Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Recent uprisings, can we learn from recent history?

1%er

1%er

Well-Known Member
I was listening to an ex diplomat on the radio claiming we can learn a lot when looking to the future of the countries that are currently experiencing uprisings. He claims the best examples are the Islamic revolution in Iran and the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon.

One of these has resulted in an Islamic state and the other has allowed Hezbollah to hold a massive amount of power with-in the goverment of Lebanon.

Is he right? Will some of the countries currently experiencing uprisings follow suit? If so how will this change the balance of power in the region?
 
And yet, the countries of the former eastern block ended up with democracy.

It looks as if Egypt will end up with democracy - probably.

Iran does have elections.
 
1%er said:
I was listening to an ex diplomat on the radio claiming we can learn a lot when looking to the future of the countries that are currently experiencing uprisings. He claims the best examples are the Islamic revolution in Iran and the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon.

One of these has resulted in an Islamic state and the other has allowed Hezbollah to hold a massive amount of power with-in the goverment of Lebanon.

Is he right? Will some of the countries currently experiencing uprisings follow suit? If so how will this change the balance of power in the region?
Click to expand...
I think Hizballah are a different kettle of fish to the Sunni Islamists, after all they are in a coalition with Christian and Socialist parties which are not quite the traditional friends of Islamist groups. Also the Cedar Revolution was intended (and succeeded) in ending the Syrian occupation and their involvement in Lebanese politics (of which Hizballah are part of).

I think the new governments of Afghanistan and Iraq are probably better examples of where these countries might be heading, altho in Egypt one of the main opposition parties has been the Muslim Brotherhood, so there is a possibility that Egypt might go the way of Iran. However, if you look at the history of the Middle East, I think what is more likely to happen is that another group/tribe will worm their way into power under the guise of 'democracy' and we'll see more corrupt governments serving their own interests (eg Afghan/Iraq) but they'll just have more of a leaning towards capitalist economic systems keeping the (newly formed?) middle classes happy.
 
weltweit said:
And yet, the countries of the former eastern block ended up with democracy.

It looks as if Egypt will end up with democracy - probably.

Iran does have elections.
Click to expand...
LOL @ Iran!

And I wouldn't hold your breath with Egypt, we'll see who fills the political void before getting carried away I think.

As for the countries of the Eastern Bloc ending up with democracy, well that's not entirely true. Those that made the most progress were the ones that directly bordered on Western Europe or just about (ie those that joined the EU). Those further away towards Russia made the least progress (Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova). Even Romania and Bulgaria were behind the first group to join and the Balkan states are playing catch up. So I think with the Eastern Bloc geography certainly played a part in their democratisation, with those closer the "democratic Western Europe" making the fastest progress. If geography and proximity to successful democracies does play a part in the speed at which countries democratise then with the absence of such a successfuk Middle Eastern democracy (if we don't include Israel!) then comparing the experiences of Eastern Europe to the possible experiences these Middle East countries might experience may not be a great comparison...
 
CyberRose said:
Those further away towards Russia made the least progress (Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova). Even Romania and Bulgaria were behind the first group to join and the Balkan states are playing catch up. So I think with the Eastern Bloc geography certainly played a part in their democratisation, with those closer the "democratic Western Europe" making the fastest progress. If geography and proximity to successful democracies does play a part in the speed at which countries democratise then with the absence of such a successfuk Middle Eastern democracy (if we don't include Israel!) then comparing the experiences of Eastern Europe to the possible experiences these Middle East countries might experience may not be a great comparison...
Click to expand...

And that the illiberal political traditions go farther back in the others, instead of different politics imposed from above after WWII. Not that that hasn't happened in a different manner since the old bloc crumbled, though.
 
We can indeed learn from the histories of the countries involved in the present wave of democratic uprisings. Unfortunately I doubt if the motley collection of Islamophobes on this thread will actually do so. We can hope.

.The most important single lesson is that despite the underlying assumption of those who claim there is something intrinsically undemocratic in the culture of the so called "Muslim World," the fact is the populations of most of the countries of North Africa and the Middle East have never actually been given an opportunity to put a democratic constitution into practice.

