding a distorted reality to the events. Many un-related political forces to the masses took over and turned around many of the people's calls for democracy and freedom into calls for religious agendas which were not even part of the original popular movements. Bloodshed is the result, and is ongoing.
However, one must not undermine the power of the people to bring matters back where these deserve to be. If an Arab Spring happened once, a second one is not impossible.
The initial leaders were not experienced and lost grounds to the mid-aged experienced predators for power. Hopefully, there should be lessons learned to the next wave to succeed.
Roger, look at the other side of the coin. There were so many casualties to express a revolutionary message by the masses. Whenever the people were generous with their own blood, surely there are lessons learned. Unfortunately the results that are born from revolutions are more drastic than evolutionary exercises. But a change occurs even if not seen immediately.
I totally agree with what you said Dr. Hussein but really I am so sad seeing so many people killed without any mercy.
Thank you for sharing. Your presentation is informative, investigative and luring for more curiosity to follow on the events ongoing. What remains to be answered is the duration and the final outcomes. Although the price has been dear in terms of human lives but the paradigm shift is still to occur because of the continuous power of influence of the Petroleum dollars or Petroleum Euros!
Wake up Bassam, the rudeness and the injustice of events is an ongoing exercise that touches different nations in different times depending on the chess game between the powerful nations. The by-product is blood shed and suffering for the poor most of the time and only the brave will survive. Therefore, let us deal with the situation with the brave mode and use our brains to add awareness and spread the spirit of positivism because time is our judge.
Dear All:
For technical reasons one of my comments was deleted by mistake.
The above discussion reminded me of a presentation I made about the Arab Spring on December 12-13, 2011 in Tunisia at the Join MED Final Conference. I have uploaded this presentation that also addresses the lifecycle of a revolution... I do invite you to read it because it relates to the subject matter in question.
Unfortunately, the proposed book has been halted because of a very busy agenda.
Perhaps it will be revived from the audience of this question.
Kind regards,
ZAF
Thank you Ziad for sharing. Your presentation is informative, investigative and luring for more curiosity to follow on the events ongoing. What remains to be answered is the duration and the final outcomes. Although the price has been dear in terms of human lives but the paradigm shift is still to occur because of the continuous power of influence of the Petroleum dollars or Petroleum Euros!
Dear Bassam:
I value your interesting comment - which expresses a very tangible reality.
Accordingly, I would like to ask you a question: Isn't what you have portrayed a common factor to many revolutions that occurred throughout history?
Regards,
Ziad
As I sense from Bassam revolutions bring constructive chaos, and clearly the Arab Spring is not the case. The Arab spring was taken advantage of by the people Bassam labeled Neo-conservatives. The US and its allies are well aware of the consequences, and they do not bother of poor people getting killed as at the end they get what they planned for!!
All these revolutions started with a very specific goal but unfortunatly it ended in another place. I think this is due to the different players that exits.
Roya, you are right but a leader to guide change is necessary to exist, or at least a leading group of individuals who are above the ego-loving-power state. Incremental change needs to be nurtured carefully and people involved should be sincere in looking at the overall benefit of the exercise on a community-basis scheme and later on a national basis. Tons of patience is needed, being persuasive and keen for a right cause is a must in a person.
Roya, Hussin, and Bassam:
I agree with you Revolution has to be coined with Evolution!
Happy Holidays to All.
Actually there was never an arab spring; from the first beginning it looks like an upheaval, a struggle for life and death between ideological streams that have no option of compromise. It began with liberals who used social networks as a platform and tool but more organized groups like the muslim brothers have occupied the "revolution" and by using democratic procedures for gaining the political power they forced their ideology that has nothing with democracy. On the other hand we have noticed the decline of the nation state model and the fragmentation of the state and societies going back to the clan structure and growing no man areas that became an intensive for islamic and jiadi groups to penetrate these areas and to lunch their war against the weakening regimes. Eventually we are exposed to all in all wars where different ideological streams are fighting each other to death because there is no opportunity for coexistence.
Yes, indeed, if new leaders behave regardless of the revolution main objectives: freedom, dignity, and equity.
