Interesting post by Jeff Neumann at Gawker, explaining why “Social Media Didn’t Oust Tunisia’s President, the Tunisian People Did“:
… We should stop trying to fit the events in Tunisia into a Western context. It simplifies things, but it also overlooks the real forces of change at work in the North African country. This isn’t about Facebook, or Wikileaks, or Twitter — it’s about the people of Tunisia being fed up with decades of marginalization at the hands of a Western-backed kleptocracy, and taking charge of their own future. Among the issues that brought about the events of the last month: Low wages, few job prospects for a growing educated class, high food prices, and a heavy-handed government lead by former President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Did social media have an effect on events in Tunisia? Undoubtedly, yes. Is this a social media revolution? Absolutely not.
__
According to CNN’s Ben Wedeman (via Twitter!), gunshots are still being heard in the streets of the capital, Tunis, and a prison fire this morning claimed the lives of at least 42 people. The BBC’s Wyre Davies says, “There are tanks on virtually every corner in downtown Tunis.” Police are reportedly looting government buildings as well as the homes and businesses of civilians. In short, the “Jasmine Revolution” is far from over.
__
The most important question now is what happens next? …
And yet it is fascinating to me, as someone old enough to remember being frustrated by the flailing failures of American government and media during the 1979 Iranian revolution, that I can click on a site best known for hyperparochial NYC-based infotainment snark, and read unfiltered commentary like this from someone on the scene:
… On Habib Bourgiba, the Ministry of the Interior is highly cordoned off with about a dozen heavy artillery vehicles – tanks, Hummers, jeeps. About a hundred or more cops and military dotted the entire avenue. Many were lazing on the benches dressed in civilian wear but holding black beating batons. They continued to hit on me while I played up my little Chinese girl schtick and snuck pictures.
__
Big Brother posters of Ben Ali that had been on Habib Bourguiba for the last 23 years were torn down around 4pm. It took some serious flirting for me to snap a picture of that one. Some things never change despite a revolution (ie. male horniness). Watching them being taken down was absolutely cathartic. It might not mean a lot to you guys, but for a country where just 48 hours ago you could still disappear into the night for saying his name the wrong way, it was a big deal.
mclaren
You’re talking about America, right?
befuggled
Of course we should stop trying to fit events outside of the West into a Western context. Unfortunately our media can’t do it, and won’t really try.
To be fair, it’s hard for someone like me who is trying to understand to do so when they’ve never been there and aren’t really familiar with the culture. However, at least some of the folks in our media have had that opportunity.
Redshift
I read the Ars Technica article about the role of tech and social media, and while they talked about the significant and interesting role of social media and hacking around government restrictions in the organizing of the protests, they seemed to go out of their way to point out that it would have been nothing without people willing to risk their lives in the streets (other than perhaps an overwrought opening sentence, which didn’t really strike me on first reading.)
Perhaps there are other accounts Gawker is referring to that are not making that distinction. While believing that Twitter access can overthrow governments is as wrongheaded as believing that capitalism can, I think learning how technology may help people undermine authoritarian regimes and making the same things available to people in other countries is worthwhile.
Villago Delenda Est
One thing I’d caution everyone on, is that television has a very bad tendency to lie about these things.
The pictures that you see on your screen most likely have NOTHING AT ALL to do with what is actually happening.
I experienced this first hand in Korea in 1987. My parents saw footage of rioting in Seoul, where I was stationed, and feared I was in danger. The fact of the matter is, the “rioting” was practically stage managed, by both sides, for the benefit of television news crews. A block away, it was business as usual.
The crowds of students and cops would line up, wait for the news crews to arrive, and then the “riot” would break out. Once the news crews got what they came for, it would dissipate.
Redshift
@Redshift: Ah, of course. To answer my own question, the site referenced by an earlier Gawker post about blogs asking whether this is a “Twitter revolution” is, of course, Andrew Sullivan. (The declaration that this means that it’s “sweeping the blogosphere,” though, appears to be Gawker’s fault.)
J
What! You mean that it was the inspiring example of Sarah Palin (can’t you just picture her in the famous Delacroix: ‘Liberty leading the people’?)!! Surely, you must be joking, Ms. Laurie!
Barb (formerly Gex)
@Redshift: What color do we change our blogs to for Tunisia?
Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people)
As the world becomes more inter-connected, my people get increasingly self-absorbed. Thank goodness for BBC news. Sigh.
BGinCHI
@mclaren: No, silly, this part is about America:
I heard it on Fox.
lamh32
Saw Green Hornet at the movies. It was really good, IMHO. The action sequence was awesome, the Asian dude did Bruce Lee proud, and Seth Rogen was hella funny. I laughed a good bit cause it was as funny as hell. I would def recommend it.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
Day 3
On day three of my deeply earnest vow to honor President Obama’s heartfelt and inspiring call to action – “to live up to the example that young Christina Green expected in how our democracy should function” – I emphasize our shared status as Renowned Constitutional Scholars and hereby decide to restore everyone’s Fourth Amendment rights. That’s right – no more of my warrantless and illegal wiretapping! I mean to say, Big Brother is not watching. (Whoa, can you even believe I’m doing this? I mean, is this audacious, or what?) You may once again speak freely and privately, my fellow Americans. And also too balloonbaggers. No brag, just fact.
