Tunisia: Goodbye Democracy? Islamists Start to Take Over Media

By Barry Rubin

The much-touted, Islamist-led coalition government in Tunisia is showing how little has changed. It is imposing the regime’s power on the media, choosing loyal editors and censoring the news. The liberal and independent National Authority for the Reform of Media and Communications (INRIC) is so disgusted that it’s closing down.

Leaders of the INRIC openly accuse the government of trying to control the media ensuring that it spreads the government’s message, ideology, and misinformation. In fact, the Independent Authority for Audiovisual Communication (HAICA) is supposed to appoint editors. The INRIC also points out that the government is not implementing previous decrees to protect journalists.

The Islamist, Ennahada party which leads the government is the main offender. Reporters without Borders has also complained about the censorship and takeover of the media.

-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,650 (among about 46,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt can’t get away with this, ironically, because the military is protecting the media, at least so far, from  its control.  As for Libya, there is a suspiciously long delay in holding elections there. I suggest that’s because the radical Islamists and militant tribal forces l would win and the country might spiral into a civil war based on regional and tribal hostilities

Now you might say that the effort of a basically Muslim Brotherhood government in Tunisia to control the media is no surprise. True, but it is a surprise to those who hold the predominant line in the West which claims that the Islamists  are really moderate and pro-democratic.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt can’t get away with this, ironically, because the military is protecting the media, at least so far, from  its control.  As for Libya, there is a suspiciously long delay in holding elections there. I suggest that’s because the radical Islamists and militant tribal forces would win and the country might spiral into a civil war based on regional and tribal hostilities.

This article is published on PJ Media. 

The Wild Card in Arab "Democratic" Politics: Extra-Parliamentary Violence

By Barry Rubin

Consider just a small part of what's gone on in Tunisia, a relatively moderate country where the radical Islamists "only" got 40 percent of the vote and were forced to lead the country from within a coalition with moderate, secular parties.

Hundreds of Salafis rioted in several cities and set fire to police stations as well as the offices of non-Islamist parties and secular-led trade unions. A truck carrying alcoholic drinks was set ablaze, too, as were shops selling electronic goods, providing access to "immoral" entertainment.  Salafis using clubs and stones attacked police who fired in the air to escape. Shooting at the demonstrators would recall memories of the old regime and lead to even worse rioting. An art gallery whose exhibition was labelled immoral was hit with firebombs, almost killing staff members.  Eighty-six rioters were arrested; at least one man died.

But this is only the start.

Do not take this kind of thing in isolation, for it is the harbinger of a new era. In Egypt, Tunisia, and other places where the hand of dictatorship is weakened or removed, political violence--and its more self-interested sibling, crime--is going to flourish.

-----------------------

We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,346 (among about 45679 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

------------------------

On one hand, the Salafis, joined at times by Muslim Brothers, are going to burn and attack churches and strike at Christians; destroy old non-Muslim cemeteries; attack symbols of modern culture; close down aspects of secular education including university courses; harass and beat women wearing "non-Islamic" clothing; kill or injure secularists and stop them from meeting or speaking; go after Western tourists; and a whole long list of other such activities. One item on this list could well be attacks on American citizens or installations.

On the other hand, Muslim Brotherhood officials, the armed forces, and the police will only interfere if absolutely necessary to protect government property or to keep anarchy from going too far. In other words, they will not protect women seeking rights (as we saw when Salafists broke up a Cairo demonstration recently), Christians, and secularists. When Salafists strike out at Christians in Egypt, the authorities are more likely to arrest and punish the intended victims.

Why is this?...

To read the entire article click here.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

How to Make the `Bad Guys’ into `Good Guys’ By Pretending They're Moderate Guys

By Barry Rubin

There are  two types of revolutionary Islamists in the Middle East today: the Muslim Brotherhood and the “Salafists.” Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood is in fact a salafist group, in the sense that it wants to use Islam as it can be most strictly and repressively interpreted and create a dictatorship based on a radical interpretation of Sharia law.

And that is the first important point to understand.   The difference between Brotherhood and “Salafists” is purely tactical. The Brotherhood has learned how to maneuver politically, an advance similar to what Lenin instituted for the Marxists of his day. You can’t just declare a revolution and change everything overnight.