Predictably, the uprisings that led to the Arab Spring were only beginnings. Just because a people is fed up with its dictator, and because the dictator's regime is too weak to survive, does not imply that stable alternatives exist. Typically, under authoritarian regimes crystallized democratic elites are weak or non-existent, and the citizenry has little or no experience with democratic politics. Since democracy seems so natural, it is easy to overlook how unnatural it actually is, and how much struggle and suffering has usually been bound up with its emergence. All too often, the people who come to power are inexperienced and bumbling, or were already organized under the dictator. The resulting power vacuum often results in serious disorder, which gives rise to demands for a leadership that can restore order--hence a new authoritarian regime. Movements that were already organized under the dictator are all too often ideological and extremist and/or criminal. All of this provides at least some of explanation of what has happened to the Arab Spring.
According to Crane Brinton (Author of Anatomy of Revolution, 1938) and Lyford Edwards (Author of The Natural History of Revolution, 1927), the normal trajectory of revolutions, irrespective of the politics of the revolutionaries, is as follows - I quote:
a. A period of unrest and uncertainty preceding the revolutionary outbreak.
b. A catalytic event that starts the revolutionary motor.
c. The collapse of the old order, followed by a period in which moderate factions hold the reins of power.
d. The failure of the moderates, followed by the radicals' seizure of power.
e. A reign of terror, which the radicals justify in their minds by the slow pace of revolutionary transformation.
f. The exhaustion of the terror campaign.
g. A period of "cooling down," during which the radicals may or may not lose power.
h. The return to normal politics, signaling the end of the revolution.
This is somehow exactly what is going on in most of the Arab countries that have witnessed a revolution against the existing regime (steps a-g above).
We all await step (h) to occur!
It's good, but I think we should strive for richer and deeper accounts of the dynamics. Here are some problems with this summary: (1) There is not always a period of unrest, sometimes the outbreak is a surprise; (2) There isn't always a catalytic event. Sometimes the revolutionaries come to power, and prepare the real revolution over a period of time (e.g. Hitler and Stalin). (3)The "old order" doesn't always collapse, sometimes, as for example in Egypt, there is less than revolutionary change (Of course we still don't know how successful current military regime will be) But often, if panic and chain reaction are avoided, revolutionary steam is let off, and there is not a real breakdown of the old order. (4) It isn't always the moderates who fist come to power. Sometimes, the radicals come into power directly. (5) There isn't always a reign of terror; (6) The return to normal politics is often protracted and inconclusive. For example, some scholars contend that the French Revolution did not really come to an end until the 1960s--the Bourbonistes, the Orleanistes, the Jacobins, and the Bonapartistes were not content with the semi-settlements along the way.
Fred:
Many thanks for your interesting and valuable contribution to the above question hoping that it would lead to a fruitful discussion among peers!
The events occurring are not so simple, maybe the steps quoted by Ziad did not include external agendas intersecting with the national ones. That is a reality in the observed continuous events. Kobi mentioned that countries are becoming tribes and clans, that is a reality and may match Kessinger plans for the future of the Arab areas surrounding Israel. If all countries go back to tribes, then the Israeli dream will be realized. However, even these plans are getting crossed with other events like for example the Iran-US agreement.
So, although the Arab Spring is highly criticized, but surely more surprises will occur and time will tell.
Which one is more preferred: The Regime or The Radicals?
Is there in the horizon a third possibility: The Moderates?
Political systems behave differently in different countries depending on the degree of democracy practiced and depending on how these countries define democracy! So, many things are relative based on different points of view although the definition does not change. This is natural, since deviations exist upon the application of concepts and not necessarily in the definition itself.
Ziad, if Moderates have a say, then it is a bless. But the question is what percentage of moderates exist in any country?
The response is minimum. And this is why we go through many more conflicts as compared to resolutions.
The Arab Spring is led by eith the Extreme Regime or by the Extreme Radicals, do they have a meeting point. Possibly, only if forced by a third party!
