According to the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, yes, they will occur. Of course, he also believes in UFO's and claims to be Muslim so hopefully I will be forgiven if I have a difficult time taking his words at face value. This is, after, the same man who admitted that his incendiary rhetoric "may" have led to the assassination of his former mentor, Malcolm X - though he has been often accused of a far more complicit role in the murder. And this does not even mention his relationship to currently embattled Libyan leader Moammar Qadhafi. Yes, it would seem that Brother Minister Loius Farrakhan has a slightly twisted relationship with reality so, while I will not argue that an uprising similar to what is currently engulfing many states in the Middle East is impossible in the United States, I will certainly have a difficult time believing that Mr. Farrakhan has any prescient (and unbiased) views on the issue.
But can uprisings like those in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya and others occur in the US (or even in Western Europe)? Absolutely they can! Note that I said they can occur, not that they *will* occur. The reality, as difficult as it may be to admit, is that no nation is impervious to the types of internal strife and difficulties that are now striking the Middle East. They can, however, be sublimated or hidden from general view until they explode into the open. Much as western analysts failed to predict the actual failure of the Soviet Union (though they had predicted ad nauseum that it would fail eventually?!), so, too, did they fail to understand and predict the massive changes now occurring in the Middle East. What had been a relatively stable, if autocratic social and political structure has begun to show just how fragile it truly was. Tunisia and Egypt fell without the sort of repressive crackdown that had been expected. Iran, Libya and Syria have all felt the tremors and moved to crack down either before it could begin in earnest (Iran and Syria) or in a massacre of protesters whose crime was to speak out against the ruling tyranny. Similar protests have occurred in Jordan, Bahrain, Oman and Yemen, among others and the response has been varied between seeking to placate the protesters and simply killing them in armed responses.
Some of these nations were stable and educated while others were poor and not as educated. But the one thing that they all hold in common is the lack of accountability on the part of the government. All operate under a form of dictatorship - whether by a singular, titular leader (Qadhafi, Mubarak, Assad), a group (Bahraini Sunnis) or even faux electoral processes (Iran). None operated under the idea of Western electoral democratic ideals where leaders are held accountable to the people under whose name and authority they allegedly rule. Yet, in spite of the many variations that existed within each nation, all now experience the tidal wave of frustration that has risen up in the form of revolutions that seek to improve the lives of the protesters.
It is also worth noting that more than a few countries and organizations throughout the world are also taking note of these protests and their successes and failures. China is very worried about protests there and is clamping down hard on noted activists at the hint of any sign of discontent - even though it seems that they are not leading any charge in that direction. And it seems likely that nations in Central Asia (including Pakistan and other former Soviet republics) are very wary of such a tidal wave of revolution spreading to them.
And this leads us back to the question of whether a similar uprising can occur in the US. While there is certainly a possibility of such a level of discontent that could threaten to erupt into a revolution, it does not yet seem to exist in the US. This does not mean to imply that it could not change but there is not the same level of discontent within a majority of the population that would stimulate such a revolution - however much Mr. Farrakhan may hope to proclaim or incite one. This does not mean there are not problems that cause anger, angst, frustration or other responses as there most certainly are. However, there are other recourses available to the citizens that allow them to vent their feelings without building up to the point of a revolution. In the US, life may not always be perfect or even comfortable all of the time, but pushing down on people until they rise up and explode in anger is not a better solution and that is certainly clear in the Middle East today.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Excuses
(I'm not sure if writing in the early morning is such a good idea but the idea was in my head and woke me up with the need to write it down. Hopefully this is more cogent than I feel at the moment.)
In the last two months, there has been a tidal wave of change in the Middle East. It began with Tunisia, quickly followed by Egypt and now threatens countries all over the Middle East and North Africa (though it is worth pondering if it will stop there). Bahrain, Libya, Iran, Jordan and Yemen (among others) are all threatened with the possibility of regime change. The leadership of those countries are all deeply concerned about the possibility of being toppled and are working to determine strategies that will enable them to stay in power. Those strategies seem to vary from the pragmatic to the "we really do think you're stupid" approach.