No, the Communists argued a century ago and the Brotherhood advocates now, instead the road to victory is to create a disciplined movement, build a mass base, construct front groups, create (temporary) alliances that split your opponents, and march step by step to total power. .Just as Lenin planned to get the capitalists to sell him the rope with which to hang them, the Brotherhood plots to get the infidels to do.

So far the Brotherhood has been pretty successful.

In contrast, the Salafists are less elegant. They put it all on the table: total Islamism now through direct action and violence.

-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 28,883. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
-----------------------

These thoughts were prompted by an Associated Press article on Tunisia, the only Middle Eastern country where secularists are going to make a stand against the revolutionary Islamist movement that is advancing everywhere. In addition, since the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood is in a coalition government with liberals Tunisia will be a test case for lots of issues.

So can liberal Tunisians expect any real Western help or sympathy? Well, as we’ve seen in Iran, Turkey; Lebanon, and Syria the answer is pretty much “no.” Why? Because in the dominant Western narrative—dominated by the far left—it is the Brotherhood and not the liberals who are the “good guys” in the Middle East.

Think of how “unnatural” this is. There are leftists in the region and real liberals, too, who are the precise counterparts of the current Western elites in terms of ideas or of Western democratic societies in terms of goals.  Shouldn’t all those academics, intellectuals, journalists, and government officials be cheering the liberals and booing the Islamists, including the Brotherhood?  Marxists and Communists used to call the equivalents of the Brotherhood, “clerical fascists.”

Here's a rare example of old-fashioned leftism from the  Communist Party of Great Britain's newspaper, December 1, 2011:

"In 1979, a wave of euphoria for the uprising against the shah of Iran swept through the left, which failed to warn of the danger that was presented by other bourgeois forces, particularly the mullahs. The left adopted the attitude of ‘My enemy’s enemy is my friend’, rather than adopting the position, developed by Marx and Engels, and later by Lenin and Trotsky, that the working class should focus on defending its own interests, developing its own independent organisations and maintaining a strict separation from the bourgeoisie."

Refreshing, isn't it? Makes you yearn for the good old days. And the article continues:

"As Engels and Lenin, in particular, made clear, our aim is not bourgeois democracy, but socialism. We defend bourgeois-democratic freedoms not as an end in themselves, but only in so far as they facilitate the independent organisation and struggle of the workers."

So, on one hand, Marxists don't support reactionary clerical regimes (said to be "bourgeois") while Marxists only pretend to be for democracy in order to get Communism. So why should Western liberals, or leftists for that matter, support reactionary clerical regimes (totalitarians) that only pretend to be for democracy in order to get Islamist dictatorships (Iran; the Taliban's Afghanistan; Hamas' Gaza Strip, and coming soon to Egypt, etc.?)

Can you think of one liberal Muslim, in the West or in the Middle East, who has become a hero to Western onlookers? No. Such people remain small in numbers and obscure in terms of publicity.  In a few cases, they are let into the Western media but only to argue that the Brotherhood is going to be their protector. This is what happened after the brief period of cheerleading for the Tahrir Square “Facebook kids.” If you are a liberal or secularist Middle Easterner or Western Muslim don't expect any support from liberal secularist Westerners.

How do you make the bad guys into good guys while ignoring the good guys? By making the even-worse guys the apparent threat. 

To read the entire article click here

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

The Middle East and the West Have the Same Problem: Liberty vs. Those Claiming a Monopoly on Truth

By Barry Rubin

A liberal member of Tunisia's parliament, discussing the writing of that country's new Constitution, brilliantly defines the entire issue of Islam and politics in one sentence. But before telling you the sentence, here’s the background.

The debate, as in Egypt and Libya, is over whether to make Islamic law, Shari’a, the fundamental basis of society. Note that this is usually written into constitutions that Sharia is "the main source of law." But if that's done it means that every detail of every aspect of life would be set by Shari’a.

An Islamist member of parliament said the Constitution must do so in order to be “responsive to the demands of the revolution.” In other words, he claims that Tunisia had an Islamist revolution. The same is being said regarding Egypt and Libya. Perhaps someday soon there will be more countries added to that list.

