Yassine Boukhedouni
Back from a trip to Tunisia in January 2012, Robert Fisk, a famous journalist for The Independent, had a stark view of what Tunisians are going through one year after their revolution for dignity and the fall of Ben Ali’s dictatorship. In addition to a high youth unemployment rate (800 000 unemployed on an active population of 3,5 million), inexistent growth, something normal in a country in transition where 80 percent of international firms have left for fairer skies, Fisk discovered a new and worrying face of the country.
Indeed, the election of an Islamist majority in Parliament, with 40 percent of the seats won by the Ennahda movement, and above all the rise of a fundamentalist religious current called Salafism, have allowed for the emergence of social intolerance, leading in various cases to violence and terror, both unknown realities for Tunisian men and women, even during the Ben Ali dictatorship.
Islamists and Salafists undeniably bore the brunt of the repression during the Ben Ali years. Now, after decades of imprisonment, torture and prohibition of political and associative work, both currents find in the new Tunisia a favorable breeding ground for their behaviors, which are out of step with the country’s pluri-secular values and history.
For instance, in early 2012, the northern city of Sejnane was transformed into a Salafi Emirate where its adherents spread terror and imposed their law, according to El Maghreb, a newspaper. For the Salafis, who disagree vehemently with the Ennahda movement, since Tunisia is now free and has gone back to Islamism, it falls unto them to apply religion, even if it implies spreading fear and anarchy and intimidating people because of a sin or another.
That’s how it’s turned out in that northern Tunisian town, where the absence of the State and of the security forces has allowed a few Salafis to apply religious laws to sinners. Some of them, you see, had drunk alcohol.
Far from Sejnane, 160 km west of Tunis, in Jandouba, the Salafis went too far in defiance of the Tunisian authorities. Indeed, for them, the modern nation-state doesn’t exist. They’d rather have an Islamic Caliphate with a strictly interpreted shari’a as the law of the land. On Thursday February 23rd of 2012, they set a police station on fire after the arrest of one of their members.
Here’s what the general information daily 20 minutes reported: “Security forces are chasing after some 200 Salafis armed with swords and sticks after an exchange of Molotov cocktails and tear gas grenades”, said Omar Inoubli, an inhabitant of Jandouba. “Those groups set fire to a police station. Mosque speakers are blaring forth calls to Jihad (holy war)”, he adds.
In Jandouba, Sejnane and elsewhere, Salafis have no purpose but to create new social and political tensions Tunisia hardly needs, above all in the crucial historical step the country’s going through. Imposing a stern lifestyle, with male and female clothing imported straight from the Arabian Peninsula or the Persian Gulf, won’t help Tunisia at all go beyond the crisis it’s living, nor will it help further the cause of Islam and its message Salafis pretend to serve.
Along with the economic crisis, the rise of religious fundamentalism in Tunisia must be understood as the worst threat to the supremacy of law for which Tunisians fought their revolution, and to their newly acquired liberties.
samedi 25 février 2012
mercredi 22 février 2012
Tunisia: the second start
Geneviève Beaulieu Veilleux
“One must keep in mind that freedom of the press doesn’t exist in print per se; we rather talk of freedom of expression”, indicates Louis-Philippe Lampron, a professor of Law at Université Laval. Thus, depending on the wording, speaking, thinking, writing and printing freely are concepts defended by the law under certain limits.
M. Lampron insists that freedom of expression is a sine que non condition for the existence of a democratic regime. “That freedom exists through, among other things, greater protection for journalists and a guarantee of the independence of the media”, he says. The professor refers to the intimidation that weighed on journalists in Tunisia during the dictatorial era.
Taïeb Moalla, a Tunisian-born journalist who had been invited to comment on the situation of freedom of the press in Tunisia before and after the revolution, didn’t mince his words. “We’ve gone from 50 years of constipation to a total verbal diarrhea. It’s not pretty, but, as a relief, it sure works!”, he quipped. According to him, denouncing censorship is a duty, a matter of principle. “You must protect the freedom of information and the press from censorship or intimidation, that you be a reader or a journalist”.
M. Moalla, who works for the Journal de Québec, insists that the job of a journalist has been largely the same for 25 years. “What’s changed is the conditions. We’re much safer now. The number of times a journalist had to risk his life to break out the news under Ben Ali, you wouldn’t imagine!” He speaks by experience, but one can also recall the case of Soufiène Ben Hamida, of the Nessma news channel, who suffered intimidation when rebels tagged his car with the word “infidel”. Many other journalists have been molested or sexually attacked in the exercise of their functions, like CBS journalist Lara Logan was in Egypt in February of 2011.
After the fall of Ben Ali, or the “predator of freedom of the press”, as some like to call him, hope is now back for the free flow of information. Yet, bad habits die hard, and it’s with reservations that Mrs Lampron and Moalla look at the transition in Tunisia. “We’ve found freedom again, now there’s no letting anyone take it back from us in any way. We have to fight every day, as propaganda isn’t as in your face as before, but it’s still there in a subtler way”, said M. Moalla.
If the multiplication of news sources is in itself a good thing for M. Moalla, quality leaves a lot to be desired. He has good hopes that credibility will come back. “You must keep in mind that even if something is published 100 times or even 100 000 times, it doesn’t become truer for it. Rigor matters”.
How to regain credibility after decades of media disinformation and too-close-for-comfort links between the media and the Ben Ali family? The journalist things the media should do more ground reporting, as credibility comes along with backing information with evidence. He concedes that Tunisian journalists have a lot to ask forgiveness for. Yet, there’s a will.
And Tunisia in 20 years? “I dream of democracy, of the respect of freedoms, and I feel like it’s possible. We had our dictators flee without foreign assistance and we’ve held free elections less than a year after our revolution, it’s an enormous step!”, underscores a hopeful M. Moalla.
Taïeb Moalla, a Tunisian-born journalist who had been invited to comment on the situation of freedom of the press in Tunisia before and after the revolution, didn’t mince his words. “We’ve gone from 50 years of constipation to a total verbal diarrhea. It’s not pretty, but, as a relief, it sure works!”, he quipped. According to him, denouncing censorship is a duty, a matter of principle. “You must protect the freedom of information and the press from censorship or intimidation, that you be a reader or a journalist”.
M. Moalla, who works for the Journal de Québec, insists that the job of a journalist has been largely the same for 25 years. “What’s changed is the conditions. We’re much safer now. The number of times a journalist had to risk his life to break out the news under Ben Ali, you wouldn’t imagine!” He speaks by experience, but one can also recall the case of Soufiène Ben Hamida, of the Nessma news channel, who suffered intimidation when rebels tagged his car with the word “infidel”. Many other journalists have been molested or sexually attacked in the exercise of their functions, like CBS journalist Lara Logan was in Egypt in February of 2011.
After the fall of Ben Ali, or the “predator of freedom of the press”, as some like to call him, hope is now back for the free flow of information. Yet, bad habits die hard, and it’s with reservations that Mrs Lampron and Moalla look at the transition in Tunisia. “We’ve found freedom again, now there’s no letting anyone take it back from us in any way. We have to fight every day, as propaganda isn’t as in your face as before, but it’s still there in a subtler way”, said M. Moalla.
If the multiplication of news sources is in itself a good thing for M. Moalla, quality leaves a lot to be desired. He has good hopes that credibility will come back. “You must keep in mind that even if something is published 100 times or even 100 000 times, it doesn’t become truer for it. Rigor matters”.
How to regain credibility after decades of media disinformation and too-close-for-comfort links between the media and the Ben Ali family? The journalist things the media should do more ground reporting, as credibility comes along with backing information with evidence. He concedes that Tunisian journalists have a lot to ask forgiveness for. Yet, there’s a will.
And Tunisia in 20 years? “I dream of democracy, of the respect of freedoms, and I feel like it’s possible. We had our dictators flee without foreign assistance and we’ve held free elections less than a year after our revolution, it’s an enormous step!”, underscores a hopeful M. Moalla.
