Question……
We have been hearing a great deal about the “leaderless” Libyan resistance to Gaddafi. To a lesser degree, we heard similar things about Egypt when protestors failed to coalesce behind Elbareidi as Egypt’s national savior, but it was muted, perhaps due to the prominence of Wael Ghonim, an influential figure to whom western reporters and audencies could relate. Ghonim, however, was not a “leader” in the same sense as say, Nehru, Walesa or Yeltsin.
Are these revolts really of a different political character or do their “leaders” in this panopticonic global environment just have the sense to stay the hell out of sight?
Joseph Fouche:
February 24th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
In this podcast from new books in history:.http://newbooksinhistory.com/2010/07/29/gary-bruce-the-firm-the-inside-story-of-the-stasi/.the author interviewed discusses how the Stasi had basically achieved universal surveillance by the end of East Germany’s existence and in the end all that surveillance was for naught because people eventually rose up en masse in a matter of days and it was over. I don’t think there was any particular resistance leader in East Germany that sparked the revolt. It seems to have been grapevining.
zen:
February 24th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Hi JF.
.
Interesting. Romania under Ceaucescu had 10 % of the population working directly or indirectly for Securitate. Perhaps it is this suffocating level of repression itself which helped create the mass uprisings in East Germany and Romania. In the Third Reich, the Gestapo was dreaded in part because it was a relatively small organization with a fearsome mystique that few Germans ever had firsthand contact with it. Rumors magnified it into an all-seeing apparatus that it never was.
J. Scott:
February 24th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Zen, JF’s idea seems most likely, and I like the "grapevining" metaphor. I sent you a link to a website someone shared earlier where the author pointed to a total shake-up in the status quo world order—due in no small part to the internet and technology. Rush was on in the background today, and I heard him reference Gorbachev’s remarks about "knowing" the gig was up in the old USSR—when they started finding video tapes of the television show "Dallas"—-the leadership knew the charade and the lies about the West were being revealed. By analogy, these oppressed folks in these Med states are close enough to Europe physically to "know," even lacking technology, something better is possible. The demographics are plainly on the side of the protesters who are younger, more energetic, and focused than their despotic leaders. In addition, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Sharia Law taking a shellacking in the process—-as I believe if these folks are motivated by what they’ve seen as a superior existence won’t be fooled by a partnership with the hyper-religious. (I do not believe the Iranian Revolution of 79 could happen in the days of the internet where the people traded a dictator for religious fanaticism.) All that said, there will be polls of power where these folks will self-organize—lets just hope those who rise to the top aren’t wannabe despots.
Larry Dunbar:
February 25th, 2011 at 12:10 am
"These include, for example, families, religious organizations, cultural associations, sports clubs, economic institutions, trade unions, student associations, political parties, villages, neighborhood associations, gardening clubs, human rights organizations, musical groups, literary societies, and others." Gene Sharp, Albert Einstein Institution.I am betting on gardening clubs, with sports clubs a distant second.
zen:
February 25th, 2011 at 4:04 am
Hi Scott,
.
"Rush was on in the background today, and I heard him reference Gorbachev’s remarks about "knowing" the gig was up in the old USSR—when they started finding video tapes of the television show "Dallas"—-"
.
I think Coram wrote of Boyd having a similar epiphany about the Soviets when he first saw a xerox machine.
.
" (I do not believe the Iranian Revolution of 79 could happen in the days of the internet where the people traded a dictator for religious fanaticism.)"
.
I think the Shah was done in less by his harshness – he was less brutal than Khomeini by orders of magnitude – than by his short-sighted selfishness. His "White Revolution" went just far enough in raising Iranian living standards to breed dissatisfaction and rising expectations around the time corruption, his lavish self-celebrating and arms-buying sprees of his regime really took off. People resent oligarchy even more deeply than tyranny if they feel they are being held back.
onparkstreet:
February 25th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
People resent oligarchy even more deeply than tyranny if they feel they are being held back.
.
Interesting point. I’d think tyranny would breed more unhappiness and dissatisfaction but maybe people are more afraid and resigned to hope for something better? Or feel the system is like the rising and setting of the sun and not something that can be worked away?
.
– Madhu
.
Raman’s strategic analysis has had some interesting posts on the Chinese netizens and fears abou them by the ruling party.
Dave Schuler:
February 25th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
It’s too early to say. The unit of measure for events such as the ones we’re witnessing now in the Middle East is months or years rather than days or weeks. Would anyone seriously contend that the leader of the French Revolution in 1789 (whomever you might deem that to be) was in fact the leader at the end of the many year process that the revolution in fact was? Or that Mao was the leader of the Chinese Revolution of 1911 although 38 years later he emerged as the ultimate victor?