Blaming the people of North Africa and the Middle East for the lack of democracy in these countries is like blaming a slave for his slavery. When the tear gas and shot gun shells fired at protesters reads "made in the USA" It is Orwellian in its dishonesty and cynicism.

The people of these countries live under brutal dictatorships not, contrary to popular opinion, because of the inherent "undemocratic nature of "Islam" (whatever that crude ignorant statement means) but on the contrary because of the post colonial imposition and full support of undemocratic regimes by the West who favour stable client dictatorships over any expression of self determination by the people of this region.

Mubarak, a western puppet if ever there was one, ruled with Western support for 40 years and I defy anyone to point to any significant demand by Western countries for democratic reform in Egypt. No, instead they supplied the guns and the bullets and lots and lots of money to the dictatorships of the region all of whom justified (or in Gaddafi's case justify) their illegitimate power by waving the bogeyman of Islamic revolution as the alternative to dictatorship. Well that lie blew up in their face and I for one am over the moon that it did. They had better Hold onto their seats, it's just beginning.

When the demand for democracy, and human rights did come of course, it was not by the West but by the very people that the Islamophobes dismissed as incapable of managing a democratic regime. And now it has happened in such magnificent inspiring scenes, what do these "Western democrats" do? They dismiss these events and search frantically for Islamic bogeymen under the bed. It's pathetic.


The West, happy for an excuse to support these bastards, were happy to go along. The past few months have totally destroyed that argument. The Egyptian uprising inspired the world, not only because the bravery of those involved but by the honour of its intentions. They threw in the face of the world the stereotypes that had been used to enslave them for decades and built a mass movement with the demands for contstitutional democracy, political accountabilty and human rights at its heart. It is this democratic inclusive mass based nationalism that is at the heart of the events sweeping the region.

the Tunisian and Egyptian people, have destroyed the Orientalist stereotypes which for so long has been used to justify their oppression. They will soon by joined in victory by the Libyan people, and in doing so they shone a light on the hypocrisy of Western governments who, while mouthing platitudes of democracy and human rights , are the real enemies of democracy in the Middle East.

We can see this in one glaring example. Israel. For decades Israel bleated the tired old line that it was the "only democracy in the Middle East" and when a genuinely popular democratic movement emerged in Egypt what did they do? They supported Mubarak.
 
Wasn't sure where to put this but I reckon it could be said to be recent history in the making. Interesting and amusing. :)

 
dylans said:
We can indeed learn from the histories of the countries involved in the present wave of democratic uprisings. Unfortunately I doubt if the motley collection of Islamophobes on this thread will actually do so. We can hope.
Click to expand...
All the protesters are religious activists are they? And YOU accuse everyone else of being prejudiced! LOL!

And for all your wishy washy liberal bollocks explaining why these people live under dictatorships, what makes you think anything will change regards the "Western" view? Do you think America will stand by idly while the Muslim Brotherhood take control of Egypt? Or do you think they'll throw their support behind which ever group appears more pro-West (like in Afghan or Iraq)?
 
CyberRose said:
All the protesters are religious activists are they? And YOU accuse everyone else of being prejudiced! LOL!

And for all your wishy washy liberal bollocks explaining why these people live under dictatorships, what makes you think anything will change regards the "Western" view? Do you think America will stand by idly while the Muslim Brotherhood take control of Egypt? Or do you think they'll throw their support behind which ever group appears more pro-West (like in Afghan or Iraq)?
Click to expand...

As usual you spectacularly miss the point and that is that these uprisings have nothing to do with "what the West wants". For once they are about what the people of this region want. If ever there was a time for not giving a flying fuck what the US "wants", it is now.

The US is already throwing their weight behind "whichever group is more pro West" They supported Mubarak for decades, they were forced to lose him. FORCED. now they support the military regime. They will be forced to lose that too. Because this movement is just beginning. They have reckoned without the unstoppable force of the politically mobilised mass movement of the people of the region.For once it is the masses, not the manipulators, who are in the driving seat. This is what is driving events not what the policy makers in Washington "want".

