Rethinking
the “revolution”
Published on Sharnoff Global Views - June 2013
By Dr. Elie Abouaoun – Executive Director – Arab Human Rights Fund -June
2013
Almost two years after Mohammed-Tarek
Bou Azizi’s slap on the face ignited a “Jasmin revolution”, the Arab public
opinion remains divided over the reasons, the methods and outcomes of what has
been called the “Arab Spring”.
This unexpected uprising
in a region where everything, including the regimes, seemed to be set in stone
has been perceived and interpreted in many ways, sometimes in delusive ways.
While the most optimistic forecasts imagine a happy end following a transition
phase, skeptics in the region are already cursing another set of “coups d’état
set up by some regional powers”. In between, you would find all sorts of
scenarios, theories and polarized interpretations.
If there is one sure
thing about the “Arab Spring”, it is definitely the fact that the visible
concrete outcomes so far are not encouraging. Except the killing, hibernation
or imprisonment of some dictators, there is a prevailing impression that the
constituents, underlying mentalities, processes and procedures of the toppled
regimes are still there, as they were or slightly mutated to fit the new
landscape. The proponents of this theory think that the remnants of the past
era are not on their way out. In some cases, they might have been strengthened
actually. What is meant here are not the faces themselves but rather how
“things were done” before 2011 and how “they are done” now. So it is more about
the approach and mentalities rather than the persons. At that level, there
seems to be very little progress to be reported.
While it is unrealistic
to expect quick and radical changes in just a couple of years, the worrying
indicator is rather about whether a real transition process has started or not.
In some circles, analogies are drawn between the current changes in the Arab
region and the transition of the East European countries in the nineties
following the dislocation of the Soviet Empire. In most of these countries, the
transition was long and painful with some security problems in few cases. In
comparison with today’s context in the Arab region, two major differences can
be highlighted: the first one has to do with the low level of violence
witnessed in the Eastern European countries despite a high political tension
and very controversial and complicated issues such as forced demographic
changes (by the Soviets), handling the minorities’ cases, challenges related to
transitional justice, rebuilding economies, reforming state institutions
including the military…etc. The second difference is the palpable progress that
people felt as they progressed in the transition, sometimes only within a
period of months or few years. The most noticeable one is the radical change in
how State affairs were dealt with; an element that the Arab societies did not
see happening yet.
Despite the important
historical milestone of the Jasmin revolution in Tunisia, this latter was not
the first transition happening in an Arab State. Saddam Hussein was toppled in
2003 and Iraq went into a transitional phase that was characterized by a civil
war. Most importantly, State affairs were handled almost the same way as
pre-2003. Although elections took place, the successive “elected” Prime
Ministers tried to assert their power in a way that is little different than
what Saddam has done in the 1980’s. The Baath security apparatus was completely
dismantled in 2003 and a brand new one put in place. However this did not
change the behavior of the newly formed security bodies nor did it change how
they are perceived by the population. State agents used the same “black bags”
to cover the faces of the persons they went to arrest arbitrarily, torture and
detain in secret prison and/or inhumane conditions.
In 2005, Lebanon moved
from the Pax Syriana era to a new one characterized by a civic awakening
following the assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri. Eight years later,
the Lebanese still suffer from the same problems. Not only nothing has improved
but most of the bad practices (corruption, discrimination, torture, illegal
detention, absence of social policies, political feudalism, social violence,
flawed and politicized judiciary, tampering with constitutional deadline and
processes…) , then attributed to Syria’s hegemony, proliferated in a worrying
manner. Lebanese feel they are back to
square one.
Many examples can also be
cited in Libya (assassinations, new forms of despotism, corruption…) as well as
Egypt (use of the military to protect the ruler than the system, corruption,
discrimination against minorities, low level of tolerance, influence of the
military over civilian and State Affairs, attempts to curb down the legislative
and judiciary power…).
It seems obvious that
what is happening is more about the overthrow of regimes but not existing social
orders. Dare we call this a revolution?
A revolution by
definition goes beyond the change of the ruling elite to reach out to the
social order and social organization; two aspects that are still missing in the
current uprisings. It must be coupled by a change in the social behavior and
lead to an “evolution” of the social paradigms. This cannot be achieved without
the involvement of all social structures not only in public actions
(demonstrations, sit-ins, protests, marches…) but most importantly through the
generation of a new social order and a reform of the underlying structures.
This means that the social constituents have to revisit their norms, change
their behavior and reform all the components of the ecosystem. Changing a
regime by a “violent”, “corrupt” or “intolerant” society will surely lead to
the rebirth of the same attitudes and behaviors within the power structures; a
phenomenon that Iraq, Lebanon, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen… are currently witnessing.
Genuinely supporting the
current uprisings involves reminding the active forces in the society that the
focus has to be put on their own constituencies, not on this president or that
minister. Failing to trigger a renewal process at grass root level will lead to
the same end product that everyone is complaining about: new dictatorships.
Thus the layers and targets of the revolution need to be revisited and the
focus reconsidered.
No comments:
Post a Comment