As Jean-François Julliard, secretary general of Reporters Without Borders, said last month in an open letter to the Tunisian leaders, the new country is making its first steps discovering freedom and some advice is welcome. “It is time, more than ever, that the new authorities take their responsibilities toward these problems. They must send a strong signal to all those who trample on freedom of expression and the freedom of journalists to spread information with full independence. Beyond polemics, political matters and personal religious convictions, freedom of expression, as the first gain of the revolution, must be backed by a consensus and be protected by all. It is everyone’s business. The door to freedom. The way back toward dictatorship”.
samedi 18 février 2012
Interview with Tamylia Elkadi (in French)
Waltz with Bashar
Jérémie Lebel
[Published in Impact Campus, 24 January]
The Arab League Observation Mission in Syria has just been extended for a month, while the repression and killings are still going on strong. Civil war has begun de facto.
In a meeting in Cairo on January 22, the Arab League’s member countries convened to give an extra month to their observation mission, which was to end on January 29. The mission is headed by Mohamed Al-Dabi, a Sudanese general accused of having created the janjaweed militias responsible of war crimes in Darfur. On January 11, one of the observers, Anwar Malek, from Algeria, resigned saying the mission was a “farce” and that the Syrian army barely bothered to hide its actions.
According to the American ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, Syria has downright stepped up the pace of its crackdown since the arrival of the Arab League’s observers. The total toll now rises at some 5000 dead, most of them civilians, since the first troubles in March of last year, according to UN statistics. Syria is now subject to economic sanctions imposed by the European Union and several Western countries, but Russian and Chinese opposition impedes the UN Security Council from taking any resolutions condemning the murders.
The emir of Qatar recently advocated for an armed Arab intervention in Syria to put an end to the violence. This scenario is highly unlikely, given the negligible impact of the observation mission and the extreme political sensitivity of such an intervention. Moreover, a Libyan-like aerial campaign is impossible, as most fighting occurs in densely populated urban areas. The info coming from the ground all but says a civil war has already broken out, and that sectarian fighting is a frightening but very possible outcome. Bashar Al-Assad’s fall seems inevitable; what remains to be seen is when and, above all, how, it will come to happen.
[Published in Impact Campus, 24 January]
The Arab League Observation Mission in Syria has just been extended for a month, while the repression and killings are still going on strong. Civil war has begun de facto.
In a meeting in Cairo on January 22, the Arab League’s member countries convened to give an extra month to their observation mission, which was to end on January 29. The mission is headed by Mohamed Al-Dabi, a Sudanese general accused of having created the janjaweed militias responsible of war crimes in Darfur. On January 11, one of the observers, Anwar Malek, from Algeria, resigned saying the mission was a “farce” and that the Syrian army barely bothered to hide its actions.
According to the American ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, Syria has downright stepped up the pace of its crackdown since the arrival of the Arab League’s observers. The total toll now rises at some 5000 dead, most of them civilians, since the first troubles in March of last year, according to UN statistics. Syria is now subject to economic sanctions imposed by the European Union and several Western countries, but Russian and Chinese opposition impedes the UN Security Council from taking any resolutions condemning the murders.
The emir of Qatar recently advocated for an armed Arab intervention in Syria to put an end to the violence. This scenario is highly unlikely, given the negligible impact of the observation mission and the extreme political sensitivity of such an intervention. Moreover, a Libyan-like aerial campaign is impossible, as most fighting occurs in densely populated urban areas. The info coming from the ground all but says a civil war has already broken out, and that sectarian fighting is a frightening but very possible outcome. Bashar Al-Assad’s fall seems inevitable; what remains to be seen is when and, above all, how, it will come to happen.
A quick recommendation
Jérémie Lebel
A lot of media content has been published about Libya since the beginning of the uprising and especially since the first salvos of the NATO, which began on March 19th of 2011. Yet, we rarely read or see features that really were shot on the ground, with the intent of showing how the fighters themselves live their war, and how they carry on in this maelstrom of fire they were caught in.
I recently had the chance of watching a documentary on Al-Jazeera called "Holding the Line", by Patrick Wells. I heartily recommend anyone interested in the Arab Spring to watch it. The journalist followed a small group of fighters near Misrata for three weeks and focused on showing war as they saw and lived it. The result is nothing short of brilliant. No Hollywood-style staging here, nor any overwrought pathos. What we get to see is a real war, where fights exchange shots from afar, where they eat together, where they talk about shellings like they would talk about bad weather (the unusual becoming the usual).
Note, in particular, the eerie oddness of the scene shot in night vision, with one of the fighters describing his experience with killing. In that scene you can witness all the banal horror of violence.
Be careful, though: the ending can hit home hard. Death doesn't care about justice when it strikes.
A lot of media content has been published about Libya since the beginning of the uprising and especially since the first salvos of the NATO, which began on March 19th of 2011. Yet, we rarely read or see features that really were shot on the ground, with the intent of showing how the fighters themselves live their war, and how they carry on in this maelstrom of fire they were caught in.
I recently had the chance of watching a documentary on Al-Jazeera called "Holding the Line", by Patrick Wells. I heartily recommend anyone interested in the Arab Spring to watch it. The journalist followed a small group of fighters near Misrata for three weeks and focused on showing war as they saw and lived it. The result is nothing short of brilliant. No Hollywood-style staging here, nor any overwrought pathos. What we get to see is a real war, where fights exchange shots from afar, where they eat together, where they talk about shellings like they would talk about bad weather (the unusual becoming the usual).
Note, in particular, the eerie oddness of the scene shot in night vision, with one of the fighters describing his experience with killing. In that scene you can witness all the banal horror of violence.
Be careful, though: the ending can hit home hard. Death doesn't care about justice when it strikes.
The dilemma of Islamism
Jérémie Lebel
Column
Of all things Arab Spring, the rise of Islamism is perhaps the most discussed. An increased role for religious-minded parties appears inevitable in all post-revolution political orders, causing endless debates about whether we should already write the obituary of democracy or welcome the integration of the believing into the mainstream fold. Should we fear the diffusion of an Iran-styled model of theocracy? Not quite. Yet, I think there is a case to be made for liberal values beyond cultural differences. I’ll make the point that the advent of democracy is in itself a good thing, even and because it includes Islamist parties, but that Islamist ideas should still be fought, but in a democratic and rational way.
To begin with, not all Islamist parties are the same. First off, they very rarely are transnational. That affects their programs quite a lot. Ennahda, for instance, is a Tunisian party before being Islamist. Of course, its leaders do feel sympathy for the Palestinian cause, but the same could be said about the Liberal Party of Canada and the Tamil Cause. Ennahda has no ambition to create a caliphate uniting all Maghreb countries: it merely wants to lead Tunisia. It is also a political party first and foremost, as opposite to Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is a social movement / militia / terrorist movement / political party. Ennahda doesn’t provide social services, and when it does so it is to gain votes, just like our political parties used to hand out gifts to lure potential voters back in the 40’s. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is of another ilk. They are at first a network of networks, a social movement dedicated to the islamization of society. Their party, Freedom and Justice, is a recent creation. The Lebanese Hezbollah, as mentioned, is again another kind of entity altogether. To label it a “terrorist movement” isn’t so much incorrect as incomplete.
Islamist parties differ on so many aspects that the label becomes almost useless when it comes to describing reality. Two different parties in the same country can agree on using the label, yet present starkly divergent modes of organization, aims and, to some point, worldviews. The Egyptian Salafi An-Nour Party, for example, is quite a lot more radical than the Muslim Brotherhood. Even if some members of the Brotherhood share its views on morals, they don’t necessarily share their extreme focus on social and sexual mores or their views on how to take decisions.
We can however put forward a few general truths. All parties who call themselves Islamist, or Islamic to respect their phrasing, believe that religion should play a larger role in society and government. They think that bringing back religion into politics will have a beneficial moral influence on it. Most associate Arab culture with Islam, and believe that a revival of Islam is key to a revival of Arab societies (neo-fundamentalist parties, like An-Nour, don’t care about culture so much as about observing a moral code). We can also safely say that most religious-minded politicians hold conservative views of society and morals. It’s just like if someone created a “Christian Renewal Party of Canada”: you wouldn’t expect that party to loudly advocate for the integration of a course on sex-change operations at kindergarten.
Let’s also say this: no matter what we think of it, the cat’s out of the box and we can’t wish it away. Political parties exist to fill a demand, and Islamist parties are no exception to that rule. Democracy is about resisting our wish to eliminate discomfort with force. It has no strength if it depends on repression. Defenders of liberal ideas should resist the temptation to approve of less-than-democratic compromises in the name of keeping the Islamist peril at bay. Ideas are best fought by other ideas, not by strong men with guns.