This is a movement for self determination and, for all the US's attempts to stop it, their actions will prove futile. It is an unstoppable tide. The US is going to lose its empire. This movement will reach across the region, all the way to the Palaces of Riyadh and the gates of Jerusalem and there is nothing, nothing, the US can do to stop it. I for one will be celebrating.
 
dylans said:
As usual you spectacularly miss the point and that is that these uprisings have nothing to do with "what the West wants". For once they are about what the people of this region want. If ever there was a time for not giving a flying fuck what the US "wants", it is now.
Click to expand...
Don't recall making any claims as to why these uprisings are occurring and it was YOUR point that I was repeating about 'what the West wants' so unless you calm down and stop getting so excited then I'm afraid we're not going to get very far discussing this topic...
 
CyberRose said:
Don't recall making any claims as to why these uprisings are occurring and it was YOUR point that I was repeating about 'what the West wants' so unless you calm down and stop getting so excited then I'm afraid we're not going to get very far discussing this topic...
Click to expand...

Get stuffed you patronising wanker
 
dylans said:
I really have no interest in discussing anything with you. Have a nice evening
Click to expand...
You might want to consider your first words in this thread then, considering you have the nerve to call others 'patronising wankers'...

dylans said:
We can indeed learn from the histories of the countries involved in the present wave of democratic uprisings. Unfortunately I doubt if the motley collection of Islamophobes on this thread will actually do so. We can hope.
Click to expand...
I'd say it was the pot calling the kettle black, but you'll probably say that was racist...
 
Idris2002 said:
If you don't count Belarus.
Click to expand...

A majority of the former Soviet republics ended up with less than something which could be called democracy in any meaningful sense; some ended up with harsher dictatorship than the USSR had been for decades.
 
Dylans,

Ok, I've made no secret about my dislike of organised religion and in particular islam which as I've mentioned elsewhere, as broadly practiced when state and religion are conflated, is inherently more oppressive than other religions. I make no apologies for that statement and stand by it (blasphemy laws, anyone?). However, like your excellent critique of Pakistan's history on the other thread, your posts here are heartfelt and deserve a considered response.

I especially liked this:

dylans said:
This is a movement for self determination and, for all the US's attempts to stop it, their actions will prove futile. It is an unstoppable tide. The US is going to lose its empire. This movement will reach across the region, all the way to the Palaces of Riyadh and the gates of Jerusalem and there is nothing, nothing, the US can do to stop it.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis)

:D Stirring stuff indeed!

The impact of the current slew of revolutions on radical islam as a vehicle for change in the region is my concern.

For various reasons (and yes, western foreign policy has played a huge part) radical islam has been highly successful in promoting itself as the panacea for islamic problems. As you identify, the failure of successive governments to deliver freedom, fairness and wealth has cleared the path for revolutionary islam to thrive in circles that previously would have had no time for it.

In the last couple of weeks, seemingly secular uprisings have resulted in the removal of 2 despots with possibly a third going the same way, and several other regimes shitting their pants to provide concessions to ensure similar doesn't happen to their sheikdoms (may they rot in hell). All of a sudden it seems that Osama et al are not the only viable agents for change in the region.

But revolutionary islam is not going to disappear overnight, hence my urging caution.

If these revolutions are co-opted by islamic hardliners, who let's face it, are in abundance and who hold massive sway in the region, the resultant polarization of the west/middle east could make Samuel Huntingdon's "Clash of Civilisations" a very real possibility. The failure of the nationalists after the war, then through the 70s and 80s, combined with some judicious bastardry by the west, particularly Reagan, opened the door to islamic radicalism, but those factors are still in existence. Given recent expeditions in Iraq and Afghanistan, islamic relations with the west are at an all time low. The conditions for the successful co-opting of the revolts by the mullahs are as strong as ever they have been.

I hope you're right and that the educated Young Lions of the middle east prevail in bringing democracy to the region. Peace is a little too much to hope for.