-----------------------

We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 28,883. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

-----------------------

In Iran and the Gaza Strip there is no such debate because those who rule are certain that their revolutions are Islamic.

Now, here’s what Nadia Chaabane of a tiny liberal party says, the most important sentence that could be uttered on this subject: “Shari’a...needs a lot of interpretation.”

She added, “Whose version will we follow? Moroccan interpretation, for instance, is not the same as Iranian….”

---------------------------
Please order Israel: An Introduction  and/or Hear an interview with me on the latest Middle East developments. 
---------------------------

If it hadn’t entangled her in apparent support for the old regime she could have added, the historic Tunisian interpretation as well.

Now actually a slightly edited the sentence to make the theme clearer. What she actually said is: “Shari’a is so vague and unclear; it needs a lot of interpretation.” Of course it often isn't so "vague and unclear." The Islamists often--perhaps I should say "usually"--have a strong argument when they talk about cutting off hands, killing converts to other religions, stoning women, suppressing Christians, hating Jews, and fighting Jihad.

Yet, as with all religions, that doesn't change the fact that interpretation is still needed and that in Morocco and pre-revolution Tunisia or pre-revolution Iran, for example, the interpretations that governed social behavior were much more liberal.

Click here to read the entire article

Quote of the Day: "The hearts of world leaders are with us without a doubt, but we prefer their guns, for in the fight against the likes of Assad, only guns can make a difference. We learned this lesson the hard way."

--Syrian Revolution Digest – March 7, 2012 

Tunisia: Bruce Maddy-Weitzman's Analysis

By Barry Rubin

If you are interested in what's happening with Tunisia and why that country has a chance of making it democratically, read Bruce Maddy-Weitzman's article in Middle East Forum. He suggests four key reasons for optimism on Tunisia:

1.a compact, well-defined national entity with a particular history as an open Mediterranean trading country, and thus a strong collective sense of self;


2.a modernization process that produced a substantial, educated middle class, the highest rate of female literacy and lowest rate of population growth in the Arab world, and a systematic effort to raise the status of women, including the banning of polygamy (no other Arab country has dared to explicitly do so, as it contradicts the Qur'an);

3.a tradition of active civil society, particularly labor unions and the bar association; and

4.a small-sized, non-politicized military, whose chief of staff, Rachid Ammar, pointedly refused Ben Ali's directive to fire on protestors, instead acting to control policemen, security and intelligence personnel, and affiliated thugs. He also turned aside any suggestion that he and his fellow officers, and not civilians, assume control of the country.

Here In One Sentence is What Obama Doesn't Understand About the Middle East

This article is published on PajamasMedia.

By Barry Rubin

Here's the sentence:

The changes in the region are producing more extremism, not more moderation.

That applies to attitudes toward America and Israel as well as on internal social issues.
Rachi Ghanouchi, head of Tunisia's Islamist movement--a man long portrayed as a moderate in the West--just publicly came out and called for Israel's destruction. And what does Voice of America tell us and the Arabs? That Ghanouchi is a moderate who doesn't want an Islamist state! Your tax dollars at work. What does CBS News tell us? That the Islamist party denounced the killing of a priest. Obviously very tolerant people.

Of course, the Tunisian Islamists are far weaker than those in Egypt. Still, the West is deluding itself in thinking they are moderate.

Yet let's listen--thanks to MEMRI--to what the VOA and CBS producers' counterparts in the Arab world is saying. In an article written for a Qatari and a Jordanian newspaper, entitled "Israel Is Surely Temporary," Samir al-Hijjawi says

"It's time for Israel to go... It's time for the end of the great lie... It's time [for Israel] to go because the regimes protecting [it]... are toppling one by one." He added that the recent  protests on Israel's borders prove the Palestinians and Arabs will never relinquish all of Palestine because it is sacred Muslim territory.

I'll bet that every producer and pretty much every staff member of al-Jazira--the station Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recommended as accurate--agrees.
Get it? For Obama, the "Arab Spring" means moderation and democracy. To most Arabs and Muslims, it represents a resurgence of Islamism and nationalism, the prelude for getting rid of Israel and U.S. influence in the region.

