Following a lenghtly lull in Western Justice activity (sorry!), I publish the first of two parts of an article that I have been writing, which reviews the Arab Spring. Please comment with feedback or your own opinion! Part two to be published next week...
Revolution by its’ very definition, alters the power system drastically within a short amount of time, removing the old leaders with a new, and often thoroughly chaotic, sphere of politicians and the like. Leaders who were seen as tyrannical are replaced, inevitably, with the tyrants of tomorrow. Great fanfare erupts from the smouldering shells of the fallen, destroyed empire and premiership of the past. Glorious chants and flag waving are borne out of death, destruction and despair.
Naïvely, the population dares to hope for a brighter future, blind to the rapid and brutal clambering of the fallen leading classes or even perhaps the clambering of the paupers of yesteryear, who jostle and wrestle to enter the sphere of influence they so cherish, and who, privately was at the core of their motivation for rebelling in the first place. Egypt is a case in point. Amidst national dissent in the wake of the masses realisation that they had been mistreated for so many years under Mubarak’s regime, and could in fact now barter for a better deal, pandemonium succeeded to force regime change. The ‘drug’ of change was truly infectious, a truly inoperable cancer for the military tacticians and other tyrants to try to tackle. They truly did not stand a chance!
Fresh from the comparatively less publicised and less critical events (form the Wests’ perspective), in Tunisia, the Egyptian people felt empowered. Revolution, as well publicised, is infamous for being wholly impossible to halt, or even to some sort of meaningful degree, contain. Like wildfire, the adrenalin induced by the initiative of violently and physically bringing about ‘a new dawn’, a ‘better deal’, and various other promises of freedoms, led the peoples of successive Arab states to rebel, to take to the streets to fight the regime.
The once oppressive powers were truly at the mercy of the protesters. They now had three options:
1) They could carry on their oppression of their own civilians, fighting the protesters militarily, head on.
2) They could make compromises with the growing masses threatening their premiership and influence, which they had carefully constructed across years of selfish, ultralist tyranny.
3) They could seek refuge abroad, stripping the country of its assets, getting away while the going was, relatively speaking, good.
Gadaffi's militarism (option 1) eventually failed
No comments:
Post a Comment