However, given the weight of anti-western/Israel sentiment currently prevailing, you'll forgive me for fearing that this could all go seriously tits-up.

Kaka Tim, you're a twat. :)
 
Spymaster said:
If these revolutions are co-opted by islamic hardliners, who let's face it, are in abundance and who hold massive sway in the region, the resultant polarization of the west/middle east could make Samuel Huntingdon's "Clash of Civilisations" a very real possibility.
Click to expand...

And your evidence for this is what? They jihadis are conspicuous by the absence in these uprisings. The vast majority of people in north africa are not hard line muslims, they want jobs, decent healthcare, decent education and an end to state sponored oppression and corruption.

Contrary to popular western peceptions - which you seem to share - these are not tribal backwaters full of savages - they have comparitively high levels of education and a long long history of cutural interaction with europe.

The popularity of these revolts would seem to stem from the fact that they are not driven by violent jihadism - which has proved itself to be a busted flush and a byword for savagery in Iraq, Afghanistan and Algeria. It is evidence of the decline of militant islamism that these revolts have happened - because people were no longer preared to accept state oppresion being justified by the Al Queada bogeyman.

Why the fuck would the people who have defeated violent regimes with their barehands stand by and let a minority of fundie nutjobs takeover? A group who have played no part whatsoever in the revolution.

There is not a shred of evidence that this is happening - yet half the west seems to believe that Ayatollah Khomeini mark 2 is poised to fly in, be met with hordes of adoring arab masses and impose Sharia law with a quick waggle of his righteous beard.
 
Kaka Tim said:
And your evidence for this is what? They jihadis are conspicuous by the absence in these uprisings.
Click to expand...
That may be the case in most countries but the Muslim Brotherhood has been extremely involved in the Egyptian uprising. Whether they can be described as being as extreme as al-Qaida is another question (I don't believe they are, in fact Hamas was formed because they weren't extreme enough), and hopefully they will intergrate into the new system as Hizballah are in Lebanon, otherwise they may be a source of tension amongst the Egyptian public, especially if they have a polarising effect between Islamists and secularists...
 
Spymaster. Ok now we are on to the substance of things.

It is undeniably true that Islamism, which I have defined as a specific form on religious nationalism, is a serious force in parts of the "Muslim world". It would be absurd to claim otherwise. As it would be absurd to deny it's hold on the popular imagination of many. It is however an ideology. This is the first point and it is important because if we are talking about an ideology then we agree that it is a political force to be taken seriously but to be analysed as one political ideology amongst others and not as an inherent part of or inevitable result of culture or religion

However I am not at all sure if that is what we agree it is. You mention Huntington. Well I have read Huntington as well as "Faith and Power" by Bernard Lewis (the man who actually coined the term "clash of civilisations") But it is clear that their thesis is specifically not talking of Islamism as a competing ideology but they make an altogether more grandiose claim. They claim that there is something in the essence of Islam and the Muslim mindset itself that is inimical to democratic centred values and to the creation of any kind of genuinely democratic political system.

This distinction is vital because if we see Islamism as an ideology. Then we recognise it is as a political idea not as an inevitable result of culture. We can look at it as we look at all political ideologies, as a political philosophy and call to action that is born, flourishes and declines in particular conditions and historical circumstances and one that gains a following (like all ideologies) by offering (seeming) answers to the real and urgent needs that people face.

Like all ideologies it is also in competition with other ideologies and can be countered and fought by ideologies that can better offer real answers to these needs and demands. It is not a static force and it is absolutely not an inherant part of and inevitable consequence of culture which is exactly the claim that the likes of Huntington and Lewis make.

To the likes of Huntington and Lewis Islamism isn't simply a competing narrative amongst others within the "Muslim world" but is arises out of the nature of "Muslim culture" itself. (Apart from anything else, I reject the idea that there is such a single homogeneous culture that can describe a billion people around the globe) They see people in the "Muslim world" as incapable of expressing ideas or holding values outside of a (western interpreted) prism of "Islam." and that because of the "inherently undemocratic anti secular character of Islam" they are thus incapable of fighting for or upholding values which encompass genuinely democratic aspirations such as a defence of human rights, individual liberty or secular political institutions.