Besides, religion itself will neither put people back to work or root out corruption, two of the most pressing issued at hand right now. At least, having Islamists in power will make that quite clear. Islamism leading to de facto secularization of politics is a very real possibility, as the daily workings of politics will make it obvious that Islamist parties are, in the end, only parties, with the fallibility it entails.
There is however a case to be made that the intrusion of religion into politics is a danger to freedom, and that the State should remain above the fray. I am not merely defending “tolerance” toward faiths other than Islam, as some understand freedom of religion: I am advocating for the absolute right to change religion from or toward any faith, the right not to have any faith, the right to proselytize for any system of thought (apart from obvious restrictions to hate speech), the right to marry and live outside of faith, and in an ideal world the absence of religious education other than comparative.
Most of those rights are things we take for granted. However, in most Arab countries they don’t exist or are restricted in their reach. Tunisia is commonly called secular, yet a Muslim woman isn’t allowed to marry a non-Muslim man. Restrictions to proselytizing for Christians are not uncommon throughout the Arab World. In Egypt and Lebanon, just to cite those examples, civil marriage doesn’t exist. Apostasy laws – public punishment for renouncing Islam – are mercifully rare, although society usually holds a dim view of people who renounce their religion.
In my opinion, freedom of religion is the same as freedom of conscience. A religion is a particular system of beliefs describing the world, giving a meaning to it, and giving instructions as to how to live. It is not intrinsically different from other systems of thought, apart from its pretension to emanate from a supernatural source. There is thus no justifiable reason to limit freedom of religion. Limiting it, or basing public services on religious belonging or un-belonging, is the same as limiting freedom of conscience. Once that is recognized, political debates about religion become incomparably clear. Would it make sense for a State to forbid marriage between a liberal and a libertarian? Would it make sense for a state to forbid conservatives to spread their views, even if 98% of the population is socialist?
Keeping the state secular is an ideal worth defending, which I believe is inseparable from the defence of democracy. When the soul isn’t free, the citizen isn’t either. That’s why my position, as a defender of liberal democracy, is to advocate against Islamist propositions, all the while approving of their right to defend them.
Column
Of all things Arab Spring, the rise of Islamism is perhaps the most discussed. An increased role for religious-minded parties appears inevitable in all post-revolution political orders, causing endless debates about whether we should already write the obituary of democracy or welcome the integration of the believing into the mainstream fold. Should we fear the diffusion of an Iran-styled model of theocracy? Not quite. Yet, I think there is a case to be made for liberal values beyond cultural differences. I’ll make the point that the advent of democracy is in itself a good thing, even and because it includes Islamist parties, but that Islamist ideas should still be fought, but in a democratic and rational way.
To begin with, not all Islamist parties are the same. First off, they very rarely are transnational. That affects their programs quite a lot. Ennahda, for instance, is a Tunisian party before being Islamist. Of course, its leaders do feel sympathy for the Palestinian cause, but the same could be said about the Liberal Party of Canada and the Tamil Cause. Ennahda has no ambition to create a caliphate uniting all Maghreb countries: it merely wants to lead Tunisia. It is also a political party first and foremost, as opposite to Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is a social movement / militia / terrorist movement / political party. Ennahda doesn’t provide social services, and when it does so it is to gain votes, just like our political parties used to hand out gifts to lure potential voters back in the 40’s. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is of another ilk. They are at first a network of networks, a social movement dedicated to the islamization of society. Their party, Freedom and Justice, is a recent creation. The Lebanese Hezbollah, as mentioned, is again another kind of entity altogether. To label it a “terrorist movement” isn’t so much incorrect as incomplete.
Islamist parties differ on so many aspects that the label becomes almost useless when it comes to describing reality. Two different parties in the same country can agree on using the label, yet present starkly divergent modes of organization, aims and, to some point, worldviews. The Egyptian Salafi An-Nour Party, for example, is quite a lot more radical than the Muslim Brotherhood. Even if some members of the Brotherhood share its views on morals, they don’t necessarily share their extreme focus on social and sexual mores or their views on how to take decisions.
We can however put forward a few general truths. All parties who call themselves Islamist, or Islamic to respect their phrasing, believe that religion should play a larger role in society and government. They think that bringing back religion into politics will have a beneficial moral influence on it. Most associate Arab culture with Islam, and believe that a revival of Islam is key to a revival of Arab societies (neo-fundamentalist parties, like An-Nour, don’t care about culture so much as about observing a moral code). We can also safely say that most religious-minded politicians hold conservative views of society and morals. It’s just like if someone created a “Christian Renewal Party of Canada”: you wouldn’t expect that party to loudly advocate for the integration of a course on sex-change operations at kindergarten.
Let’s also say this: no matter what we think of it, the cat’s out of the box and we can’t wish it away. Political parties exist to fill a demand, and Islamist parties are no exception to that rule. Democracy is about resisting our wish to eliminate discomfort with force. It has no strength if it depends on repression. Defenders of liberal ideas should resist the temptation to approve of less-than-democratic compromises in the name of keeping the Islamist peril at bay. Ideas are best fought by other ideas, not by strong men with guns.
Besides, religion itself will neither put people back to work or root out corruption, two of the most pressing issued at hand right now. At least, having Islamists in power will make that quite clear. Islamism leading to de facto secularization of politics is a very real possibility, as the daily workings of politics will make it obvious that Islamist parties are, in the end, only parties, with the fallibility it entails.
There is however a case to be made that the intrusion of religion into politics is a danger to freedom, and that the State should remain above the fray. I am not merely defending “tolerance” toward faiths other than Islam, as some understand freedom of religion: I am advocating for the absolute right to change religion from or toward any faith, the right not to have any faith, the right to proselytize for any system of thought (apart from obvious restrictions to hate speech), the right to marry and live outside of faith, and in an ideal world the absence of religious education other than comparative.
Most of those rights are things we take for granted. However, in most Arab countries they don’t exist or are restricted in their reach. Tunisia is commonly called secular, yet a Muslim woman isn’t allowed to marry a non-Muslim man. Restrictions to proselytizing for Christians are not uncommon throughout the Arab World. In Egypt and Lebanon, just to cite those examples, civil marriage doesn’t exist. Apostasy laws – public punishment for renouncing Islam – are mercifully rare, although society usually holds a dim view of people who renounce their religion.
In my opinion, freedom of religion is the same as freedom of conscience. A religion is a particular system of beliefs describing the world, giving a meaning to it, and giving instructions as to how to live. It is not intrinsically different from other systems of thought, apart from its pretension to emanate from a supernatural source. There is thus no justifiable reason to limit freedom of religion. Limiting it, or basing public services on religious belonging or un-belonging, is the same as limiting freedom of conscience. Once that is recognized, political debates about religion become incomparably clear. Would it make sense for a State to forbid marriage between a liberal and a libertarian? Would it make sense for a state to forbid conservatives to spread their views, even if 98% of the population is socialist?
Keeping the state secular is an ideal worth defending, which I believe is inseparable from the defence of democracy. When the soul isn’t free, the citizen isn’t either. That’s why my position, as a defender of liberal democracy, is to advocate against Islamist propositions, all the while approving of their right to defend them.
A year ago, to the day
Sabrina Zouaghi
A year of events no one thought possible, that seemed to float out of that people’s reach, like a utopia waking up the senses, making one dream with excess. Yet, it took only one man to give that sweet dream an echo in reality, to incrust that dream in wounded hearts, thirsty for hope and better days where their voices, breaking spirits and borders, strike at the perplexity of those who had never thought it possible.
You, who come out of nowhere, how is it that the entire world knows your name, loaded with symbols of deliverance, of popular uprising, of freedom? How is it that in Mohamed Bouazizi one finds joy and sadness, hope and uncertainty, change and inertia? How is it that History will remember your name, but not that of those who followed your path toward liberation?
Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia, cradle of the revolution with two names. No need here to further tell the story of the events, for all know it, at least in its outlines. I never stop wondering how far up your courage and your distress rose, so high as to have you go beyond the point of no return, to set your feelings ablaze and pour out the fire burning in you. What thought gleamed in your spirit when you were burning your rage? Did you think your action would unite all your brothers and sisters against adversity, against the illusion of impossibility? Or did you think you were giving your family one less mouth to feed?
Whatever the answer, you found yourself in the Center of Traumatology and Severe Burns of Ben Arous, where the very icon of your torments dared inquire about your face. What joy must you have felt at the news of his hurried flight!
