Posted by Shyam Moondra
Abraham Lincoln's epic words "government of the people, by the people, for the people" are finally ringing true in the ears of the Arabs. A protester in Cairo, Egypt pointedly asked "if the United States can have a new president every four years, why can't we?" The revolution that began in a tiny country, Tunisia, quickly became a tsunami of revolutions sweeping through the North African continent.
What happened?
The revolution began in Tunisia that was ruled for 23 years by a ruthless dictator named Zine Ben Ali, who colored his hair to mask the fact that he oppressed his countrymen for such a long time. On December 17, 2010, a 26-year old street fruit vendor, Mohammed Bouazizi, got upset when a local municipal official confiscated his weighing scale to extort bribe from Bouazizi. When he complained, the female official slapped him. This made Bouazizi so mad that he poured gasoline on himself and set his body on fire. He later died and the news spread among the youth like a firestorm over Facebook and Twitter and thus began the revolution. The people took offence at the indignity that Bouazizi suffered at the hands of a corrupt government official.
Tunisia's revolutionary fireball quickly spread to neighboring Egypt, which was also suffering from the same problems of corruption, nepotism, and oppression under President Hosni Mubarak. After eighteen days of massive protests, Mubarak, who ruled Egypt for three decades with an iron fist, resigned. Protests spread to major cities of Jordan, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, and Oman. Jordan and Bahrain promptly sacked the governments and offered concessions but those proved to be inadequate and protests continued. The people wanted fundamental changes in the constitution that made the governments accountable to the people. The revolution turned deadly in Libya that has been ruled over forty years by erratic madman, Muammar Gaddafi, who is still fighting to remain in power by promising a bloody civil war. Inspired by all this were an attempt by the Iranian opposition to wage a protest in Tehran and a feeble attempt at "jasmine" rally in China. Nevertheless, the dam of oppressive regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere is crumbling down and it's just the beginning of a painful process of establishing a new world order.
Why now?
While the incident of self-immolation in Tunisia lit the powder keg of revolution, the suddenness of the revolution and its intensity caught everybody off-guard. The people in the region have been living under dictatorial rule for decades without any political freedom. However, the younger people (that now account for a majority of the population) were restless because of chronic high unemployment and lack of opportunities for realizing their dreams. The rampant corruption among the officials at the top, who were enjoying lavish life-style, was deeply resented by the population at large. The youth seized the moment and used Facebook and Twitter to galvanize the revolution. Thanks to Internet, the youngsters were more knowledgeable about how the kids lived and what they did in developed countries, and they very much wanted to emulate those life styles. The older generation was also unhappy but they were too afraid to speak up in a police state. However, when they saw the brave young people protesting in masses, they overcame their fear and felt like they had nothing to lose. This seemed like a scene from the 1976 movie "Network" in which a deranged TV news anchor (played by Peter Finch) fed up with his life went hysterical during a live broadcast, asking people to go to their windows and scream "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this any more." The protests were not fueled by any Islamic fundamentalist groups; so it is unlikely that Iran-like religious mullahs would take over the new governments, as feared in the western countries. This revolution is in its truest sense a revolution of the masses across all faiths and ethnic groups and not driven by any particular anti-western group.
What does this mean?
Islamic radicalism will decline: The stereotype fear is that Islamic radicals will takeover the freed countries, in the mode of Iran. That appears to be very unlikely. The revolts are being driven by generally younger people who are more adapt with the modern world and technologies and all they want is more opportunities for themselves. The younger generation doesn't subscribe to the old rigid Islamic rules. Besides, they will be busy rebuilding their countries, so they wouldn't have time for radical indoctrination.
Al Qaeda will become irrelevant: Al Qaeda had it easy recruiting brain-washed young followers because of their anger at the Western countries that supported dictatorial regimes in the Middle East. Now that those regimes are crumbling, these young people are in control and thus they don't need Al Qaeda to fight for their cause. These young people, relatively more educated than the rest of the population, have more at stake and they would rather work collaboratively with the Western world on technologies, education, and trade so that they can improve their own living standards.
Free-market principles will take hold: The democratic governmental institutions and empowered younger people will lead to non-orthodox attitudes and approaches, fueling faster modernization of many of these backward countries. They will derive lessons from such democracies as India and Brazil that achieved spectacular economic growth and technology prowess with free-market policies.
Trade opportunities for industrialized countries will increase: Democratic institutions and reduced corruption will lead to more active participation of industrialized countries in trying to help these backward countries with their development efforts that will create more trading opportunities with them in the future. The Obama administration should be pro-active in helping the younger generation in these countries to modernize their countries.
How did Obama do?
President Barack Obama and the U.S. intelligence apparatus got caught off-guard by the suddenness of the revolution and the speed with which it spread throughout the North African region. By and large, Obama handled it very well. He expressed support for the people who wanted democracy and more freedoms and warned the rulers against using violent means to suppress peaceful protests. Obama's job got a little complicated with respect to Egypt, which was ruled by Mubarak, a close ally of the U.S. and Israel. However, in the end, Obama had no choice but to support the desires of the Egyptian people. Obama even leveraged our close military-to-military ties to nudge them to be more forthcoming with the necessary constitutional changes to satisfy the demands of the people. In Libya, when Gaddafi released weapons to his supporters and brought in African mercenaries to violently stop the protesters, some Republican conservatives criticized Obama for not taking more direct military action against the Gaddafi regime (such as imposing no-fly zones). I think Obama was right in not injecting the U.S. military might in the midst of a civil war because the minute he did that, the Islamic fundamentalists would have redirected the revolution and turned it into an anti-American campaign. The people in that region have to earn their freedom by themselves without a direct intervention by any outsider; only then, the revolution would endure, have a lasting impact, and it would be legitimate. In any case, Europe has far more at stake in Libya, especially Italy, than the U.S. Therefore, if there is a need for outside intervention, it would have to be in the form of a multilateral effort. Obama could have given a stronger moral support to Libyan revolutionaries and called for Gaddafi's departure sooner than he did; however, given the fact that there were thousands of Americans stranded in Libya, Obama needed to lay low to get them out first before taking a harder stand against Gaddafi. All in all, Obama provided a calm and wise leadership and he should be given high marks.
Who is next?
When one stops fearing fear itself, impossible things become possible. The revolution that started in Tunisia will resonate with the people throughout the region and beyond. What has happened in the last few weeks would make other countries ponder about their own destiny more diligently than ever before. It's natural for all humans to have a desire to be free and to feel empowered to shape their own future. Therefore, it's unlikely that a revolution of this magnitude would just fade away. In coming weeks and months, we will undoubtedly see more of this in such countries as Syria, Saudi Arabia, China, Venezuela, Russia, Cuba, and North Korea. Each country will come up with its own version of democracy, hopefully with more freedoms and rights for the people than they have today.
