Nations, not governments, will make the new Middle East

IRD: The recent popular uprisings in the Middle East have until now toppled two dictators, in Tunisia and Egypt, and have shattered the pillars of three other Arab countries, namely Libya, Bahrain and Yemen. In addition, it is not a farfetched notion that other countries in the region will be influenced by a domino effect. The nature of these uprisings deserve deep contemplation, which can make research and media centers, as well as Middle East and international relation analysts, busy for a while.

Revolution or reform- Islamic awakening or civil movement?

The truth is that the international community has not yet come up with the literature to label these developments. The people who stood up against their authoritarian regimes would like to call their movements revolutions. On the other hand, there are others who are awaiting the results of these developments, and raise conspiracy theories due to the implicit and explicit efforts by the West in its attempt to control the situation. Therefore, these people are very cautious in using the word “revolution” for these uprisings.

Some of the analysts in our country see the current uprisings in terms of Islamic awakenings and revolution; they consider the 1979 Islamic Revolution of Iran an inspiration for these uprisings. That is while in the Arab world no one has revealed any Islamic intentions yet. This is to the extent that the Muslim Brotherhood--the oldest Islamist contemporary group which considers political Islam and “Islam is the solution” as their slogan--has not talked about any religious demands in the recent uprisings, and claims that it has no intentions of gaining power or of imposing its will on the people.

In Bahrain, the protesters, who are mostly Shiites, try to demonstrate that their opposition goes beyond tribal or religious demands. That is why they have joined a coalition with two opposing leftist Sunni groups, and to be clear they have announced that they do not follow the pattern of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Inciting religious conflicts and claiming dependence on Iran are two charges which the government and the supporters of Al Khalifa could use against the protesters. 

Others in the Arab world first tried to label the recent uprisings as a “bread revolution”. In other words, they tied these movements to economic factors--poverty and unemployment, particularly when the spark for all these movements was the symbolic act of a young, educated Tunisian who immolated himself due to poverty and the confiscation of his wares by the police. However, this label was abandoned as the protests became more widespread and the protesters’ demands in different countries became diverse.

The demands of the people in the Middle East consist of a vast range of economic, social, and political desires. Anti-authoritarianism, democracy, the rotation of power, freedom of speech and freedom of political activities, participation in decision making, justice, and fighting the manifestations of economic corruption are common demands among all protesters. If these are the common demands of the Middle Eastern people, then we have to expect more countries to join these movements. From this perspective, these protests are seen as civil demands. The truth is that we cannot deny the influence of political, social, and economic disparities in forming the nature of this phenomenon.

On the other hand, the form of these protests that have similarities and are yet largely influenced by local factors can be investigated in analyzing the nature of these uprisings. While Tunisians and Egyptians were able to peacefully force the dictators to leave the countries, leaving behind few casualties, and in Bahrain and Yemen limited violence would have been used against protesters if Saudi Arabia had not intervened; in Libya we are witnessing an actual war between the people and Muamar Gaddafi. 

It is undeniable that people in these Arab countries were not intent on using violence but in the end, it was the regimes that used violence to stop the protesters. In order to maintain their relation with the people and to prevent the repetition of their experience with Iran, the US did not allow dictators in Tunisia and Egypt to use the scorched earth policy after they became sure that their allies could not stand against the will of their own people. But in Libya, Gaddafi explicitly asked his people to choose between him or war; however, prior to Gaddafi, Mubarak had used the same notion but his army was not willing to risk its legitimacy in order to save Mubarak. 

There are no structures within Libya to inhibit the dictator; therefore, he is burning and ruining everything he can. International mechanisms are very slow and inefficient in stopping him. Therefore, the people of Libya have no other choice than to fight back and bear heavy losses, although they started with peaceful protests at first. In Yemen and Bahrain, we are witnessing a new type of suppression. The army of another country has intervened in the conflicts between the government and the people.   This is the most unwise way of opposing the protesters, since it rapidly erodes the legitimacy of the government and the intervening forces, and it increases the probability of war and creates a situation similar to Libya. In the era of the awakening of the nations of Middle east, the use of double standards by rulers and great powers only makes the situation worse and increases the nations’ anger.

The form of protest is an influential factor in setting the level of demands. The more violent the protests become, the more radical the demands will be. Therefore, the United States has to stop using double standards. If it condemns the intervention of foreign forces in Tunisia and Egypt, then it should do the same in Bahrain and Yemen as well. These double standards will only increase the hatred that nations feel for the US, and undermine Obama’s efforts in creating a better image for his country. America’s behavior toward the oil-rich region of the Middle East is not based on international law or American values. In the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula, Yemen faces a different situation. It has no oil and is not a wealthy country, but two characteristics make Yemen an important country for the US. First is its strategic location and control over the Bab al Mandeb and the Red Sea, and second the fertility of Yemeni society and geography for al-Qaeda activities.

Ali Abdullah Saleh has accepted to change the constitution and to replace the current system with a parliamentary system; that is, if the people let if him stay in power until 2013. Obviously, the protesters have not accepted his concession. However, unlike Mubarak and Ben Ali, he is not under US pressure to leave power. This is because the Americans have no picture of the future of this poor and populated country located to the south of oil-rich Saudi Arabia. Hence, Ali Abdullah Saleh has been able to still hold on to his shaky power.

Ideology or political pluralism?

Even though no single literature has been agreed upon regarding the recent Arab uprisings, and the results or the scope of these uprisings are not clear yet, perhaps the following conclusions could be offered on this issue.

-The era of the left-dominated literature on Middle Eastern uprisings has come to an end, and people are emphasizing that their demands and struggles are far away from the leftist thinking of previous decades. The form of their struggle is peaceful, and they demand peaceful behavior from dictators and want their replacement with popular systems, which is very unlike the coercive and revengeful demands of the left.

-Two slogans were widely used in all these Arab countries: “the people demand the overthrow of the regime” and “go”. This means that the people are telling the dictator to leave and they demand the overthrow of the whole regime. A replacement system based on a common ideology is not offered, either. However, even Islamist parties like the Muslim Brotherhood want the constitution and the new system to be determined by the representatives of people.

-The current uprisings are taking place in the Arab world where most people are Muslims; therefore, it is normal for them to use religious events like Friday prayers, along with social networks, as a means of organizing their protests. Nevertheless, their demands are neither Arabic-tribal nor ideological. It seems that after decades of nationalist and Islamists groups’ domination over popular movements, now we are in a new era where democracy has found a greater chance in realizing the pluralistic demands of the people. 

-A Middle East in which Egypt and other Arab countries have democratic regimes and not authoritarian regimes dependent on the West, will have new regional and security characteristics. So far, the security of the region has been explained based on the mutual interests of autocrats dependent on the West and the West itself--the people and their demands were absent from this equation. However, we can already surmise that in the new Middle East the people and their democratic governments will be among the major actors in this equation.