J. Scott:
February 25th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Aren’t people held back under tyranny? I agree with your remarks concerning the Shah, btw—-but the unholy alliance between the religious and the masses would probably not been as intimate with today’s technology. The religious of the Iranian revolution spoke the language necessary to seize power from the more secular. At the root, I suppose one question may be the ability to "scale" discontent in such a fashion the discontent translates into physical action (this may be a throw-away line as I can’t seem to rid myself of concepts surrounding "scaling" a behavior….). @DS, with respect to comment someone/some group will emerge victorious, but not necessarily the ones who started the dance. I’m guessing you’re right we may have to wait for new faces….this is a good post.
zen:
February 25th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
"Aren’t people held back under tyranny?"
.
"I’d think tyranny would breed more unhappiness and dissatisfaction but maybe people are more afraid and resigned to hope for something better?"
.
Tyranny comes in 1001 forms. Oligarchy can come in any form you like so long as it is oligarchical.
.
Which is to say, autocracy per se does not require avarice. Deng Xiaoping, Augusto Pinochet, Lee Kwan Yew and Augustus Caesar were all tyrants but they presided over a rising tide that lifted all boats and intended to do so. So, to an extent, did Hitler in his early years. Other tyrants are like Ferdinand Marcos and Baby Doc, they steal everything that isn’t nailed down. And of course, they often add a ruthlessness that inspires fear.
,
By contrast, avarice and self-dealing is the essential character of oligarchy and often the purpose for the expression of autocratic power. To concentrate wealth and resources and opportunities in few hands even if society as a whole gets absolutely more poor in the process. Oligarchies also tend to lack the few, occasional, redeeming qualities of tyranny – the tyrant who is a genius or exaceptionally adept ruler – Lee Kwan Yew being the modern example. Oligarchies rule by a lowest common denominator consensus within a narrow group generally lacking figures with sufficient talent to dominate the rest. They look and act like colorless politburos are more likely to be held in contempt by the population than is a fearsome tyrant.
zen:
February 25th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
"The unit of measure for events such as the ones we’re witnessing now in the Middle East is months or years rather than days or weeks. Would anyone seriously contend that the leader of the French Revolution in 1789"
.
I think Zhou Enlai said, when asked what he thought of the French Revolution, "Too soon to tell".
J. Scott:
February 25th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Zhou Enlai was right; it is "too soon to tell." George Will wrote a good column on this about twenty years ago (couldn’t find the link). I agree with your last two sentences, Zen—I sense there must be gradient of contempt which is relatively safe (oligarchies) versus foolish contempt (tyrants)?
Curtis Gale Weeks:
February 25th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Well it is certainly very interesting to look at the distinctions between tyranny and oligarchy…
.
One of the problems with oligarchy is the fact that it’s systemic, stretching down to the granular level: oligarchs depend upon a system which funnels all wealth (and the power deriving from wealth) up to them and from all others within the system. Now it is possible to speak of the oligarch-tyrant, which would be one of the two worst types of tyrant (the other being, the tyrant who secures and maintains power through frequent pogroms or genocide)…
.
Tyranny on the other hand need not be so systemic and granular. Some tyrants are content to let the majority of society do its own thing, more or less — so long as ultimate power is preserved for the tyrant and not openly challenged. This reminds me of something I think I read in Montaigne’s essays, when he commented on the fact that most of the common people rarely ever came into contact with the French king or even the king’s henchmen, or that, regarding the henchmen, the contact was sporadic and very brief.
Curtis Gale Weeks:
February 25th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Would be interesting to examine the issue in the light of performativity. On the latter sort of tyrant (described above), the general understanding may be that, as long as one doesn’t present a performance which threatens the tyrant’s hold on power, this contract might be bearable; but with regard to the former type, the oligarch-tyrant, one’s performance must be self-annihilating: i.e., it is understood that one must suffer economically, etc., in order to maintain the tyrant.
onparkstreet:
February 26th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Thanks, zen, and others! Now I understand 🙂
.
The following excerpt is interesting in light of this conversation:
.
What the monarchies have going for them are royal families that allow them to stand above the fray, to a certain extent,” said Kenneth M. Pollack, the director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. “It allows them to sack the government without sacking themselves.” Many of the monarchs have run governments every bit as repressive as the presidents’. And the American calculation of who is likely to hang on to power has as much to do with the religious, demographic and economic makeups of the countries as with the nature of the governments.Arab presidents pretend to be democratically chosen, even though most of their elections are rigged. Their veneer of legitimacy vanishes when pent-up grievances in their societies explode. Most of the presidents oversee more populous countries, without the oil wealth of the gulf monarchies, which would enable them to placate their populations with tax cuts and pay raises, like the kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan have done recently.The Americans acknowledge that they have no choice but to support countries like Saudi Arabia, and that all of the situations could change rapidly.A case in point is Libya, where Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi— neither a king nor a president — has been brought to the verge of collapse with dizzying speed…“The republics — and hence, the presidents — are the most vulnerable because they’re supposed to be democracies but ultimately are not,” said an Arab diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “They pretend people have a voice, but this voice doesn’t exist. With the monarchy, no one’s pretending there’s a democracy.”
.
http://www.nationalreview.com/egypt-watch/260741/us-predicts-presidents-fall-monarchs-persist-matthew-shaffer