.
.
Evolved Deep Southerner
This is OT (though I guess it’s all right since the phrase “Open Thread” appears in the post title) but have y’all seen this?
I have pretty studiously stayed out of the Giffords shooting conversations here, but damn if this whole situation isn’t getting bizarre-er and bizarre-er …
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Uncle Clarence Thomas: ODS, ladies and gentlemen. Its not pretty, and I’m afraid to say its untreatable.
Martin
Well, when we can’t credit our investment in smart bombs and stealth bombers for advancing American exceptionalism, we can resort to crediting our investment in frivolous tech ventures.
No matter what, we’ll find a way to take credit for anything good and avoid responsibility for anything bad.
Stillwater
Well, I get it. The reflexive refusal by trad med. and it’s aspirants to believe that alternative media can actually influence outcomes in people’s lives is just part of the role establishment voices play in keeping order and career paths in place. It’s like the ridiculous question establishment media types love to ask famous musicians: can music really change the world? If they answer ‘yes’, they reconfirm the establishment view that they are narcissistic self-aggrandizers. But we all know that messages that actually reach people – intentionally revolutionary or not – can change their lives. How else is change supposed to happen?
Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people)
@Evolved Deep Southerner: Sad. Perhaps they shouldn’t have put shooting victims and the Arizona tea party leader in the same room. Hearing someone spout BS about how there should never be any discussion of gun control after you’ve been shot in the knee and frightened out of your mind must have been pretty maddening. Still, I hope he gets the help that he needs – sounds like Fuller has some form of PTSD.
ETA: Just read on CNN that Fuller has been involuntarily committed to a County mental health facility.
Evolved Deep Southerner
@Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people): It may be some form of PTSD. But damn if I’m not, on some level, enjoying the whole “How do YOU like the feeling, fuckers?” aspect of it. Has he not, on some level, put them in something of a box here? Not that those fuckers have the subtlety of thought to tell a box from a fucking toilet, but still …
THE
I suspect this is a dynamic we’re going to see more and more in the years ahead.
Tunisia was a dictatorship. It isn’t a member of OPEC. It is not a major oil exporter.
In some recent years it has even been a net petroleum importer.
A large part of its economy relies on trade with the EU and tourism.
Consequently the European part of the “Global Financial Crisis” has impacted it very heavily.
I think this, more than anything else, has delegitimized the old dictatorship leading to riots.
Also there has been a sharp rise in agricultural prices worldwide in the last year that has been putting major pressure on the lower classes.
Combined with the high unemployment that has flowed from the GFC, you have your recipe for an explosion.
Next door Algeria has also had riots recently for much the same reasons.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
.
.
So true. ODS = “Obamafail Denial Syndrome”, my pretty.
Now, enough of your uncivil hate screech. President Obama will fiercely reprimand you if his Wall Street representatives to the people are monitoring this blog and report your scathing non sequitur to him.
.
.
.
.
rimedi brufoli
Great blog post! :D – Love your blog! Keep posting great entries man! Also love the way you describe the whole stuff, keep up the good work!
Hypnos
Tunisia is the consequence of high oil prices plus high food prices (which are connected to oil prices and climate change-driven weather catastrophes such as the Russian heat wave, the Pakistan floods, the Brazil floods and the Australia floods).
As mentioned, other countries in the region are experiencing food riots.
In Bolivia, president Morales had to backtrack on a proposal to scratch fuel subsidies due to massive strikes and protests.
Iran just cut 75% of its fuel subsidies as well – even as a major oil exporter, they can’t afford them at $98 oil (Brent crude).
Price of gas went up as much as 2000% overnight. There’s huge petrol lines all over the place. People will be forced to move to smaller housing as they won’t be able to afford heating for large environments.
If the price of energy and food stays up (and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t, and there’s plenty of reasons for it to go higher), we will see a lot more unrest in the months to come.
matoko_chan
all over MENA this is happening.
Big White Capitalist Christian Bwana is gettin his nads handed to him in Lebanon, A-stan, Yemen, Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Egypt.
WE COULD DO NOTHING IN IRAN for the greens because WE BUILT THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN trying to make them swallow jesushumper democracy.
WE BUILT ‘NEJAD AND KHAMENEI.
WE BUILT BIN LADEN.
now the chickens are all coming home to roost.
dumb fucker jesushumping cudlips.
meanwhile China quietly enjoys 8-10% economic growth.
and Assange’s unstoppable NLS killer quietly and smoothly hums along, the drip drip drip of paranoia reflex induction barely noticed in the melt down of American global hegemony.