In one year the story of a decade unfolded itself: popular uprisings, a dictator fleeing, a contagion from this Arab Spring to the other bled, a purge – more or less completed – of Ben Ali’s ex-sympathizers, the birth of a hundred political parties, elections, a Constitutive Assembly... Who would have deemed it possible in that State with the highest ratio of policemen per citizens?
One must not minimize the impacts of sacrifice – which consequences are still being felt, when the conditions of freedom demand to be effected, and when social choices are being made. The intellectuals are still dazzled, but everyone can now speak out.
My speech does not seek to discuss the sequence of events following your act, Bouazizi, but rather what led you to that extreme. Being witness to the ostentatious wealth of a handful of men who are rich because of their connections with Men, without any connection to Mankind, devoid of those qualities which allow us to transcend the mere state of beasts. Knowing they’re filling their bellies replete in one of their sumptuous palaces, while you struggled to find enough food to make your family live, while you sadly kept on toiling for a meagre few dinars without those crooked men wanting it. The rage, the hatred, the despair... Knowing those feelings were shared by the whole people, yet to know the people to be ungrateful and ignorant of their own fellow countrymen. How to accept the unacceptable and live muted by one’s earthy gag, kept on by the batons of some of your brothers and sisters in the bouliss? Probably did you want to vomit forth your disarray toward those who, out of self-interest, collaborated with Shaitan and spilled their disgust on the innocents who had to open their wallet and give their few dinars earned through toil to those hands covered by the shame of the people. Corruption... a blistering word, fuelling the fire that heats up shame.
A year ago, to the day.
No matter Tunisians’ perceptions as to effective or nominal change.
No matter the agreement, or lack thereof, around your act.
No matter that Ben Ali is still hiding away, sheltered from justice...
No matter...
Tunisia mourns one of her own, gone a year ago, to the day.
No matter. A family wears the veil of mourning today. All of Tunisia shares its grief.
Today, I think of you more than ever, Mohamed Bouazizi. I cry with your family over your sacrifice, I know your despair, your cause is mine, I thank you for the door you have opened to your people, to your brothers and sisters in the Arab world. May they remember your rage forever and protect the bled against any steps backwards, against all those who seek to lay their hands upon the people’s rediscovered pride.
Allah yarhmou.
A year of events no one thought possible, that seemed to float out of that people’s reach, like a utopia waking up the senses, making one dream with excess. Yet, it took only one man to give that sweet dream an echo in reality, to incrust that dream in wounded hearts, thirsty for hope and better days where their voices, breaking spirits and borders, strike at the perplexity of those who had never thought it possible.
You, who come out of nowhere, how is it that the entire world knows your name, loaded with symbols of deliverance, of popular uprising, of freedom? How is it that in Mohamed Bouazizi one finds joy and sadness, hope and uncertainty, change and inertia? How is it that History will remember your name, but not that of those who followed your path toward liberation?
Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia, cradle of the revolution with two names. No need here to further tell the story of the events, for all know it, at least in its outlines. I never stop wondering how far up your courage and your distress rose, so high as to have you go beyond the point of no return, to set your feelings ablaze and pour out the fire burning in you. What thought gleamed in your spirit when you were burning your rage? Did you think your action would unite all your brothers and sisters against adversity, against the illusion of impossibility? Or did you think you were giving your family one less mouth to feed?
Whatever the answer, you found yourself in the Center of Traumatology and Severe Burns of Ben Arous, where the very icon of your torments dared inquire about your face. What joy must you have felt at the news of his hurried flight!
In one year the story of a decade unfolded itself: popular uprisings, a dictator fleeing, a contagion from this Arab Spring to the other bled, a purge – more or less completed – of Ben Ali’s ex-sympathizers, the birth of a hundred political parties, elections, a Constitutive Assembly... Who would have deemed it possible in that State with the highest ratio of policemen per citizens?
One must not minimize the impacts of sacrifice – which consequences are still being felt, when the conditions of freedom demand to be effected, and when social choices are being made. The intellectuals are still dazzled, but everyone can now speak out.
My speech does not seek to discuss the sequence of events following your act, Bouazizi, but rather what led you to that extreme. Being witness to the ostentatious wealth of a handful of men who are rich because of their connections with Men, without any connection to Mankind, devoid of those qualities which allow us to transcend the mere state of beasts. Knowing they’re filling their bellies replete in one of their sumptuous palaces, while you struggled to find enough food to make your family live, while you sadly kept on toiling for a meagre few dinars without those crooked men wanting it. The rage, the hatred, the despair... Knowing those feelings were shared by the whole people, yet to know the people to be ungrateful and ignorant of their own fellow countrymen. How to accept the unacceptable and live muted by one’s earthy gag, kept on by the batons of some of your brothers and sisters in the bouliss? Probably did you want to vomit forth your disarray toward those who, out of self-interest, collaborated with Shaitan and spilled their disgust on the innocents who had to open their wallet and give their few dinars earned through toil to those hands covered by the shame of the people. Corruption... a blistering word, fuelling the fire that heats up shame.
A year ago, to the day.
No matter Tunisians’ perceptions as to effective or nominal change.
No matter the agreement, or lack thereof, around your act.
No matter that Ben Ali is still hiding away, sheltered from justice...
No matter...
Tunisia mourns one of her own, gone a year ago, to the day.
No matter. A family wears the veil of mourning today. All of Tunisia shares its grief.
Today, I think of you more than ever, Mohamed Bouazizi. I cry with your family over your sacrifice, I know your despair, your cause is mine, I thank you for the door you have opened to your people, to your brothers and sisters in the Arab world. May they remember your rage forever and protect the bled against any steps backwards, against all those who seek to lay their hands upon the people’s rediscovered pride.
Allah yarhmou.
Egypt: Islam Matters (and worries, too)
Jérémie Lebel
In the first round of the Egyptian elections, Islamist parties tallied around 60% of the vote. The strong showing by the Muslim Brotherhood, which got 36% of the vote, didn't surprise, as they have been the best-organized political force in the country for years. What did create a shock is the surprisingly high turnout in favor of the Salafist party Al-Nour (The Light), whose ultra-conservative brand of religious politics resonated with an astounding 24% of voters.
While the Muslim Brotherhood takes pains to show an amenable face to the world and at least (for the cynical) pays lip service to the ideals of women's rights and equality for all, the Salafists, to put it plainly, just don't care. They stand for a rigidly conservative brand of political Islam, in which "God's law" is superior to any other law. They took some flak during the elections for replacing the pictures of their women candidates by images of roses or pictures of their husbands; indeed, why show them if people couldn't see their face anyway because of their full-face veil? One Salafist candidate also declared famed author Naguib Mahfouz was a defender of "prostitution and atheism" and that democracy was tantamount to "blasphemy". By the way, the rose images shtick drew them a healthy amount of ridicule, which they didn't take so kindly. For all their backwardness, Salafists are expected to make more, not less, inroads in the coming months, since the regions that still have to vote are predominantly rural and more conservative.
It is important to remember that Egypt is in effect a pretty conservative country, with fairly retrograde laws when it comes to religion. In December 2010, the Pew Research Center released a report on perceptions of politics and religion in the Muslim World. The results for Egypt were disheartening for supporters of liberal democracy: 95% of respondents said that Islam should play a large role in politics, 54% approved that men and women should be segregated in the workplace, 82% said that adulterers should be stoned and 84% approved of the death penalty for apostates (people who renounce their religion, but that never applies to converts to Islam). The constitution of Egypt stipulates that no law can contradict Islamic Law, or shari'a ( شريعة). As an aside, defining just what is shari'a is not easy at all, as it is an ever-evolving corpus of rules, interpretations and commentaries. The fact remains that Islam is officially the "religion of the State" in Egypt, and that the adoption of international law into national law is subject to reservations based on the respect of shari'a.
In practical terms, the supremacy of Islamic Law means, for instance, that marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man is forbidden, as if the State should have anything to say about that. In other domains, such as the punishment for apostasy, or construction permits for churches, the official position is more permissive, but entrenched attitudes in local officials translates into harassment and difficulties for those who transgress religious edicts or belong to another faith. One should also remember that "religious tolerance" extends only to the Abrahamic faiths; the Baha'i cult, as an example, isn't allowed in Egypt.
What does it all mean? What should we "fear"? Will Islamism's rise mean chaos and war? That much shouldn't happen, at least as long as Isreal enjoys supreme military dominance over its neighbors. "We" don't have anything to fear, to put it cruelly: Egyptians do. Private mores shouldn't be a matter of State legislation. One would wish to see Egyptian politicos take for their own Trudeau's famous quip : "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation". Moreover, the kind of "thought" that characterizes Salafism is one that proudly shuns rationality and humanism in favor of slavish absolutism. Their morality isn't anchored in care for others or rational thinking, leaving the door open to the justification of pretty much anything. When you combine that with the in-group mentality that is the hallmark of fundamentalists, you can begin to understand why Egyptian Copts fear for their safety.
Democracy, in my view, shouldn't merely mean "majority rule". It also means an institutional design that guarantees freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association, the independence of justice, and according to me, rational discussion as the underlying tool for elaborating laws. I have no hope for such a wide conception of democracy to take hold in Egypt in the near future. All I can hope for is that Egypt doesn't go too far down the road of religious politics, which cannot bring it much good.
In the first round of the Egyptian elections, Islamist parties tallied around 60% of the vote. The strong showing by the Muslim Brotherhood, which got 36% of the vote, didn't surprise, as they have been the best-organized political force in the country for years. What did create a shock is the surprisingly high turnout in favor of the Salafist party Al-Nour (The Light), whose ultra-conservative brand of religious politics resonated with an astounding 24% of voters.
While the Muslim Brotherhood takes pains to show an amenable face to the world and at least (for the cynical) pays lip service to the ideals of women's rights and equality for all, the Salafists, to put it plainly, just don't care. They stand for a rigidly conservative brand of political Islam, in which "God's law" is superior to any other law. They took some flak during the elections for replacing the pictures of their women candidates by images of roses or pictures of their husbands; indeed, why show them if people couldn't see their face anyway because of their full-face veil? One Salafist candidate also declared famed author Naguib Mahfouz was a defender of "prostitution and atheism" and that democracy was tantamount to "blasphemy". By the way, the rose images shtick drew them a healthy amount of ridicule, which they didn't take so kindly. For all their backwardness, Salafists are expected to make more, not less, inroads in the coming months, since the regions that still have to vote are predominantly rural and more conservative.
It is important to remember that Egypt is in effect a pretty conservative country, with fairly retrograde laws when it comes to religion. In December 2010, the Pew Research Center released a report on perceptions of politics and religion in the Muslim World. The results for Egypt were disheartening for supporters of liberal democracy: 95% of respondents said that Islam should play a large role in politics, 54% approved that men and women should be segregated in the workplace, 82% said that adulterers should be stoned and 84% approved of the death penalty for apostates (people who renounce their religion, but that never applies to converts to Islam). The constitution of Egypt stipulates that no law can contradict Islamic Law, or shari'a ( شريعة). As an aside, defining just what is shari'a is not easy at all, as it is an ever-evolving corpus of rules, interpretations and commentaries. The fact remains that Islam is officially the "religion of the State" in Egypt, and that the adoption of international law into national law is subject to reservations based on the respect of shari'a.
In practical terms, the supremacy of Islamic Law means, for instance, that marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man is forbidden, as if the State should have anything to say about that. In other domains, such as the punishment for apostasy, or construction permits for churches, the official position is more permissive, but entrenched attitudes in local officials translates into harassment and difficulties for those who transgress religious edicts or belong to another faith. One should also remember that "religious tolerance" extends only to the Abrahamic faiths; the Baha'i cult, as an example, isn't allowed in Egypt.
What does it all mean? What should we "fear"? Will Islamism's rise mean chaos and war? That much shouldn't happen, at least as long as Isreal enjoys supreme military dominance over its neighbors. "We" don't have anything to fear, to put it cruelly: Egyptians do. Private mores shouldn't be a matter of State legislation. One would wish to see Egyptian politicos take for their own Trudeau's famous quip : "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation". Moreover, the kind of "thought" that characterizes Salafism is one that proudly shuns rationality and humanism in favor of slavish absolutism. Their morality isn't anchored in care for others or rational thinking, leaving the door open to the justification of pretty much anything. When you combine that with the in-group mentality that is the hallmark of fundamentalists, you can begin to understand why Egyptian Copts fear for their safety.
Democracy, in my view, shouldn't merely mean "majority rule". It also means an institutional design that guarantees freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association, the independence of justice, and according to me, rational discussion as the underlying tool for elaborating laws. I have no hope for such a wide conception of democracy to take hold in Egypt in the near future. All I can hope for is that Egypt doesn't go too far down the road of religious politics, which cannot bring it much good.
The Bouazizi Effect
Yassine Poli
Even though the Egyptian name their revolution: January 25th revolution, its first manifestations’ origins come from a series of young Egyptians immolations, since the beginning of January 2011, expressing their disapproval of the standards of life of the majority of the people of Egypt, the inequalities in the country, the lack of freedom, police brutality, and also to demand an equal distribution of the country’s wealth.
« The Facebook effect » : Just as the Tunisian case, Internet, with its multiple uses, played an important role in the outbreak of the Egyptian revolution of 2011. Sure enough, social networks such as Facebook and Twitter helped the democracy and human rights activists in Egypt significantly towards organizing, starting and managing these insurrectional movements that destabilize the region.
Everything started on January 25th 2011 after a call made on Facebook by a group of young internet users: April 6th Movement. Yet, as under any authoritarian regime, and since the first days, the protests were violently repressed by the law enforcement forces, and the internet and mobile communications were cut in the whole country.
The Egyptian authorities felt the dangers that the Qatari channel Al Jazeera represented to the reign of the former Egyptian president Mubarak, and tried to close its offices in Cairo since January 27th 2011. Despite this measure that intended to prevent internet users and journalists from doing their job, thousands of Egyptians took the street once again on January 28th, during what they call “Friday of Anger”.
« I had no intention to run in the presidential race anymore.» : After 31 years in power, at the age of 83, during his first address of January 29th 2011, the former president pulls his trump cards. While he tried to seduce the Egyptian people by deposing the government and appointing a vice-president, their response was clear: they stood their ground and occupied Tahrir Square starting from January 29th 2011, the very day he pronounced his first address. On February 1st 2011, UN talked about 300 dead, 3000 injured and hundreds of arrests, all victims of the violent repression of the protesters.
« Ma’arakate Eldjimal / The battle of the camels» : February 2nd and 3rd 2011 were the most disturbing days of these protests. As a response to the occupation of Tahrir Square by the protesters, the Baltajiya (thugs, henchmen or policemen in protesters’ disguise) and supporters of Mubarak attacked them on camels, using sticks and stones. The clashes lasted for two days, and the toll reached 6 dead and 836 injured. That event demonstrates very well the vileness of the primitive policy of that dictatorial regime.
The following days were full of huge mobilizations against the regime. The number of protestors reached hundreds of thousands, all gathered, day and night at Tahrir Square, or in the other large cities. The 6th, 7th and 8th of February was Vice-president Omar Suleiman’s, who tried in all ways to begin a dialogue with the opposition and the representatives of the protestors of Tahrir Square. It resulted into a total fiasco.
« Press release n° 1 » : Just as the old days of the Arab-Israeli war in the 60s and 70s, the Egyptian army goes back to the press releases’ method, regarding the critical situation in Egypt. It justifies its intervention by will to protect the nation. In the other hand, Mubarak reminds his citizens that he won’t go for the presidential run anymore, as he promised, but affirms that he will pursue his mandate until its end, which means until September 2011. Therefore, protestors at Tahrir Square wave their shoes and still demand his departure.
Dropped by the Americans and hiding in Sharm el-Sheikh, the former president decides to give up office. It is Vice-president Omar Suleiman who declares it on February 11th 2011. So, after 3 weeks of protests and enormous popular mobilizations, the army takes the lead, until democratic elections are held. In Tahrir Square, as well as all other regions of the country, there was a burst of joy amongst the population, following the announcement of Mubarak’s departure. According to the Egyptian ministry of Health, the toll of the January 25th revolution, published on February 16th, reached: 365 dead and 5500 injured.
Even though the Egyptian name their revolution: January 25th revolution, its first manifestations’ origins come from a series of young Egyptians immolations, since the beginning of January 2011, expressing their disapproval of the standards of life of the majority of the people of Egypt, the inequalities in the country, the lack of freedom, police brutality, and also to demand an equal distribution of the country’s wealth.
« The Facebook effect » : Just as the Tunisian case, Internet, with its multiple uses, played an important role in the outbreak of the Egyptian revolution of 2011. Sure enough, social networks such as Facebook and Twitter helped the democracy and human rights activists in Egypt significantly towards organizing, starting and managing these insurrectional movements that destabilize the region.
Everything started on January 25th 2011 after a call made on Facebook by a group of young internet users: April 6th Movement. Yet, as under any authoritarian regime, and since the first days, the protests were violently repressed by the law enforcement forces, and the internet and mobile communications were cut in the whole country.
The Egyptian authorities felt the dangers that the Qatari channel Al Jazeera represented to the reign of the former Egyptian president Mubarak, and tried to close its offices in Cairo since January 27th 2011. Despite this measure that intended to prevent internet users and journalists from doing their job, thousands of Egyptians took the street once again on January 28th, during what they call “Friday of Anger”.
« I had no intention to run in the presidential race anymore.» : After 31 years in power, at the age of 83, during his first address of January 29th 2011, the former president pulls his trump cards. While he tried to seduce the Egyptian people by deposing the government and appointing a vice-president, their response was clear: they stood their ground and occupied Tahrir Square starting from January 29th 2011, the very day he pronounced his first address. On February 1st 2011, UN talked about 300 dead, 3000 injured and hundreds of arrests, all victims of the violent repression of the protesters.
« Ma’arakate Eldjimal / The battle of the camels» : February 2nd and 3rd 2011 were the most disturbing days of these protests. As a response to the occupation of Tahrir Square by the protesters, the Baltajiya (thugs, henchmen or policemen in protesters’ disguise) and supporters of Mubarak attacked them on camels, using sticks and stones. The clashes lasted for two days, and the toll reached 6 dead and 836 injured. That event demonstrates very well the vileness of the primitive policy of that dictatorial regime.
The following days were full of huge mobilizations against the regime. The number of protestors reached hundreds of thousands, all gathered, day and night at Tahrir Square, or in the other large cities. The 6th, 7th and 8th of February was Vice-president Omar Suleiman’s, who tried in all ways to begin a dialogue with the opposition and the representatives of the protestors of Tahrir Square. It resulted into a total fiasco.
« Press release n° 1 » : Just as the old days of the Arab-Israeli war in the 60s and 70s, the Egyptian army goes back to the press releases’ method, regarding the critical situation in Egypt. It justifies its intervention by will to protect the nation. In the other hand, Mubarak reminds his citizens that he won’t go for the presidential run anymore, as he promised, but affirms that he will pursue his mandate until its end, which means until September 2011. Therefore, protestors at Tahrir Square wave their shoes and still demand his departure.
Dropped by the Americans and hiding in Sharm el-Sheikh, the former president decides to give up office. It is Vice-president Omar Suleiman who declares it on February 11th 2011. So, after 3 weeks of protests and enormous popular mobilizations, the army takes the lead, until democratic elections are held. In Tahrir Square, as well as all other regions of the country, there was a burst of joy amongst the population, following the announcement of Mubarak’s departure. According to the Egyptian ministry of Health, the toll of the January 25th revolution, published on February 16th, reached: 365 dead and 5500 injured.
Tunisia: the struggle for dignity
Yassine Poli
« The regime in Tunisia is strong… it is the legitimate descendant of the national State since 1956.” These words were the comment Borhane Bsais, Tunisian journalist and intellectual, made about the Tunisian popular revolt, during the so-popular show of Al-Itijah Al-Mouakis “against the grain” on the Qatari channel Al Jazeera, defending the fallen regime of the former Tunisian president, Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali, in hiding in Saudi Arabia since January 14th, 2011.
Nevertheless, three days later, (the show was broadcasted live on January 11th, 2011), it’s the end of this police state, highly destabilized by huge popular protests that was challenging it during the past three weeks. A gigantic social movement now called “Jasmine revolution”, which will lead to a similar one in Egypt, and elsewhere in North-Africa and the Middle-East. It is called by the eminent specialists “the Arab spring”. A look back at these sociopolitical movements that attended the Arab world since the beginning of 2011.
Tunisia: The Jasmine revolution of the revolution for dignity
One has to be Tunisian in order to understand why the Tunisian prefer to name their revolution: Revolution for dignity, rather than the name given in western medias: Jasmine revolution. Yet, on December 17th, 2010, Mohammed Bouazizi, a young Tunisian, unemployed university graduate, dared to scarify himself, by self-immolation, in order to express that social and political discontent that a whole people lived, despised, killed and detained by a dictatorial government that ruled Tunisia since General Ben Ali took power on November 7th, 1987.
Five days following the immolation of the Martyr Bouazizi (December 22nd, 2011), it’s another Tunisian’s turn, from the same city of Sidi Bouzid, in the center of Tunisia, shouting that he wanted “no more misery, no more unemployment”. Undergoing unemployment, disregard, high living costs and the gap in growth between their region and other touristic regions in the North of Tunisia, the civil population takes the streets in order to demonstrate peacefully their anger with the current situation.
On December 24th, 2010, 60km away from Sidi Bouzid, in the locality of Menzel Bouzayane, violent combats between civilians and police result to one death and several injured. Few days later, the protests have reached the capital Tunis, and as in any tyranny, the security solution was preferred. The civilians were violently dispersed by law enforcement authorities, leading to several injuries amongst the civilians.
“I have understood you”: This short sentence isn’t Charles de Gaulle’s at Algiers in 1958; it is definitely Ben Ali’s, who’s expressing his understanding of the “hardness due to the unemployment situation and its psychological impact on he who undergoes it”, 23 years after he took the power after a coup d’état. In accordance to his dictatorial practices, in his address to the nation on December 28th 2010, the first since the beginning of the social riots that destabilize his government, the former Tunisian president promises a better future, while threatening the Tunisian from making eventual political demands that would question his regime.
Mohamed Bouazizi, street vendor and the now famous symbol of the revolution for dignity in Tunisia and the Arab world, dies on the 4th of January 2011, and 5000 people march behind his coffin, promising vengeance all along their way to the cemetery. The revolution enters then another phase during the few following days. The 8th and 9th of January were two bloody days. Sure enough, the violent riots’ toll in three cities in the central western part of the country: Kasserine, Thala and Regueb, is 21 dead, according to official sources, and 50 dead from syndical sources. Thus, the Tunisian rediscover the real murderous face of the regime that has been ruling them with an iron fist since two decades.
During his second address of January 10th 2011, the general promises 300 000 additional jobs by 2012. It is made possible for him to achieve that thanks to the limitless generosity of his eastern colleague in tyranny, Gaddafi of Libya. The zero tolerance option wasn’t excluded. Schools and universities closed their doors, and since January 12th, a nocturnal curfew in the capital and its suburbs was decreed by the former minister of interior’s stand-in.
« There is no presidency for life » : The decision would have been relieving if it had been declared years ago, but in Ben Ali’s case during these events, it expresses a real fear amongst his regime. During his third address since the beginning of the riots, his last as president of Tunisia, Ben Ali makes a commitment to give up presidency by 2014, to stop fires against the protesters, to lower essential products’ prices and to lift the censorship on internet websites. Tunisian people’s response was to defy the curfew and to take the streets of Tunis and the largest cities such as Carthage and Sidi Bou Saïd in order to express their joy.
By announcing the dissolution of his governments and the organization of anticipated legislative elections in six months, on January 14th 2011, the fleeing president played his last card, and the Tunisian people, acknowledging what’s waiting for him if his regime ever stays in place, wants his departure from the State’s top.
At the end of the day, Mohammed Ghannouchi, Tunisia’s Prime Minister, declares that he will temporarily fill the position of president because the head of state “is temporarily unable to fulfill his responsibilities”. Actually, the latter had taken a flight, few hours earlier, to Jeddah, in Saudi Arabia. Choosing that country wasn’t voluntary. It is justified by the fact that none of the former president’s regime's allies, France and Malta amongst others, was ready to receive him. By exiting governance of Tunisia and fleeing to the Golf, Ben Ali was forced to obey the will of the people for a real democratic transition, in which the Tunisian people would be the true source of political legitimacy, which was shown by the following months.
The consequences of the Tunisian popular uprising greatly exceed its frontiers. Hundreds of kilometers away from the east of Tunisia, and barely 10 days after the overthrow of Ben Ali’s regime, it’s Mubarak’s Egypt that will start its popular revolution, which will make another Arab dictator abandon the chair.
« The regime in Tunisia is strong… it is the legitimate descendant of the national State since 1956.” These words were the comment Borhane Bsais, Tunisian journalist and intellectual, made about the Tunisian popular revolt, during the so-popular show of Al-Itijah Al-Mouakis “against the grain” on the Qatari channel Al Jazeera, defending the fallen regime of the former Tunisian president, Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali, in hiding in Saudi Arabia since January 14th, 2011.
Nevertheless, three days later, (the show was broadcasted live on January 11th, 2011), it’s the end of this police state, highly destabilized by huge popular protests that was challenging it during the past three weeks. A gigantic social movement now called “Jasmine revolution”, which will lead to a similar one in Egypt, and elsewhere in North-Africa and the Middle-East. It is called by the eminent specialists “the Arab spring”. A look back at these sociopolitical movements that attended the Arab world since the beginning of 2011.
Tunisia: The Jasmine revolution of the revolution for dignity
One has to be Tunisian in order to understand why the Tunisian prefer to name their revolution: Revolution for dignity, rather than the name given in western medias: Jasmine revolution. Yet, on December 17th, 2010, Mohammed Bouazizi, a young Tunisian, unemployed university graduate, dared to scarify himself, by self-immolation, in order to express that social and political discontent that a whole people lived, despised, killed and detained by a dictatorial government that ruled Tunisia since General Ben Ali took power on November 7th, 1987.
Five days following the immolation of the Martyr Bouazizi (December 22nd, 2011), it’s another Tunisian’s turn, from the same city of Sidi Bouzid, in the center of Tunisia, shouting that he wanted “no more misery, no more unemployment”. Undergoing unemployment, disregard, high living costs and the gap in growth between their region and other touristic regions in the North of Tunisia, the civil population takes the streets in order to demonstrate peacefully their anger with the current situation.
On December 24th, 2010, 60km away from Sidi Bouzid, in the locality of Menzel Bouzayane, violent combats between civilians and police result to one death and several injured. Few days later, the protests have reached the capital Tunis, and as in any tyranny, the security solution was preferred. The civilians were violently dispersed by law enforcement authorities, leading to several injuries amongst the civilians.
“I have understood you”: This short sentence isn’t Charles de Gaulle’s at Algiers in 1958; it is definitely Ben Ali’s, who’s expressing his understanding of the “hardness due to the unemployment situation and its psychological impact on he who undergoes it”, 23 years after he took the power after a coup d’état. In accordance to his dictatorial practices, in his address to the nation on December 28th 2010, the first since the beginning of the social riots that destabilize his government, the former Tunisian president promises a better future, while threatening the Tunisian from making eventual political demands that would question his regime.
Mohamed Bouazizi, street vendor and the now famous symbol of the revolution for dignity in Tunisia and the Arab world, dies on the 4th of January 2011, and 5000 people march behind his coffin, promising vengeance all along their way to the cemetery. The revolution enters then another phase during the few following days. The 8th and 9th of January were two bloody days. Sure enough, the violent riots’ toll in three cities in the central western part of the country: Kasserine, Thala and Regueb, is 21 dead, according to official sources, and 50 dead from syndical sources. Thus, the Tunisian rediscover the real murderous face of the regime that has been ruling them with an iron fist since two decades.
During his second address of January 10th 2011, the general promises 300 000 additional jobs by 2012. It is made possible for him to achieve that thanks to the limitless generosity of his eastern colleague in tyranny, Gaddafi of Libya. The zero tolerance option wasn’t excluded. Schools and universities closed their doors, and since January 12th, a nocturnal curfew in the capital and its suburbs was decreed by the former minister of interior’s stand-in.
« There is no presidency for life » : The decision would have been relieving if it had been declared years ago, but in Ben Ali’s case during these events, it expresses a real fear amongst his regime. During his third address since the beginning of the riots, his last as president of Tunisia, Ben Ali makes a commitment to give up presidency by 2014, to stop fires against the protesters, to lower essential products’ prices and to lift the censorship on internet websites. Tunisian people’s response was to defy the curfew and to take the streets of Tunis and the largest cities such as Carthage and Sidi Bou Saïd in order to express their joy.
By announcing the dissolution of his governments and the organization of anticipated legislative elections in six months, on January 14th 2011, the fleeing president played his last card, and the Tunisian people, acknowledging what’s waiting for him if his regime ever stays in place, wants his departure from the State’s top.
At the end of the day, Mohammed Ghannouchi, Tunisia’s Prime Minister, declares that he will temporarily fill the position of president because the head of state “is temporarily unable to fulfill his responsibilities”. Actually, the latter had taken a flight, few hours earlier, to Jeddah, in Saudi Arabia. Choosing that country wasn’t voluntary. It is justified by the fact that none of the former president’s regime's allies, France and Malta amongst others, was ready to receive him. By exiting governance of Tunisia and fleeing to the Golf, Ben Ali was forced to obey the will of the people for a real democratic transition, in which the Tunisian people would be the true source of political legitimacy, which was shown by the following months.
The consequences of the Tunisian popular uprising greatly exceed its frontiers. Hundreds of kilometers away from the east of Tunisia, and barely 10 days after the overthrow of Ben Ali’s regime, it’s Mubarak’s Egypt that will start its popular revolution, which will make another Arab dictator abandon the chair.
Just like in the bad old days
Jérémie Lebel
Cairo’s Tahrir Square was the central gathering point of the highest-profile protests agains Mubarak, and the scene of wanton brutality and killings. During the last weekend, this blood-stained history became all too familiar again, one short week before the upcoming parliamentarian elections. During the weekend, tens of thousands of protesters invaded the square; some were Islamists, others secular, all there for the “Friday of One Demand”. The protests began on Friday but only took their stride on Saturday in response to police brutality. Police forces used rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse the protesters. According to the Egyptian Health Ministry, the toll as of Monday Morning is of at least 20 dead and 2000 wounded.
Activists and doctors claim the police deliberately aimed at people’s faces with rubber bullets, and also used live ammunition in a few cases. Rubber bullets are best defined as “less-than-lethal” ammunition, since they can mete out serious injury or death if they strike vulnerable areas of it they’re shot from too close.
Behind the protests is a clear loss of confidence towards the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which has held effective power since the ouster of Mubarak. In a constitutional proposition made on the 2nd of November, Deputy Prime Minister Ali Selmi laid out a frame in which the Armed Forces would exert total power upon their budget and their functioning, as well as having a mandatory right of regard in declaring war. According to this plan, the SCAF would also appoint 80 out of 100 members of a new Constitutional Assembly. The actual roadmap for transition envisions a total passing of powers to civilian authorities within a 2-year horizon, with the Army having a strong role in drafting the new constitution.
Egyptian parliamentary elections are to be held on November 28th. Nevertheless, power will lay in the hands of the SCAF until the election of a president, which is due to happen at the end of 2012 or even in 2013, a scenario that doesn’t resonate well with protesters.
Political parties’ reactions have been relatively united, albeit with differences in tone. The Muslim Brotherhood and its political wing, Freedom and Justice, denounced the violence but stopped short of asking for the SCAF to step down. Salafist party Nour reasserted the right to protest, while simultaneously accusing some protesters of wanting to create chaos, and reaffirming its support for the established electoral calendar. Wafd, the oldest liberal party of Egypt, joined the chorus, but stroke an unclear note by mentioning “enemies” inside and outside Egypt of seeking to thwart the revolution.
Egypt’s democratic transition is thus quite far from over. Taking down the wall of impunity protecting both the police and the army will take much time; so will conceptually abolishing the Regime-State confusion that is still found in the military rulers’ discourse. Indeed, SCAF public figures like to repeat that protesters should limit themselves to using legal means – when legality is suspended. One thing is clear, though: the old ways just won’t cut it anymore.
A society to be rebuilt
Geneviève Beaulieu Veilleux
Spring has already begun, but summer hasn’t arrived yet for the Arab countries. While Libya reached a decisive turning point of its history, by the decline of the dictator Muammar Gaddafi, What is the scenario that may be in the offing for that African country?
Alain Soulard, politics professor and analyst
Alain Soulard, politics professor and politics analyst in his spare time, believes that Libya can get its act together if a « considerable common effort » is favored for the unity of the country, and only in the long term.
