The Arab Spring (a partial collection)

[Bill Moore]

Bob,

Don't disagree with the general pattern. I would say that you could compare it to the revolutions of 1848 in Europe. Even though things were changing they had not reached a tipping point toward republican rule. There were still powerful forces trying to hang onto the dynastic monarchies. Likewise, there are forces trying to maintain the power of religion in the Arab world. This may seem like BS to some (or most) but it seems pretty obvious to me.

In any case, the question isn't who is going to win, the question is, "why is it happening now?" I would argue that it has to do with a growing middle class ala Schumpeter (Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy). What that would mean is that force has little direct roll in the transition. It has to happen on its own.

Force probably won't determine the ultimate outcome, but it does have a way of delaying the progress of a trend. If we would understood the trend, and it didn't scare us, maybe we would be less inclined to stick our nose into the midst of these evolutions (revolutions) with the goal of solving a problem that doesn't really exist. On the other hand if we really understood the trend and believed it was moving in a direction that was favorable to our interests we may be able to assert just a little energy/support in the right areas to help it alone. I think we did this with the Soladarity movement.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I think we have reasons to be afraid. Not of the Islamists but of the general pattern. If we follow the idea that what you see in the Arab Spring is akin to the revolutions of 1848 then what follows next is a period of instability ultimately culminating in a period of fierce nationalism. At the risk of sounding crazy I am going to advise you to watch for a wave of abstract or impressionist art sweeping across the Arab world. Allong with those radical shifts in the art world will come changes in the political philosophy's. The ethnic/tribal bonds will lose grip replaced by nationalism. Then expext old rivalries to be revived.

[davidbfpo]

Maybe the comparisons with 1848 resonate as those events were across Europe and the strength of the conservative state(s) response (I did study the period a very long time ago and recall only a little now). Solidarity in Poland is a far better comparison, partly as this trade union-led movement worked in combination with the Catholic church.

Common to these revolutions is the attempt to empower those excluded from political power - which is what we saw and see in the 'Arab Spring'.

What I do find curious with the 'Arab Spring' is that the middle classes who had been suborned - economically - by their rulers; Syria is a good example with so many dependent on state benefits, effectively decided change was necessary. I don't know the details, but suspect the middle classes were not in the lead, they responded to those socially beneath them - usually to now unacceptable state responses to dissent and protest.

Reading today I came across this comment by the UK's UN Ambassador in June 2011:

There will be an Arab Summer....It will be chaotic and it will be uneven, and it may take a generation to get from Spring to Summer, but it will happen right across the region.

In January 2012 the UK Foreign Secretary in a letter to 'The Times' wrote:

To say that Arab Spring has turned into cold winter is wrong...The
Arab Spring was always going to be a long process, not an instant fix. It was bound to take different forms in each country. The staging of genuine elections in countries that have been denied them for decades is significant. But it is what happens after elections that will determine success or failure.

Link for the quotes see citations 124 & 126 on pgs.54-55:https://www.fpri.org/docs/201303.wes...rab_spring.pdf

[TheCurmudgeon]

Why I see the revolutions of 1848 as a better comparison has to do with the social and economic changes that were occurring across Europe and the frustration of the population at the lack of change in the governments. I am going to lay out my argument without citation, so I apologize for that at the start.

There had been Republics across Europe pretty much ever since the fall of the Roman Empire but, despite being a dictator, Napoleon spread a republican ideals in the countries he occupied. The ones with less of a democratic history. In addition, countries like Barvaria restructured their social systems to create the ability to conduct mass mobilizations. This led to a population whose lives were changing in a liberal way but whose governmental systems were still autocratic. Using the Davies "J-curve" (yeah, I know, you don't like it) you end up with people with rising expectation that hit a wall. The result is revolution. And not just one, but a series of cascading revolutions across several countries. Pent up anger released. In many cases the result was massive repression, but the mold had been cast. With the constant rise in economic wealth which eventually trickled down to the general population things were going to change.

(A parallel to this is an increase in abstract thinking. I am not going to explain this idea in depth, but it led to the rise of nationalism - a somewhat abstract idea for non-island nations. The reason for my other comment.)

In any case, the parallel between the two situation is the rise in an economic middle class and the increase in the idea of liberalism. Eventually the people demand more and when they don't get it through normal means the result is revolution. Now, only a portion of the population actually are pushing for revolution based on liberalism. Others are along for the ride. If the liberals do not have the majority and if they push for modern democracy too quickly, bypassing republicanism, you end up with countries that elect non-democratic governments.

This is my working hypotenuse

One other thing. As you noted it is now unacceptable to use certain tactics. In 1848 there were very few democracies who were assisting the revolutionaries, or at least looking to punish government's who chose to use repressive tactics. The result was a longer transition to democracy. Today, there are many countries aiding the revolutionaries and expecting Utopian results. But the society has not truly transitioned to liberalism. Democracy comes too quickly. Social change takes time even when pushed. Expect instability for many years to come as each of these societies work things out for themselves.