I think it is a very complicated question since not all the Arab spring countries have taken the same path. For us in Egypt I can say "search for the army", wherever there is an army with such aspirations and interests there is no hope for a real move towards authentic democracy that truly brings them (the military) under the control of an elected president. You can compare the case of Egypt with Tunisia where the secular elites have called the army to intervene but it refused. in addition you have to keep in mind the "spell over" effect that Egypt's Revolution success would bring to neighboring gulf monarchies. Any way it will take us a long time to answer the question: What went wrong with Arab Spring?".
Everyone appears to be using the word "democracy" as if its meaning were clear, and as if it really existed somewhere. https://www.facebook.com/notes/fred-eidlin/should-democracy-have-the-same-meaning-in-every-country/10153376178900076
Dear Fred, checked your article. What you wrote is very true. When we use democracy we are aware of your points. Most of the times, it is used within the context of the discussion reflecting what the US has in mind (knowing that the US can never export its definition of democracy!).
Best to you.
Amgad, I guess we have to wait and see how will Egypt come of it.
Dear Hussin: Yes, we Americans have no problems with the definition. Democracy is simply what we've got. The democracy quality of other regimes is assessed by these standards--and not only by Americans. My main point is that such assessments tend to be unenlightening, and get in the way of understanding. .
The Arab Spring is still there just took a different form. The stakes are higher and there is legitimacy to violence now. For example the current Anabar war in Iraq is related to the כrustration of local Suni population from the government. And consequently they support the ISIS.
Roya: Robert Fisk is a great visionary, particularly when it is pertinant to Middle Eastern affairs. Thank you for sharing this interesting link.
Roya, excellent article that sheds light on the contradictions of the contradictions! Yes, it is a mess that most likely will continue and Robert Fisk has to continue working on the vocabulary eloquently.
Ori, I recommend you read Fisk's article posted by Roya.
Dear Hussain I read Fisk's article and enjoyed it, Even so, I believe it is only a partial outlook at events. At present the Middle East is caught between momentums. The first is the Suni-Shia rift which is exploding in Iraq, Leabon, Syria and Yemen. The second is the Arab Spring momentum of change that was escalated into violent actions in some arenas. The third is the reactionary forces (among them Kingdoms and Russia) which try to stabilize the arena. The Jihadist rise mentioned in Fisk's article is the byproduct of the first momentum.
Of course, you are absolutely right. Even so, the religious component is the "frame" if you may which mobilizes individuals to act. If you will look at all those youtube clips on and from the fighting you would not see fighters/terrorists advocating for oil lobby or that they have any link to the military industrial complex. They refer to religious ideas or to local ideas. And again it does not mean that there aren't any other forces at play. The problem with looking at those events only through the prism of Al-Quida/ good against evil is that it ignores the real local problem that are exploited by political actors that use religion/ethnicity/nationalism to influence and mobilize disadvantages populations.
This shows how complex the situation is. Looks like one group will be removed from the formula (or at least may change name or go covert) and then there will be a restructuring of the fight, for sure, utilizing Petro-Dollars!
Bassam, I will go back to our previous debate on the interchanging/using ideology versus diplomacy and along these lines religion is used to fuel the ground battles to reach to diplomatic compromises when parties decide to consolidate under whatever title related to Peace.
Hi guys
Latest news show that the same fanatics are killing each other. Another proof about the complexity of the situation. On the other side of the issue, western countries are happy to sit and observe that hundreds of the religiously moved fighters are dead!
Hi guys,
We can locate arab spring in financial capitalist crisis all over the world. The question of the so called Arab Spring is in reality local social movements against economic, social inequalities entailed by Nation States policies linked to and depending on Neoliberal capitalist system. Tunisia succeeded somehow the democratic transition but is still facing main challenges of implementing revolution objectives: Freedom, dignity, and equity. How to achieve those objectives?
All humans existing on this planet owe their existence to the same Creator, so how come there are so many religions. There is an unholy spiritual power behind the " Arab Spring" which rejoices in the massacre of innocent blood. This power hides under politics and false religion. However, the visible cause of a political revolution is the way in which wealth and labour is distributed. This revoutionary chaos is being fueled by satanic powers, but let everyone be warned " Our creator is not asleep" . The Lord will bring every deed to judgement. Dont worry you people of Middle East, it shall be over soon, even the devil knows he has but a short time, his destiny has been decided.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Social Media