It is this thesis with which I disagree and it is this thesis that, whatever the outcome of this wave of revolutions, has been comprehensively refuted by the outstanding actions of the people in Tahrir square.

It is perfectly true that Islamist movements, like all political movements, will try to gain a hearing and a following from the wave of revolutions taking place at the moment. The question is, is this wave of revolts a circumstance that heeds or impedes such movements? Is Islamist ideology stronger or weaker as a result of these events?

To me it seems obvious, that a movement that is focussed on democratic inclusive nationalist demands is anathema to Islamist groups. They tend to be elitist and vanguardist whereas this movement is inclusive and broad based. The principle weapon of the Islamists is the suicide or guerilla strike by committed individuals whereas the principle weapon of these uprisiings has been the mass demonstration.

They tend to be sectarian and specifically religious in their ideologies whereas this movement is explicitly secular and inclusive. That doesn't mean it doesn't use religous symbolism or language. Of course it does, these are religous people, but the religous symbolism has been very human and genuinely cultural and inclusive and as such it has spectacularly presented an image of "the Muslim world" vastly different to the one claimed by both Orientalists such as Huntington and the Islamists both. In fact these events have shown them to be two sides of the same coin.

The image of thousand of people praying in front of riot police or under the spray of water cannon is a religous image, an Islamic image yes, but an image far removed from the ugly sectarianism of Islamism. Who could forget the sight of Christians protecting Muslims as they prayed in Tahrir or Muslims protecting Coptic churches from attack. This is the point. Religous and cultural language can be adopted in many ways and can be used to express political ideas that are both theocratic and sectarian and undemocratic or as in Egypt can express humanity inclusivity and self determination. The cry Alluah Akbar has a very different meaning when it is uttered by a suicide bomber blowing himself up or by a Kid from Cairo who is burying his comrades killed by the police.

One is ugly and exclusive and undemocratic, one is inclusive and liberatory and creative The issue isn't the language or culture, the issue is one of political interpretation of cultural symbols and the meaning and intentions of those using them. Culture can be adopted for a myriad of political aims and the adoption of such cultural or religous language for political aims is always ideological. The question is, what ideology is it?

Finally in answer to my earlier question about who is the winner or loser from all this. It is clear that Islamism has been struck a blow by these events, the elitism, undemocratic utopianism, sectarianism, nihilistic violence all failed to achieve what kids in T shirts have achieved and it is this great wave of mass participatory democratic inspiration that is spreading across the region and inspiring millions, not Islamism. Bin Laden is not a happy bunny as a result of watching these events unfold.
 
dylans said:
It is clear that Islamism has been struck a blow by these events, the elitism, undemocratic utopianism, sectarianism, nihilistic violence all failed to achieve what kids in T shirts have achieved and it is this great wave of mass participatory democratic inspiration that is spreading across the region not Islamism.
Click to expand...

This - in a nutshell.
 
After lunch I had a look at the Economic and Political Weekly, India's equivalent of the New Statesman - except that it's vastly superior, in both intellectual and political terms, to that shabby warhorse of the UK centre-left.

The issue I was reading had a few fascinating articles on the Egyptian revolt: the most important one, for the purposes of this thread is one that talks about why progressive forces will continue to dominate the Egyptian revolt.

It starts off by noting that during the revolt at least one fraction of the Muslim Brothers - the faction associated with big business - flirted with the old regime.

In the past decade this particular wing of the Brothers has been partially co-opted by Mubarak’s government from two angles. First, the Brothers were allowed to enter parliament as independent candidates and have been allowed to participate in the
recent economic boom. The senior Brothers now own major cell phone companies and real estate developments, and have been absorbed into the NDP machine and upper-middle class establishment for years.
Click to expand...