I'd be bothered less if Obama acknowledges that but claimed that his proteges would win. The fact that he has zero percent understanding of the threat is the prelude to disaster. The fact that almost all Western newspapers and television news operations think the same way as Obama makes the situation even worse.

Revolution in Tunisia, Reform in Jordan Unleashes Anti-Jewish Forces

Please be subscriber 18,775 (daily reader 33,175). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.


By Barry Rubin

Recently, when I spoke on developments in Egypt, a serious and respected Middle East expert claimed that there was no sign of anti-American or anti-Israel slogans in Egypt or Tunisia during their revolutions. Really?

This is simply not true. The fact that a Jewish prayer room was burned down in Tunisia received only one passing mention in the New York Times, and none at all in other major newspapers. Moreover, we now can see footage of a big Islamist demonstration in Tunisia in front of the main synagogue including anti-Jewish chants.

Notice that as the marcher shout  "Slaughter the Jews!" and "The Army of Khybar is coming," a reference to the seventh-century massacre of Jews in the Arabian penninsula, one man photographs it all on his telephone. Hi-tech friendly and Facebook-savvy indeed.

Of course, this doesn't represent the views of all Tunisians, who are arguably the most tolerant people in the Arab world, but it does represent the Islamists, who are not so moderate after all.

Meanwhile, the possibility that a future Egypt government might cancel the Egypt-Israel treaty--a position taken by both the Muslim Brotherhood and the two leading reform leaders (Ayman Nour and Muhammad ElBaradei)--shows how difficult it is for Israel to make deals with its neighbors.

In Jordan, where a new government has taken office as a step toward reform, there's another chilling example In 1997, a Jordanian soldier named Ahmad al-Daqamsa guarding an area of land that Israel had returned to Jordan in their treaty, which had been made into a peace park, murdered seven Israeli schoolgirls there on a visit. King Hussein of Jordan touched Israeli hearts by coming to Israel and visiting the victims' families. The killer was sentenced to life in prison.

But King Hussein, like Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat, is dead. Now the new Jordanian Justice Minister Hussein Mujali, has called for Daqamsa's release from prison. He even joined a trade union demonstration demanding this. Both Islamists and human rights' activists--yes, that's right, moderate, freedom-loving human rights' activists--have called for his release, too.

You see, nothing is an easier way to court popularity from the crowd than to bash Israel, and nothing would make a government more popular overnight than cancelling a treaty with Israel, though this might not actually happen because of external factors.

But wait! The Jordanian government says it won't release Daqamsa. Yet this is not a democratic government. It doesn't have to bend to popular demands. It can keep the peace treaty with Israel or a close relationship with the United States even if the masses don't like it. That same government proposed repealing laws that make "honor killing" something far less than murder. Yet popular demand prevented that from happening.

The idea that the popular is always the more moderate fails to comprehend a great deal of world history.

This is why nonsense like this by Thomas Friedman is dangerously false:

"The Arab tyrants, precisely because they were illegitimate, were the ones who fed their people hatred of Israel as a diversion. If Israel could finalize a deal with the Palestinians, it will find that a more democratic Arab world is a more stable partner. Not because everyone will suddenly love Israel (they won’t). But because the voices that would continue calling for conflict would have legitimate competition, and democratically elected leaders will have to be much more responsive to their people’s priorities, which are for more schools not wars."

Now nobody has written more than I have--in books like The Long War for Freedom, The Tragedy of the Middle East--about how this system worked. Yet the "voices that would continue calling for conflict" would include Hamas and a large portion of Fatah. Indeed--and read this carefully--the most obvious successor to Mahmoud Abbas as leader of the Palestinian Authority is Muhammad Ghaneim, who opposes any deal with Israel and would tear up any such agreement made by Abbas.

Logic has nothing to do with how people write about these issues. Hasn't the "Palestine Papers" affair once again shown how angry is the reaction to even the slightest compromise with Israel? The head of the negotiations' unit, who dared suggest some concessions, had to resign.

Let us assume for the moment that the peace treaty Israel and Lebanon came close to signing in 1982 was completed. Would the Hizballah-dominated regime, that came to power in free elections, abrogate that treaty? Of course it would.