Iran, for example, is actually boasting that Tunisia and Egypt's revolutions are based on their own "Islamic Revolution" from 1979 - despite any evidence that they were led by any Islamic organizations (if anything, the Muslim Brotherhood in both nations tagged along once the revolutions were well on their way). Egypt, from the other side of that argument, claimed that its regime was preventing an Islamist takeover. Libya has today claimed that the protests are being staged by hooligans and illegal immigrants! (It's very hard to resist a jab at the "nativist" argument that is so prevalent on one side of the US political spectrum today.) Indeed, each of the leaders, in essence, argues that they must stay in power in order to prevent calamity and disaster should the unwashed masses succeed in overthrowing them.
While it is still very early in both Tunisia and Egypt, there has been no marked change that would propel either nation toward a French Revolution scenario of chaos and anarchy - though it is worth pointing out that there is obvious concern both internal and external to both nations in that regard. If anything, there has been a general happiness at the removal of a tyrannical dictatorship that will hopefully evolve toward a more democratic form in the future. There is no way to know if the same should continue in all cases - statistics alone would indicate that is not likely to be so. Indeed, the violence that has erupted in Libya as Qadhafi struggles to maintain his power seems to point toward a struggle that could explode when/if he does fall. The Bahraini leadership is similarly struggling to maintain its hold on power and has not refrained from violence, either. And the violence used by the regime in Iran actually dates back to the last (disputed) elections and is clearly a sign of the concern that government has over its own internal dissent against otherwise peaceful protesters. But it is easy to argue that the violent upheaval that has begun in those two nations was brought on by a leadership desperate to stay in power and is therefore the chaos they warn against is of the government's own doing and not that of the revolution nor its adherents.
What does seem clear, however, is that the excuses each country's leadership makes for staying in power seem to no longer be working with their respective citizens. And, if history is any indication (and it should be), a government cannot continue when the people have either lost faith in it or lost fear of it. It seems that the "change" that was such a mantra in the 2008 US presidential elections has moved around the world and is more of a force elsewhere than with the man who claimed it as his mantle.
In the last two months, there has been a tidal wave of change in the Middle East. It began with Tunisia, quickly followed by Egypt and now threatens countries all over the Middle East and North Africa (though it is worth pondering if it will stop there). Bahrain, Libya, Iran, Jordan and Yemen (among others) are all threatened with the possibility of regime change. The leadership of those countries are all deeply concerned about the possibility of being toppled and are working to determine strategies that will enable them to stay in power. Those strategies seem to vary from the pragmatic to the "we really do think you're stupid" approach.
Iran, for example, is actually boasting that Tunisia and Egypt's revolutions are based on their own "Islamic Revolution" from 1979 - despite any evidence that they were led by any Islamic organizations (if anything, the Muslim Brotherhood in both nations tagged along once the revolutions were well on their way). Egypt, from the other side of that argument, claimed that its regime was preventing an Islamist takeover. Libya has today claimed that the protests are being staged by hooligans and illegal immigrants! (It's very hard to resist a jab at the "nativist" argument that is so prevalent on one side of the US political spectrum today.) Indeed, each of the leaders, in essence, argues that they must stay in power in order to prevent calamity and disaster should the unwashed masses succeed in overthrowing them.
While it is still very early in both Tunisia and Egypt, there has been no marked change that would propel either nation toward a French Revolution scenario of chaos and anarchy - though it is worth pointing out that there is obvious concern both internal and external to both nations in that regard. If anything, there has been a general happiness at the removal of a tyrannical dictatorship that will hopefully evolve toward a more democratic form in the future. There is no way to know if the same should continue in all cases - statistics alone would indicate that is not likely to be so. Indeed, the violence that has erupted in Libya as Qadhafi struggles to maintain his power seems to point toward a struggle that could explode when/if he does fall. The Bahraini leadership is similarly struggling to maintain its hold on power and has not refrained from violence, either. And the violence used by the regime in Iran actually dates back to the last (disputed) elections and is clearly a sign of the concern that government has over its own internal dissent against otherwise peaceful protesters. But it is easy to argue that the violent upheaval that has begun in those two nations was brought on by a leadership desperate to stay in power and is therefore the chaos they warn against is of the government's own doing and not that of the revolution nor its adherents.
What does seem clear, however, is that the excuses each country's leadership makes for staying in power seem to no longer be working with their respective citizens. And, if history is any indication (and it should be), a government cannot continue when the people have either lost faith in it or lost fear of it. It seems that the "change" that was such a mantra in the 2008 US presidential elections has moved around the world and is more of a force elsewhere than with the man who claimed it as his mantle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)