Ranged against them are the progressive forces - not only industrial workers but also a sector described as 'micro-entrepreneurs' so called because they are funded by microcredit of the Grameen bank style. Here's there situation. These are not a group of would-be Dragon's Den types, but people who are feeling life at the sharp end in a dramatic fashion:

Micro-BusinessesEgypt’s micro-businesses have been politicised
and mobilised in very dynamic ways, again with important gender and sexual dimensions. Since the early 1990s, Egypt has cut back welfare and social services to working class and lower middle class Egyptians. In the place of food subsidies and jobs they have offered debt. Micro-credit loans were given, with the IMF and World Bank’s enthusiastic blessing,to stimulate entrepreneurship and self-reliance. These loans were often specifically
targeted towards women and youth. Since economically disadvantaged applicants have no collateral to guarantee these loans, payback is enforced by criminal
law rather than civil law. This means that your body is your collateral. The police
extract pain and humiliation if you do not pay your bill.
Thus the micro-enterprise system has become a massive set of police rackets and “loan shark” operations. Police sexualised brutalisation of youth and women became central to the “regulation” of the massive small-business economy. In this context, the micro-business economy is a tough place to operate, but it does shape women and youth into tough survivors who see themselves as an organised force opposed to the police-state. No one waxes on about the blessings of the market’s invisible hand. The economic interests of this large class of micro- entrepreneurs are the basis for the huge and passionate anti-police brutality movement. It is no coincidence that the movement became a national force two years ago with the brutal police murder of a youth, Khaled Saeed, who was typing away in a small internet café that he partially owned. Police demanded an ID and a bribe from him; he refused, and the police beat him to death, crushing his skull to pieces while the whole community watched in horror.
Police demanding bribes, harassing
Click to expand...

The killing of Khaled Saeed, it appears, was one of the major sparks to the movement that eventually took over Tahrir Square.

I somehow doubt that a Muslim Brotherhood many of whose cadres are compromised by their close association with a regime they pretended to oppose will be able to appeal to people in that position.

(anyone who wants to read the whole thing can PM me their email address and I'll forward it on.)
 
Dylans,

You've made the standard refutation of "The Clash of Civilisations?"; that the paper ignores differences within cultures, and doesn't take into account the requirements of the populations (or lack thereof) as a driving force behind conflict. I'd agree that's pretty uncontroversial now, but the primary thrust of Huntington's theory is that the main causes of future international political contention will be along cultural and religious lines, and that's pretty difficult to overturn.

I'm mindful of the fact that you reject the possibility, but do you doubt that if radical islam were to co-opt these revolutions, that the world would be a worse place than if they didn't happen at all?

This distinction is vital because if we see Islamism as an ideology. Then we recognise it is as a political idea not as an inevitable result of culture. We can look at it as we look at all political ideologies, as a political philosophy and call to action that is born, flourishes and declines in particular conditions and historical circumstances and one that gains a following (like all ideologies) by offering (seeming) answers to the real and urgent needs that people face.
Click to expand...

Spot on, and I recognised this in my previous post. The ideology itself, necessarily asserts that islam is not only a religion, but a political system seen as a panacea for muslim woes. My previous point therefore stands. That the conditions do exist for the blokes with beards to make capital from the uprisings. Your contention that the fundamental drivers behind the revolutions are diametrically opposed to those of radicalism, whilst reasonable at face value, just seem a little over-optimistic at this early stage.

You may be absolutely correct, I hope you are. I'm just keeping my powder dry for a couple of months to see how it all shakes out.

I enjoy reading your posts, they're well informed and thought out. Sorry that this response is a bit rushed but I'm posting from work and unable to put in the effort that I'd like to!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tim
The man from Del Monte, he say "murder people who steal pineapples"
Replies
2
Views
451
dylanredefined
dylanredefined
Rob Ray
Italy doubles "wealthy foreigner" flat tax
Replies
0
Views
198
Rob Ray
Rob Ray
Bingoman
Are we now in a new cold war?
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
RD2003
RD2003
Bingoman
Vehicle explodes on US Canadian border
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
kenny g
kenny g
YouSir
Global Fallout from the Ukraine War
Replies
23
Views
2K
not-bono-ever
not-bono-ever
Back
Top Bottom