If democracy is established in Arabic-speaking states there will be Islamist and leftist, and radical nationalist parties that will use demagoguery to get votes. In no Arabic-speaking country is there a strong liberal party, and that includes places where there is a relatively open political system like Kuwait, Iraq, and Lebanon.

Have no doubt, and I deeply regret having to write this, that if Israel ever were to make a peace treaty with the Palestinian leadership, a revolution or new leadership--whether dictatorial or democratic--would not feel bound by that deal if that government felt it could do better or win mass adulation by breaking it, demanding changes, or just ignoring the provisions and their promises.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His books include Islamic Fundamentalists in Egyptian Politics and The Muslim Brotherhood (Palgrave-Macmillan); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, a study of Arab reform movements (Wiley). GLORIA Center site: http://www.gloria-center.org His blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Tunisia and "Moderate Islamists": This Says It All

By Barry Rubin

It's true that Tunisia's Islamist movement is less radical than that in other Arab countries. But it really says a lot that Rachid Ghanouchi, the most important Tunisian Islamist, who has just returned home after a long exile thanks to the anti-regime revolt there, can say:

"Why do people want to compare me to Bin Laden or Khomeini, when I am
closer to [Turkish Prime Minister] Erdogan?"

So Ghanouchi is not going to attack New York and Washington, nor is he going to try to get nuclear weapons, spread Islamist revolution, and help take over Lebanon. That's the good news.

If he's like Erdogan, however, he might just align with Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah, along with the possible new radical Egyptian regime, while subverting U.S. policy.

But this is a good point. The threat is not only from reckless states obsessed with spreading Islamist revolution but also  hostile states that take part in that bloc. This is a more likely outcome for Egypt than a Muslim Brotherhood Jihadi state.

But of course the Islamists are far from being able to take any power in Tunisia and that country has a real chance of succeeding at democracy.

So let's put it this way:

There are states that are active on the anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Israel, revolutionary Islamist side: Iran, Syria, Lebanon under Hizballah, and the Gaza Strip under Hamas.

And there are states following the Turkish regime model that merely tilt more toward the new Islamist bloc. A post-Mubarak regime Egypt might well be in this category but with a specific mission in trying to help Hamas and the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood overthrow the Palestinian Authority and the Jordanian monarchy, respectively, and try to wipe Israel off the map.

As the Western mass media tell us how wonderfully things are going the entire U.S. and Western position in the Middle East is going down the drain.

Feel better now?

Revolt in Tunisia: When Arab Regimes Do (And Do Not) Tremble

Please be subscriber 18,394 (and daily reader 20,394). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

If you like this article, why not make more good articles and projects possible? We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

May the good Lord protect us from news analysis and Middle East experts. Is the Arab world really in shock over the Tunisian upheaval? Is this really a symptom for a coming upheaval in the Arab world?

Perhaps I'm wrong but a note of caution is in order. I think the answer is "no."

Let's begin by looking back at far bigger shocks that have made Arab regimes tremble.

First, there was the fall of Communism and the Soviet bloc. The Soviet Union was the superpower patron of many Arab regimes, their source of weapons and diplomatic support, their supposed protector from Israel and the United States.

Yet more than that, it was a basic role model--especially for political and economic organization--for a number of these regimes--most obviously Egypt, Iraq, and Syria but also for others as well. I don't mean they copied it exactly by a long shot. But the statist, single-party rule, government control over wide swathes of life is how they functioned for decades. If you're interested, I wrote a book on this called Modern Dictators.

How did the regimes respond then? By tightening up and killing off real hope of democratic reform. And they did quite well for themselves. I wrote about it in “How Arab Regimes Dealt with the Democracy Challenge.”

There was also another time when (some) Arab regimes trembled, the Iranian revolution of 1978-1979. Indeed, they are still trembling at the prospect of overthrow by a revolutionary Islamist movement. These groups now form the principal opposition in most Arab countries--but not, as we shall see, in Tunisia--and elements of them are quite ready to use violence. Indeed, this is the most important conflict not only in the Arab world but in the Middle East altogether.

