The spring continues…

11 Jun 2013

Courtesy of The Telegraph

There is no need to include links here to describe the mainstream agreement on the so-called “Arab Spring”. Almost ever commentator agrees that it has become a failure. Rather than bringing the promised brighter future of “freedom, justice and dignity,” it has only led to increased, unnecessary chaos that was never present under the previous authoritarian rulers, the rise of Islamist parties and social, ethnic and religious divisions in the affected countries. There are the descriptions of those heady events as an insidious plot by Western powers and the Gulf states (mostly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which is the base for Al-Jazeera which broadcasted the events to the wider world and is seen by many as a tool by the country to exercise its foreign policy around the region, even “causing” the Arab Spring) to overthrow its enemies on that region (I’m not sure if you can apply that argument as a cause for the overthrows of the relatively pro-Western, conservative rulers of Tunisia and Egypt), or that those countries weren’t prepared for revolution and democracy. It’s as if all of those events, those sacrifices were for nothing, that it was better under the previous rulers where there was at least a presence of order, security and stability (the same argument used by the overthrown or yet-to-be overthrown rulers), never mind the political fossilisation, corruption and state oppression.

Such arguments and descriptions about those events are wrong.

Those arguments are mistaken on two aspects, and it is also in these two aspects that it can be proven that the Arab Uprisings have not been a failure, but are continuing.

First, it has been taken for granted by commentators that these uprisings ended, or end, with the overthrow of the regime.Such a claim is mistaken on the belief that the simple overthrow of the dictator and his cohorts is enough to call it a revolution and automatically bring change. That would be equal to describing the French Revolution as the simple overthrow and beheading of Louis XVI, or the overthrow of the Tsar and the Provisional Government as the Russian Revolution. True, many if not most of the protesters thought the overthrow of their masters was sufficient to bring change, but anyone taking the long-term view of things knows that revolutions don’t end with the simple overthrow of the previous regime. As the French and Russian Revolutions themselves tell us, they also include the long-term, excruciating and unstable implementation of those ideals that propelled and fueled the revolution. The riots, armed confrontations, and political conflicts that are happening in the aftermath of those downfalls, or in the middle of civil wars, are in fact the continuation and extension of the revolutions.

The uprisings didn’t end with the overthrow or continuing efforts to overthrow the Ben Alis and Mubaraks of the Middle East and North Africa, but continue with the efforts of civil groups, political parties, ethnic and religious minorities – virtually everybody involved in these events – to effect change not just in the governments of their countries but also in the economic, social and cultural spheres. This isn’t just about electing presidents and representatives, but also about addressing economic disparities and sociocultural marginalisation. The manifestation of previously unnoticed divisions in these countries is indeed a stressful and dangerous but also necessary manifestation, akin to describing the causes of the disease before giving the cure.

It’s also true that each group with a stake in these events is trying to direct the events in their favour. While such actions can be selfish and stray from the original ideals of the uprisings, every group involved – including those we wish weren’t involved – is important and therefore their views must be taken into account in the goal of a better society as the product of the uprisings.

Second, about the so-called Islamist rise.If not outright sabotage of the revolution, the rise of Islamist politics in the aftermath of the overthrows is often described as due to the strong grassroots connections and lower-class affiliations of these groups. This would mean that the original revolutionaries who launched the uprisings in the name of “freedom, dignity, justice” were young, middle-class people disconnected from the poor majority who are the key factor in the political fate of these uprisings. The minority civil revolutionaries will be marginalised while the majority Islamist elements will benefit. In short, the revolutionaries unwittingly orchestrated the Islamist rise to power. They should have built a solid grassroots foundation for their ideals before launching their uprising.

These arguments only help in marginalising the original principles of the revolutions, as if they don’t matter. As for the civil revolutionary disconnect with the masses, what about the evidence of the youth majority in these countries? And even if many of these youth are Brotherhood members, it could only mean that reformist ideals are possible in the MB, with the dominant conservative elements preventing such reformism.

What is important here is the maintenance and pursuit of the ideals that launched the revolutions. While the Islamists benefit from their grassroots connections, the role of the civil revolutionaries in launching the uprising must not, and would never, be forgotten. They also benefit from their youth, newness and dynamism. Such abilities can be assets in the ongoing campaign of pursuit of freedom and dignity.

The struggle to attain a better tomorrow for the countries affected by the Arab Uprisings continues. The recent protests in Turkey only emphasize that this is also a much wider struggle. To dampen the necessity of this struggle under the banners of realism and cause-effect only helps in increasing cynicism and blunting any desire for change in situations where they are needed. Rather than despair, continued support for the Arab Uprisings, in the pursuit of their original ideals, must be continued.


“Spratlys” at suberanya

11 May 2012

Ngayon aminin ko na wala akong alam masyado sa mga detalye tungkol sa kasalukuyang alitan ng Filipinas at ng Republikang Bayan ng Tsina (RBT o “People’s Republic of China”) tungkol sa Spratlys, partikular sa babaw (“shoal”) ng “Scarborough” o Panatag. Ang sasabihin ko lang dito ay ang panganib na dala ng mga panggigipit ng RBT.

Ang pangunahing panganib na dala ng mga nakalipas na aksyon ng “Tsina” ay hindi ang pwersahang pag-angkin nito ng mga teritoryo na kasalukuyang pinag-aawayan ng mga sangkot na bansa. Kung tutuusin, ang panganib ay hindi lang sa mga aksyon sa Spratlys. Kasama rin ang ngayo’y malaking impluwensiya ng “Tsina” sa mga ugnayang pang-ekonomiya (“economic affairs”) ng mga karatig bansa nito sa Asya, mula Burma hanggang Filipinas – kahit na rin sa mga medyo mas angat na mga ekonomiya tulad ng Hapon at Timog Korea – kundi man sa mga ugnayang pulitikal (“political affairs”) nito. Mula nang umangat ang ekonomiya ng RBT simula mga dekada 90 dala ng mga repormang pinatupad ng Partido Komunista nito noong mga huling taon ng dekada 70, ang impluwensiya nito sa kalakarang ekonomiko at pulitikal ng daigdig at lalo sa mga bansang malapit nito ay naging malaki. Pangahas ko itong sasabihin, ang “Tsina” ngayon ay ang Hapon noong ika-19 hanggang ika-20 siglo bago 1945. Sinumang bansa sa silangang Asya na nagmamahal sa sariling suberanya’t kasarinlan ay kailangang maging maingat ngayon sa kapangyarihang kasalukuyang hawak ng Republikang Bayan.

Ang nakataya sa tungggalian sa Spratlys, sa away ng Filipinas at RBT sa Panatag – bukod sa isyu ng teritoryo na maaaring pag-usapan lang sa pagitan ng magkapantay na mga bansa – ay ang pangangailangan na pigilin ang pagkalat ng kapangyarihan ng isang estadong hanggang ngayo’y may konsiderableng hawak sa mga taong nakatira sa loob nito. Huwag nating bigyang katuwiran ang diktadurya.