![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
underlankers.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsOne obvious point that should be brought up as a first is that no dictatorship enjoys universal support even among its leading class. Dictatorships by their very nature in denying the masses voices will provoke opposition from at least a few. Those in the hierarchy excluded from what to them is the kind of power they should have will also dislike the dictatorship from feelings of exclusion as opposed to anything else. I find it hard to believe that a sufficiently PR-savvy version of the latter type of "opposition" would not be sufficiently able to gather crowds in favor of a "reform" that would put them in power. Of course this is much more intelligent than most Arab dictators tend to be.
Another point that I find interesting is that in Europe Christian Democrats are elected to positions like Prime Minister without anyone particularly giving a damn. But in the Middle Eastern context, there are no such equivalent "Islamist" organizations that have leaders as Islamist as Angela Merkel is theocratic Christian. This tendency to see all Islamists in the vein of Al Qaeda is equivalent to seeing that Angela Merkel, Christian Democrat, is the same kind of individual as Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord's Resistance Army. Of course this being the Middle East it's no surprise that the nuance expected to be applied in other parts of the world and with other situation suddenly goes out the window.
So in short I think that with some dictatorships, like the one in Tunisia, the whole dictatorship apparatus is a rotten structure that would collapse with a single good kick. The Egyptian one, however, is a different animal. From Nasser onward it's had relatively competent leaders....for Arab dictatorships (which is admittedly a pretty low bar by global standards). The Egyptian government is extremely secular. It is also one of the more effective dictatorships at removing opposition to itself. Nobody overthrew Nasser, and the assassination of Sadat only served to put Mubarak in charge. I also see a lot of references to 1989. I keep wondering if people forgot that 1989 saw both the overthrow of the Warsaw Pact and the People's Republic of China putting the kibosh on any such movements there. It was not entirely a positive story, and the PRC showed very well that if a dictatorship wants to it's more than able to suppress this kind of movement.
I might note also that this is again the Egyptian dictatorship which has proven the most competent and savvy of its particular regional variants. Some people might see this as Eastern Europe. I think Mubarak is going to be more effective and PR-savvy than Armored Dinner Jacket but this will be akin to that Iranian "Revolution" that under Mir Housain Mousavi was to make Iran a pro-Western secular state all over again. Back then there was a lot of excited speculation that when the young people of Iran marched against Armored Dinner Jacket the Ayatollahs, who are less loved there in some ways than Egypt's dictators are in Egypt, would collapse like a house of cards. In reality Armored Dinner Jacket used enough force to render it irrelevant. Mubarak is of course smarter than Armored Dinner Jacket (which admittely itself is like being better-smelling than a skunk).
Of course this is a thing where to be wrong on it would be better than being right, at least for the Egyptians.
Another point that I find interesting is that in Europe Christian Democrats are elected to positions like Prime Minister without anyone particularly giving a damn. But in the Middle Eastern context, there are no such equivalent "Islamist" organizations that have leaders as Islamist as Angela Merkel is theocratic Christian. This tendency to see all Islamists in the vein of Al Qaeda is equivalent to seeing that Angela Merkel, Christian Democrat, is the same kind of individual as Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord's Resistance Army. Of course this being the Middle East it's no surprise that the nuance expected to be applied in other parts of the world and with other situation suddenly goes out the window.
So in short I think that with some dictatorships, like the one in Tunisia, the whole dictatorship apparatus is a rotten structure that would collapse with a single good kick. The Egyptian one, however, is a different animal. From Nasser onward it's had relatively competent leaders....for Arab dictatorships (which is admittedly a pretty low bar by global standards). The Egyptian government is extremely secular. It is also one of the more effective dictatorships at removing opposition to itself. Nobody overthrew Nasser, and the assassination of Sadat only served to put Mubarak in charge. I also see a lot of references to 1989. I keep wondering if people forgot that 1989 saw both the overthrow of the Warsaw Pact and the People's Republic of China putting the kibosh on any such movements there. It was not entirely a positive story, and the PRC showed very well that if a dictatorship wants to it's more than able to suppress this kind of movement.
I might note also that this is again the Egyptian dictatorship which has proven the most competent and savvy of its particular regional variants. Some people might see this as Eastern Europe. I think Mubarak is going to be more effective and PR-savvy than Armored Dinner Jacket but this will be akin to that Iranian "Revolution" that under Mir Housain Mousavi was to make Iran a pro-Western secular state all over again. Back then there was a lot of excited speculation that when the young people of Iran marched against Armored Dinner Jacket the Ayatollahs, who are less loved there in some ways than Egypt's dictators are in Egypt, would collapse like a house of cards. In reality Armored Dinner Jacket used enough force to render it irrelevant. Mubarak is of course smarter than Armored Dinner Jacket (which admittely itself is like being better-smelling than a skunk).
Of course this is a thing where to be wrong on it would be better than being right, at least for the Egyptians.
(no subject)
Date: 29/1/11 21:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/1/11 21:58 (UTC)I think the important issue to investigate is whether or not the ruling regime can play people off each other, or if Egyptian identity is such that it overcomes other latent factional loyalties.
As for your second paragraph, Islamists don't get elected so much in the Arab world because they're not allowed to. This is bad simply because it is counter-productive. Politically exiling Islamists simply gives them the avenue of violence and power, and to feed off civil discontent, and then they up and overthrow a secular regime using the anger of the general populace. I hope to God the Muslim Brotherhood gets mainstreamed, so everyday Egyptians can look at them cross-eyed and ignore them. As it is, however, their exile makes them seem like a sympathetic ally and victim.
(no subject)
Date: 29/1/11 22:04 (UTC)My point is that thus far Egypt's dictatorship's survived the entirety of the Cold War, the failure of the Egyptian-Syrian unified state, negotiating peace with Israel, and even the assassination of one of the dictators. This is really not the kind of the thing that seems likely to implode a dictatorship that's been able to weather much nastier shit. If Mubarak has the least hint of a brain he may in fact decide to sucker the opposition into rioting and then "restore order" once they start harassing people who really matter.
That's also what I'm getting at with the Islamists: exclude groups with potentially problematic roots like that and you only ensure the inevitability of the radicals taking over. Egypt's done that for decades and it hasn't worked out too well for them.
(no subject)
Date: 29/1/11 22:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/1/11 22:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/1/11 22:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/1/11 22:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/1/11 22:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/1/11 22:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/1/11 22:35 (UTC)Wind of change
Date: 30/1/11 22:03 (UTC)Many years ago Harold Macmillan forecast a change in apartheid S Africa,
I see a change in the Middle East.
America has supported a brutal dictatorship in Egypt to ensure Israel had a compliant neighbour. What will happen when Mubarak goes is anyones guess.
Re: Wind of change
Date: 30/1/11 22:09 (UTC)Re: Wind of change
Date: 30/1/11 22:34 (UTC)Why shoud you assume that?
This is not an Islamist inspired change.
Re: Wind of change
Date: 31/1/11 01:41 (UTC)Re: Wind of change
Date: 31/1/11 11:18 (UTC)Islamist or secular its influence in the area is gonna be a hell of a headache for america and Israel
Re: Wind of change
Date: 31/1/11 17:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/1/11 22:20 (UTC)turkey
(no subject)
Date: 29/1/11 22:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/1/11 23:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/1/11 01:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/1/11 04:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/1/11 13:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/1/11 14:31 (UTC)You might have heard of him, he's only this guy:
Date: 30/1/11 03:16 (UTC)Re: You might have heard of him, he's only this guy:
Date: 30/1/11 03:19 (UTC)Re: You might have heard of him, he's only this guy:
Date: 30/1/11 08:57 (UTC)Re: You might have heard of him, he's only this guy:
Date: 30/1/11 09:15 (UTC)Re: You might have heard of him, he's only this guy:
Date: 30/1/11 04:00 (UTC)