And there is a third occasion when (radical) Arab regimes tremble: the U.S. overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003. Might the United States also overthrow them? This applied especially to Syria and Libya but others felt it also. As totally unlikely as this seemed in Washington it was not so unthinkable in Arab capitals. But they got over it when it became clear that there was no such threat. I discussed how Syria dealt with this in my book, The Truth about Syria. Libya reacted by surrendering all of its nuclear ambitions.

So Arab regimes begin to tremble sometimes. But when the going gets tough the tough don't tremble very long. They take counter-action.

Now are the events in Tunisia a new occasion for Arab regimes to tremble? Well, maybe a tiny bit for a tiny moment. The fact is that Tunisia has been a special case among Arab regimes for decades. It is the most Europeanized, the place where women have the most equality, and the Islamist movement is proportionately weakest. It is also the only country that has had just two rulers in 55 years.

Here's an excellent article on why the Islamist movement in Tunisia is weaker by Aziz Enhaili and Oumelkheir Adda.

Compare this to neighboring Algeria where the Islamists built a power base in part on similar material grievances to those that motivated the Tunisian riots, won an election, were then confronted by the military, and the result was an incredibly bloody and vicious civil war in which tens of thousands of people were killed.

Also compare this to Palestinian politics where corruption and incompetence led to the rise of Hamas, which seized the Gaza Strip by force. Let's face it, if not for massive Western aid and Israel security assistance to the Palestinian Authority--which does not repay this with any flexibility in negotiating, by the way--Hamas would probably be ruling the West Bank by now, too.

That is the kind of scenario faced in various ways by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and other Arab countries. That is what they fear, not a citizens' spontaneous uprising that is easily defused by some minor changes at little cost in casualties.

The weakness of the Islamists--and in some ways Tunisian regime's  the less totalitarian approach, which at times was quite brutal but not so systematically so as some others--left the door open for moderate pro-democratic forces in a way that hasn't happened in any other Arabic-speaking country.

If you are interested in the remarkable story of how Tunisian Islam has differed so drastically from that in other countries, read my article about that here or a longer article by Lafif Lakhdar, “Moving From Salafi to Rationalist Education.” This factor gave more "secular" politics space, a space which in Egypt and Jordan, for example, is filled by the Muslim Brotherhood.

At any rate, there is no reason to believe that the events in Tunisia signal a regime change but only a partial leadership change.
What does it mean for other Arab countries? It calls to their attention the stress of serious economic difficulties given international problems and local mismanagement. The signal is that governments have to ease up a bit on their masses regarding pricing of basic commodities and other services. An obvious case in this regard is Jordan. But Jordan is crisscrossed by East Banker/Palestinian and pro-regime/Islamist factors that make it quite a different situation.

Remember that the notable thing about the Tunisian upheaval was that it was a spontaneous rebellion against an incompetent and corrupt government that had followed roughly the same policies for 55 years without a single serious challenge. Spontaneous rebellions are not going to happen if there are people clamoring to organize them for a specific political agenda beforehand. (The closest thing to that happening before was in Iran in 1978, but that's another story also.)

Incidentally, the thing to watch now is whether the Islamists profit from the discontent and the partial opening up of civil society to become much stronger. In that case, a future crisis might follow the pattern more common now in the region.

Incidentally, a senior U.S. diplomat told me about a meeting he had with Tunisia's (up until hours ago) president many years ago:

"I remember his telling me that he fights Islamism by increasing the number of government projects in districts where the Islamist movement might be getting stronger.

"As for Islamism he told me the following: `They brainwash people. They brainwashed my mother. She called me and said: 'I thought I raised you to be a good Moslem. Why are you against God?' I had to tell her: 'You raised me to be a good Moslem and I am still a good Moslem. Don't believe what these people tell you.' But the brainwashing goes on and we have to deal with it."

Leaving aside the future of Islamism in Tunisia, though, this is not a turning point in Arab or Middle Eastern political history. It will, however, take its place as a precedent that will affect the thinking of governments, Islamist oppositions, and the small pro-democratic movements. It gives the governments cause to make adjustments, the Islamists ideas about posing as "good government" activists, and the democrats some hope for the future.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Tunisia: Revolution?

Please be subscriber 18,379 (and daily reader 20,379). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

A popular uprising fueled by unemployment, economic suffering, and long-term discontent has overthrown the dictator--but not necessarily the dictatorship--in Tunisia.  In 55 years of independence, the country has been governed by two dictators, the current--until now--one being Zine al-Abedin Ben Ali, who has been in power for 23 years and was a key power in the regime even before that.

Is this going to spread? Does it mark some new phase in Arab politics? Probably not. Tunisia is a very distinctive country. It has been the most Europeanized state in the Arab world, due in part to the secular-oriented policies of the regimes. There has been an Islamist movement but the regime has kept it weak, perhaps making Tunisia the Arabic-speaking state with the lowest proportional support for Islamism among its population.

There have been economic riots in other countries over the years, especially in Algeria or, for example, against reductions in bread subsidies in Egypt. Notably, there was the Beirut Spring movement against Syrian control of the country. But in Tunisia the opponents lack of leadership and organization is likely to mean that the same elite and the army will remain in control of the country.

Here's the bottom line: Statist and dictatorial policies have led to serious limits on freedom throughout the Arabic-speaking world. Economic stagnation and lagging living standards are prevalent, except in those countries that have large oil and natural gas incomes compared to small populations.

How have regimes kept in control? Through giving rewards to supporters and punishing opponents; military and police power; redirecting hostility toward other (America, Israel, the West) targets; and other means. While revolutionary Islamists have promoted rebellion, Arab nationalist regimes have opposed them with a wide arsenal of tactics. And the very fear of an Islamist transformation can also be a good tool in keeping the elite together and the masses in line.

That system got too far out of balance in Tunisia. There is a chance of parallel developments elsewhere--Algeria has also experienced riots--but it is not likely. At any rate, this issue will have to be watched closely.

Incidentally, the idea that this began dut to Wikileaks is silly. After all, what did the cable say? That the situation in Tunisia was so bad that a revolt might erupt! Good State Department analysis but not the cause!

Of course, let's try out this kind of logic. I hereby predict there will be a moderate democratic revolution in Iran. There! Now if it happens give me credit.

By the way, nobody has yet remarked that U.S. State Department diplomats correctly predicted this revolution--as we can see in the Wikipedia leaked cable--and they should get credit for that.

Reading the material below is for extra credit:

PS: Why does the idea that the Tunisian revolution began because of Wikileaks irritate me?

Because it symbollizes many of the idiocies in Western news analysis, scholarship, and media.  After all, why do people in the West believe that Tunisians need Wikileaks to know about their own country?


Actually the underlying unconscious idea of many elite Westerners (especially those who purport that they are so sympathetic to "the other") is the patronizing concept that Third World people don't really exist in their own right but are merely minions to be maneuvered. So if they do something--terrorism, revolution, etc.--it must be based on some external factor. Namely, us! (Which is why these Western elite members blame America and/or Europe and/or Israel for all the problems in the rest of the world.)


Now, they ask: what do we know about Tunisia that could account for this revolt? Hm, Wikileaks! Yes, these peasants must have read Wikileaks and been moved to revolt.


Um, might there be some other motive? How about not having a job and being hungry and seeing wealthy Tunisians stealing and a government not meeting your needs and the situation getting worse and worse? Things are desperate even compared to the past and there's no prospect for improvement. There are lots of young people who feel they have no future. Also you feel that you have a good chance of demonstrating or throwing a rock or defying the police and not risk a chance of death or torture? Might that do it?


Or do you need Wikileaks to tell you that corruption is going on?


Now, where did theAmerican diplomats who wrote the cable get their information? Duh! They spoke to--wait for it!--Tunisian,s who told them!!!!


So here's how it the chain of transmission went:


Tunisians-American diplomats-State Department-Wikileaks-newspapers publishing Wikileaks-experts-newspapers publishing expert opinions saying that this was caused by Wikileaks-you.


BUT the origin of all this information--the beginning of the chain--was not Wikileaks but....Tunisians who knew about the corruption already.

Now, if they told US diplomats, don't you think they'd tell each other?

Note: If Tunisians actually say they were motivated by Wikileaks, I will happily withdraw this analysis. So far I have not seen that. Folowing this article's publication, reporters in fact said that people in Tunisia told them this wasn't a factor and didn't even know about it.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.