Published on Portside (https://portside.org)
The Sixth
Anniversary of the Start of the Arab Uprisings
Gilbert Achcar
Saturday, December 17, 2016
Jadaliyya
Six years ago, on 17 December 2010, Mohamed Bouazizi immolated
himself in the Tunisian city of Sidi Bouzid. Bouazizi did not know that by this
extreme form of protest, he was setting not only himself or his town on fire,
nor his province or even his Tunisian homeland alone, but the whole Arab
region. Indeed, his protest inspired millions of others-"from the Ocean to
the Gulf" as the saying went in the heyday of Arab nationalism-to protest
their regimes and the status quo.
The tragedy is that this wave of protests did not bring the
renewal that was promised by the branding phrase "Arab Spring," but
rather what followed were more of the old calamities, aggravated to a
frightening degree in some cases. It is necessary therefore to emphasize two
crucial issues regarding the sad condition under which we commemorate the sixth
anniversary of the Arab uprisings.
The first issue concerns a view that has spread quite
understandably in the Arab region, according to which the lesson of the past
six years is that the old order, despite its huge problems, was better than the
revolt against it since the latter only managed to create a bigger disaster.
The truth is that if we were to apply the same logic to any of the great
revolutions in history, assessing them only a few years after their beginning,
we would condemn them all. Thus, if we envisaged the French Revolution from the
angle of where it stood six years after its start in 1789, we would find an
appalling situation in France with an ongoing civil war that killed hundreds of
thousands and a revolutionary regime that executed tens of thousands in a reign
of terror. France was, later, to go through an imperial stage followed by the
restoration of the monarchy that the revolution had overthrown. Only close to a
century after the revolution's start did the republican regime stabilize, and
yet, the anniversary of the French Revolution on 14 July is the greatest yearly
celebration in contemporary France, and the French recall their revolution as a
glorious historical event, which most of their historians rally to defend
against anyone who denigrates it by trying to portray it as a catastrophe.
Likewise, the English Revolution started with a civil war in 1642
that lasted a decade until 1651, and killed two hundred thousand people out of
a total population of no more than five million, not counting the victims in
Scotland and Ireland. Or consider China; six years after the beginning of its
revolution in 1911, it had reached an extreme state of dismemberment with vast
areas falling under the rule of warlords. Therefore, it is inappropriate to
judge a revolution before it achieves its historical trajectory.
What started in the Arab region in 2011 actually is a long-term
revolutionary process which, from the beginning it was possible to predict,
would take many years, or even several decades, and would not reach a new
period of sustained stability short of the emergence of progressive leaderships
capable of bringing the Arab countries out of the insuperable crisis into which
they have fallen after decades of rotting under despotism and corruption.
This brings us to the second issue that it is necessary to
emphasize on this anniversary of the uprisings. To say that the old Arab regime
is better than the revolt against it is like saying that the accumulation of
pus in a boil is better than incising the boil and letting the pus out. The
tragedies that we are witnessing now are not the product of the uprising, but
indeed the product of decades of accumulation of rot in the heart of the old
regime. The "Arab Spring" provoked the explosion of this
accumulation, which inevitably would have happened sooner or later. The truth
is that the longer the explosion was delayed, the more rot accumulated. If
there is indeed one thing to be regretted in the Arab explosion, it is not that
it happened but that it took so long to happen-so long that the old Arab order
managed to achieve, to a great extent, its dislocation of Arab societies by
means of tribalism, sectarianism, and various forms of cronyism, not to mention
tyranny, state terror, and the lesser counter-terror provoked by governmental
violence.
No one should mourn the old order as if it was a dream rather than
a nightmare. No one should regret the past as if it would have been able to
carry on forever. The lesson that must be drawn from the recent historical
experience by all those who suffer or have suffered from the Arab order that
has been in place for decades-and this is the vast majority of the inhabitants
of Arab countries-is rather the urgent need for an emancipatory progressive
alternative to the rotten past that started to crumble six years ago, and will
not cease collapsing whatever attempts to stitch it are made by its rulers. The
year 2016 bears witness to this truth: it was not restricted to the tragedy of
Aleppo, but started with a local uprising in Tunisia and ended with massive
social mobilizations in Morocco and Sudan.
The danger that threatens the Arab uprising is not the
continuation of the revolution-its termination would indeed be much more
dangerous than its perseverance-but the persistence of its lack of organized
progressive forces capable to rise to the huge historical challenge that it faces.
We are like a people that started coming out from the land of slavery and now
face the threat of getting lost in the desert to be aggressed by ferocious
beasts while searching for the promised land. To guide us towards this goal, we
need a "modern Moses": not a heroic individual leader but rather a
collective emancipatory and democratically pluralistic project that champions
the image of the new society to which we aspire.
Gilbert Achcar is Professor of Development Studies and
International Relations at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) of
the University of London, where he has been based since 2007. Trained in
philosophy and social sciences in Beirut, he holds a PhD in social history from
the University of Paris-VIII. After teaching at the University of Paris-VIII,
he moved in 2003 to Berlin, where he worked as a senior research fellow at the
French-German Centre Marc Bloch. He has published widely on politics and
international relations in general, and the Middle East and North Africa in
particular. His recent books include The Clash of Barbarisms: The Making of the New World
Disorder [1] (2006), Perilous Power: The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy[2] (co-authored
with Noam Chomsky, 2007), The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of
Narratives [3] (2010), and The People Want: A Radical Exploration of the Arab Uprising [4] (2013).
The article is an English translation by the author of his Arabic
article which originally appeared in Al-Quds
al-Arabi [5].
Links:
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Clash-Barbarisms-Making-World-Disorder/dp/1594513090
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Perilous-Power-Foreign-Dialogues-Democracy/dp/1594513120
[3] https://www.amazon.com/Arabs-Holocaust-Arab-Israeli-War-Narratives/dp/0312569203
[4] http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520280519
[5] http://www.alquds.co.uk/?p=644691
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Perilous-Power-Foreign-Dialogues-Democracy/dp/1594513120
[3] https://www.amazon.com/Arabs-Holocaust-Arab-Israeli-War-Narratives/dp/0312569203
[4] http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520280519
[5] http://www.alquds.co.uk/?p=644691
Donations can be sent
to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD
21218. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their
lives." Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment