I have never relied too much on the street power of these riots started with large street rallies shouting slogans, burning flags and portraits or creating, basically, disorder and instability. Surely that's wrong with me because I never liked the street to or participate in demonstrations and more.
 |
| Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian President time (Source: absolutegipto ) |
crowds overwhelm me, and also , I never get to be 100% agreed everything the protesters defending or especially condemned. The street is a rather primitive and tribal environment, utterly devoid of nuance. To participate in this kind of rioting, must communicate fully with a basic theme. So street riots that succeed are those with an immediate objective, simple and seamless. For example, hold a ruler or an entire regime.
The power of the street is essentially destructive and destabilizing, and hence its principal risk. With an intention expressed in four words (or even two, Out Mubarak ), its success lies in getting create chaos. Ending a government with a regime with a system, is within reach of the street. Especially if there are economic motivations core (a high cost of living, for example, can not survive even a majority). Political motives are false in street riots.
 |
| Thousands of people protesting in the Plaza de la Liberation Cairo (GETTY; Source: El País ) |
I distinguish here between events (time-limited and defined, often with political motives, in which participants make a stop on their daily activities to express their views on the street) and street riots (unlimited and indefinite duration, where most idle participants change reality by necessity on the other belligerent and very critical of the power, by the time it takes to achieve your goal, or perish).
What we are witnessing the last few weeks (in Tunisia, first, in Egypt, so very special in other countries like Yemen and Jordan in a more peripheral) are true street riots provoked by the popular anger against a government and / or a regime that stifles their perspectives are vital, they press their household economies beyond the limits of subsistence. Normally, the political motivations are added for purposes of achieving the generosity and benevolence of the international media, more likely to understand and support for democracy riots that to eat every day.
While the whole of humanity is at very different levels of the Maslow pyramid should make up a little motivation to make them more easily understandable (and shared) by other . When most people in the countries of the Third World (or even some emerging countries) are struggling to complete their level of Physiology (food, rest ,...), the so-called developed world's population has covered its basic needs, and may engage levels or Self-Recognition.
 |
| Egyptian tanks praying before (Author: John Moore; Source: RTVE) |
The great risk of street power is its only destructive. When it appears to have achieved the goal of destroying what we wanted to destroy (the autocrat in power has decided to flee the country, or has agreed to change its regime) is rife with confusion. Because for the next phase, you need other actors are not the power of the street. It takes the political actors engaged in building a different reality, a new scheme, a government with other concerns.
We start from the assumption that any regime dictatorial or autocratic is sustained by several factors. On the one hand, support a portion of the population (possibly taking advantage of the scheme), and other interested support of some international estates. When built, all political actors (the opposition, if defined shapes, the political forces that supported the ousted regime, trying to avoid outrageous and unfair account settings, international organizations) must agree on the new criteria for reform the government in a way that is sustainable. At this stage questions abound; the wrath of the street can grow again, to see certain members of the regime destroyed sitting at the table with other forces banned until that time, and spreads the fear of the new to look too old to be everyone's taste.
and puffed Backed by the power of the street can thrive certain forces or leaders who end up being worse than overthrown. A good example of this evil would be the French Revolution. Destroy the old regime was done basically on the street. But the new rulers introduced new factors of distortion, and the country took almost thirty years to find a new sustainable and peaceful course. France had to go through the Girondins, by the Jacobins, the Terror, by the Empire of Napoleon, ... to begin to find a new path for the future.
 |
| Piedras to fight the loyalists (Author: Manuel de Almeida; Source: RTVE) |
Riots inspired from the street can be a catapult for some saviors of the Fatherland, which are the worst kind of policy we know.
is why we must be very careful in how to solidify the gains of the street to a new regime that represents progress and progress for all. One of the reasons why Mubarak, for example, has been an ally and has been protected by the West (including Israel, today one of the main defenders) we could define its role in dam against Islamic extremism (Al-Qaeda and its franchisees). So today one of the main fears that plague the foreign ministries of developed countries has to do with the possibility of street riots end up leading to the creation of a new Islamic state fanatic, exclusive and destroyer heretic.
The Muslim Brotherhood, for example, banned and ostracized, marginalized and even the underground by the Mubarak regime has been laid these days on any of the policy table is to define the framework of a new regime in Egypt.
These episodes experienced in recent weeks can be a fantastic opportunity for the world in general and the Arab world, most notably. Can lead to a political transition (and economic) that lead them to a certain currency, which could not even dream of the previous regime. Can give birth to new systems more inclusive, more democracy, where citizens get a better redistribution of wealth and income, and in those countries can develop a new middle classes, which are, after all, the major guarantor of stability in a country.
 |
| Egyptian street barricades (Source: Public ) |
When a country there are only a meager upper classes hipermillonarias for having participated in the looting of wealth perpetrated by the regime, and huge classes in poverty threshold, there is really no one who is concerned about the progress of the country. A rich, if things get bad, they can always escapes the action of gold in their mansions in Paris, London, Berlin or New York, and live sumptuously flow rates in the country illegally exported. And miserable classes, the country brings to heave, then have nothing to lose.
transition These scenarios are extremely delicate, because a misstep can lead to worse things even more, and to replace one oppressor for another, some rich and others (oligarchs and / or mafia ) without any change or progress to really reach the masses. To illustrate these facts, I recommend reading the book Globalization and its Discontents , Joseph E. Stiglitz (Nobel laureate 2001) (thank you, Pilar!). It reviews the major errors committed by some leaders who blindly followed the instructions of certain international organizations, notably the IMF (International Monetary Fund).
Among the scenarios being discussed in the book, is the transition (political and economic) of the former Soviet bloc countries in Europe in the late 80 and 90. From one point of view, we could compare the situation of these countries before the collapse of the unifying power of the Kremlin which may face in the near future countries like Tunisia, Egypt or the rest of the area. Among the former Soviet bloc countries could tell some excellent students from the IMF (as Russia), with disastrous results for the country, and other more unruly students (Poland) with results for the country, in the medium and long term much more positive. In such cases, success depends basically on how fast (or slow) and the priority with which the necessary reforms are carried forward. If pursued great success in the short term, it usually involves a failure for the country in the medium term. The new oligarchs and mafias in power to replace the former rulers, and for the vast majority of the population there is no progress, but rather a network and fall without much suffering.
 |
| Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel laureate and opposition to Mubarak (Hans Punzo / AP; Source: The Guardian ) |
In what may be the transition from some Arab countries, the main concern for the West is the creation of new Islamic states that they become a haven for terrorists. That should play an important role moderate Muslim political forces. In Europe in the second half of the twentieth century, played a very important political forces identified as Christian Democrats. It is very exciting to think that the political forces could be called Muslim Democracy can develop an equivalent role in the Arab countries in this century. They can carry out the necessary reforms, which could contribute to a better distribution of income, and can get most people in these countries poverty thresholds it takes too long already installed. That are able to develop the framework for new democratic states, mainly to ensure the welfare of its citizens. Learn to live together even with what they dislike (such as the State of Israel).
It certainly seems a possibility that should be fed. Of course, not without risks, which should be monitored and limited. The power of the street used to consume and destroy the old regimes, but to build something new you need other wicker which surely exist in those countries. Is built using the wicker good should be the only obsession developed countries and international organizations. dam States should be a thing of the past, because only fuel corrupt rulers and impoverished populations. And Kissinger's famous phrase about Noriega, itself is a h. .. of p. .., but our h. .. of p. .. should give settled in this new century.
I think the flavors that we perceive we should carry on this path of hope.
JMBA
0 comments:
Post a Comment