Q1 On the political level, how did the acts of violence, committed by Muammar Gaddafi and his troops, affect the Libyan people?
Gaddafi’s reign isn’t quite heaven nor hell. Sure, the man is a leader who disregarded human rights and started civil wars, but he also made the country go ahead in a certain direction, particularly by maintaining a certain unity and by allowing women to obtain more rights. Overall, Libya, in 2011, is definitely better than how it was at the beginning of Gaddafi’s mandate despite what we know today about his acts.
Q2 Is the death of the dictator Gaddafi a preferable outcome to his detention for the victims?
Personally, I consider that it would have been preferable to set up a trial. The man would have been judged according to the habits and customs of democratic societies. However, his death and the mystery that surrounds it lead to an antidemocratic outcome that questions that society that aspires to “rebuild” itself.
Q3 Do you think that violence marks found on Gaddafi’s corpse are liable to tarnish the rebels’ reputation?
It is certainly a blemish on their record. Where are the respect and democratic process in the accused behavior? If the National Transitional Council tolerates this type of actions, I will start thinking that this civil war changed nothing at all.
Q4 Do you agree with the United Nations’ departure from the country? Why?
I am totally opposed to that departure. The first moments of the new free Libya are decisive and the people need to be supervised. It would have been preferable if UN counselors stayed to help, particularly on the economical and political levels. Democracy is acquired with supervision, tries and certain cultural norms.
Q5 Should we fear acts of reprisal between rebels and pro Gaddafi groups again?
Acts of violence will stop, eventually. In the meantime, we have to hope that the natural vindictive human reflex would turn to reconciliation. When notice that ethnic genocides such as in Tawargha still rage, we see that there is still a long road ahead, unfortunately.
Q6 How is a return to the balance possible in the country?
In the long term, the objective is achievable. The major problem affects the question of succession. With Libya being much divided, I only wish that every tribe benefits from it. There’s a lot of work to be done concerning the establishment of laws, because each clan may want to impose its ideology. Yet, the country has to avoid being fragmented and should rather look for unity. In Libya, time has come for sharing and reconciliation. All inhabitants must “pull together in the same direction”.
Q7 What political advice would you give to the Libyan people during the next elections?
People have to take benefit from public consultations, and mustn’t hesitate to tell their opinion when the moment comes. Politics are no divine structure; it is a human structure in which mobilization is necessary to make things move forward. The interest for reconstruction and the image of the new Libya should be in the center of the people’s concern. “They have to walk the talk”.
Q8 What type of personality should the future official leaders of the country have?
Leaders that embrace the same values of unity and renewal than the Libyan will be needed. Ideally, I would see a moderate centrist person on the political level. Leaders would do well to be educated and open to the world. While keeping a sense of traditions, these people would have a strong interest in having an overall young and modern view.
The history of the Libyan civil war of 2011
Demands :Mainly a better democracy and equity of wealthMain instigating cities of the revolutionary movement: El Beïda, Darnha et Benghazi
Conflict’s chronology :
February 15th: Beginning of the conflict, which starts a civil
February 16th: Bloody conflict between rebels and the government’s militia
March 17th: Authorization of air strikes by the UN Security Council against Gaddafi’s troops
March 19th: International coalition for the protection of the Libyan people
Late august: Occupation of Tripoli and flight of Muammar Gaddafi
October 20th: The last Gaddafi’s bastion falls in the hands of the National Transitional Council and Gaddafi is killed in Syrte
October 23rd: End of the civil war that lasted for eight months and liberation of Libya.
«Democracy isn’t a pill one can order at a drugstore and that takes effect immediately. »
- Alain Soulard
Spring has already begun, but summer hasn’t arrived yet for the Arab countries. While Libya reached a decisive turning point of its history, by the decline of the dictator Muammar Gaddafi, What is the scenario that may be in the offing for that African country?
Alain Soulard, politics professor and analyst
Alain Soulard, politics professor and politics analyst in his spare time, believes that Libya can get its act together if a « considerable common effort » is favored for the unity of the country, and only in the long term.
Q1 On the political level, how did the acts of violence, committed by Muammar Gaddafi and his troops, affect the Libyan people?
Gaddafi’s reign isn’t quite heaven nor hell. Sure, the man is a leader who disregarded human rights and started civil wars, but he also made the country go ahead in a certain direction, particularly by maintaining a certain unity and by allowing women to obtain more rights. Overall, Libya, in 2011, is definitely better than how it was at the beginning of Gaddafi’s mandate despite what we know today about his acts.
Q2 Is the death of the dictator Gaddafi a preferable outcome to his detention for the victims?
Personally, I consider that it would have been preferable to set up a trial. The man would have been judged according to the habits and customs of democratic societies. However, his death and the mystery that surrounds it lead to an antidemocratic outcome that questions that society that aspires to “rebuild” itself.
Q3 Do you think that violence marks found on Gaddafi’s corpse are liable to tarnish the rebels’ reputation?
It is certainly a blemish on their record. Where are the respect and democratic process in the accused behavior? If the National Transitional Council tolerates this type of actions, I will start thinking that this civil war changed nothing at all.
Q4 Do you agree with the United Nations’ departure from the country? Why?
I am totally opposed to that departure. The first moments of the new free Libya are decisive and the people need to be supervised. It would have been preferable if UN counselors stayed to help, particularly on the economical and political levels. Democracy is acquired with supervision, tries and certain cultural norms.
Q5 Should we fear acts of reprisal between rebels and pro Gaddafi groups again?
Acts of violence will stop, eventually. In the meantime, we have to hope that the natural vindictive human reflex would turn to reconciliation. When notice that ethnic genocides such as in Tawargha still rage, we see that there is still a long road ahead, unfortunately.
Q6 How is a return to the balance possible in the country?
In the long term, the objective is achievable. The major problem affects the question of succession. With Libya being much divided, I only wish that every tribe benefits from it. There’s a lot of work to be done concerning the establishment of laws, because each clan may want to impose its ideology. Yet, the country has to avoid being fragmented and should rather look for unity. In Libya, time has come for sharing and reconciliation. All inhabitants must “pull together in the same direction”.
Q7 What political advice would you give to the Libyan people during the next elections?
People have to take benefit from public consultations, and mustn’t hesitate to tell their opinion when the moment comes. Politics are no divine structure; it is a human structure in which mobilization is necessary to make things move forward. The interest for reconstruction and the image of the new Libya should be in the center of the people’s concern. “They have to walk the talk”.
Q8 What type of personality should the future official leaders of the country have?
Leaders that embrace the same values of unity and renewal than the Libyan will be needed. Ideally, I would see a moderate centrist person on the political level. Leaders would do well to be educated and open to the world. While keeping a sense of traditions, these people would have a strong interest in having an overall young and modern view.
The history of the Libyan civil war of 2011
Demands :Mainly a better democracy and equity of wealthMain instigating cities of the revolutionary movement: El Beïda, Darnha et Benghazi
Conflict’s chronology :
February 15th: Beginning of the conflict, which starts a civil
February 16th: Bloody conflict between rebels and the government’s militia
March 17th: Authorization of air strikes by the UN Security Council against Gaddafi’s troops
March 19th: International coalition for the protection of the Libyan people
Late august: Occupation of Tripoli and flight of Muammar Gaddafi
October 20th: The last Gaddafi’s bastion falls in the hands of the National Transitional Council and Gaddafi is killed in Syrte
October 23rd: End of the civil war that lasted for eight months and liberation of Libya.
«Democracy isn’t a pill one can order at a drugstore and that takes effect immediately. »
- Alain Soulard
Let's speak about freedom of expression
Since 2010, the Arab world has undergone tremendous political shifts. In several countries, popular movements have demanded, and are still demanding that their rights be upheld and are denied them through violence. What do Arab peoples demand? What do they share? What sets them apart? Those are a few questions to which you probably want answers. The protests arise, among other things, from the discontent of the population toward their sclerotic authorities, the high rate of youth unemployment, repression, inequality and economic hardship. This blog seeks to promote a view shared by all, including the oppressed peoples: striving for accurate information, organization and solidarity. Many analysts argue that the revolutionary movements active now owe their existence to the Arab youth, who long for democracy and justice. Thanks to the internet, they have had an unprecedented access to information and are well-aware of the news and of the world around them. We are proud to take part in a movement for change and to promote freedom of expression. Enjoy!
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)