13th Generation
Just in case anyone cares about this stuff anymore..
http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/44717/is-gravatar-a-privacy-risk
Todd Dugdale
Ben Ali was a classic example of what the West wanted from an Arab leader. He did everything right from the textbook.
He had a strong security infrastructure and policies to keep the radical Islamists in check. He subsidised commodities to keep them affordable for the poor. He offered free post-secondary education. He turned Tunisia into a huge tourist draw – not just for Europeans, but also Arabs in other countries – while keeping traditional ways and customs intact. And a brutally-efficient police force kept crime down for those tourists.
He was elected, but nobody in the West denounced him when he made himself “President” for life. It was a “win-win” situation on the surface. It added political stability to the mix.
What went wrong is that foreign investment (both Western and Arab) failed to step up to the plate and keep up their end of the implicit bargain.
Americans, it seems, are under some kind of delusion that democracy automatically (as some kind of inexorable natural law) leads to Western-style governments sympathetic to Western interests. As we see in Turkey, Egypt, and Iraq, it usually leads to Islamist theocrats taking control – and the only thing preventing that is “tyranny” in the form of a repressive central government.
And so we have the hypocritical double standard: when these strong central governments fail, they suddenly are described as “tyrants”, and when they remain in power (by hook or by crook) they are “success stories”.
THE
@matoko_chan:
I would say that you are exaggerating. The truth is that Western power peaked vis-a-vis the rest of the world in the 1960s after the postwar recovery was complete.
From then on the decolonized nations of the developing world started to grow independently of the West, and several of them grew faster than the West – because they were in catch-up mode.
Some like East Asia, grew very rapidly because they embraced modernity. In China’s case after they abandoned hardcore Maoism.
Others like the Muslim world, grew after US peak oil occurred around 1970, after which USA became an oil importer. This led to the OPEC oil-price boom and transformed the situation for oil-exporting nations.
The decline of the West RELATIVE TO THE REST OF THE WORLD, particularly East Asia, was masked by the Soviet collapse around the end of the eighties, because it removed the main competitor.
It created the illusion that the USA was the sole remaining superpower.
But really both USA and USSR had been declining relative to rapidly-industrializing Asia for some time.
If you chart the relative economic power of the various blocks, you’ll see how much of the balance-of-power is really balance of economic power.
Morality has little to do with it.
Policy has little to do with it.
Stillwater
@THE: balance-of-power is really balance of economic power.
Morality has little to do with it.
Policy has little to do with it.
Not sure what you mean by ‘policy’ in the above. But installing the Shah, for example, was clearly a policy decision designed to maintain US economic power. US international adventurism post 1945 can be described pretty accurately as policy decisions designed to circumvent the diffusion of economic power as our clients became more autonomous and self-determining.
THE
@Stillwater:
Installing the Shah was as I recall, was influenced by the fear that Mosadeq was too friendly to the Soviet bloc.
I have always thought of it as a classic cold-war policy decision.
No-one at the time cared about the Iranians.
They cared about Soviet influence in the Persian gulf.
Stillwater
@THE: No-one at the time cared about the Iranians.
They cared about Soviet influence in the Persian gulf.
If by ‘no one’ you mean decision-makers of US policy, then I agree. But they cared greatly about US access to Iranian oil. As for the Soviet influence in the Persian Gulf, we may just have to agree to disagree about it’s relevance. I think that internal documents and some comprehensive writing about that time (read Gabriel Kolko for some of this stuff) pretty convincingly show that the cold war was a political construct to justify the use of primarily military force to maintain US economic hegemony. As countries became more developed post WWII, they became more autonomous, thereby challenging US control over domestic politics and western access to resources. Deterring Soviet expansion was the nominal justification for US intervention, but the record pretty clearly shows that the Soviets weren’t expansionist and insofar as they aided specific countries economically or militarily, it was as a result of US military and economic aggression.
In short, the cold war was, in my view, essentially a set of policy positions to prevent independent nationalism from gaining traction in countries we considered our clients or in our sphere of influence, and was only indirectly about preventing the spread of Soviet style communism.
THE
@Stillwater:
I don’t think I’d argue with your interpretation. It’s a possible way to interpret events.
I lived through a significant part of the cold war and my own impression is that both sides were very aggressive.
Between them, the two superpowers pretty much sewed up the whole world.
One of the reasons I believe USA is unable to do so now, is that the world is just too big for only one US-sized superpower.
Really USA needed the USSR.
They could run the world as a duopoly, each dominant in their own spheres of influence, but neither one was strong enough to do it all alone.
After the collapse of the USSR, the overextension of the US hegemonic system was probably inevitable.
Also, the fact that the Asian economies are growing so fast makes it utterly impossible for any purely Western global system to last long.