Recent unrest spreading from Tunisia toward Algeria, Jordan, Lebanon, Yemen and most importantly Egypt has taken the world by surprise. With the available information and time, politicians and analysts alike try to make sense of the changing landscape — yet the political outcome from the unrest for the region remains uncertain.
The unrest takes a different course and scale in each country, but has several underlying characteristics regarding its catalyst, source of grievance, and susceptibility toward external alterations.
First, social networks and the media have been identified as the main catalysts, feeding abundant information and accelerating the development of discontent to an unprecedented level. Previously, nationwide uprisings took revolutionaries decades to plan in advance, but now the layman — along with the layblogger and layhactivist — has organized it in mere weeks through Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, as well as widely circulated text and video messages.
The Egyptian government repeatedly scrambled to block access to these social network media from the public. At the same time, President Hosni Mubarak feeds the media with the rhetoric of “putting stability first” as well as token gestures of reform by sacking his entire Cabinet.
The role of an “aggressive coverage” from regional media Al-Jazeera was also seen to help transform the unrest into a transnational phenomenon, helping it jump borders from one country to another.
This happened while mainstream Western media looked the other way, previously portraying the Tunisian uprising as peripheral for public attention. A big silence is coming from the West that had portrayed the public opinion of the “Arab streets” as hateful, plagued with “conspiracy theories”, and unable to bring any worthwhile change. Protesters with same colored bands turned up to fill the streets, similar to movements in Europe and other parts of the world.
Second, the institutions’ failure to provide deliverables can be identified as the main source of grievances. In Egypt, recent elections are criticized while opposition has very little room in political power sharing with the strongman’s rule. Another salient grievance uttered seems to be the market institution’s failure to provide decent living, while higher education continually mints college graduates into an economy rampant with unchecked corruption.
Videos of the abusive police institution that maintains stability through torture and abuses continue to circulate, exacerbating the discontent. This might be an oversimplification, but this is a genuine public expression of disappointment, even if Mubarak manages to hold on to power.
Third, the locally driven nature of the movement is likely to make it resistant to foreign alterations. When US President Barack Obama addressed the Muslim world from Cairo in 2009, few people could have foretold the region’s coming unrest. A big geopolitical chessboard has decided to play bowling instead — potentially knocking out US strategically placed chess pieces. US engagement toward the Middle East has always been caricatured as a trade off between democracy and stability.
In the past, at least for Washington, democracies have chosen the “wrong” leaders — like Hamas — while stability simply means supporting the “correct” repressive and undemocratically elected regimes.
Any form of US intervention, either to save its ally in Egypt or to support the call for greater freedom in the region, might harm the legitimacy of the movement.
Furthermore, miscalculations regarding the Egyptian military or the Muslim Brotherhood might turn the unrest toward Washington, considered the traditional target of public resentment in the Middle East.
For Indonesia, an emotionally attached yet politically disregarded country by the Middle East region, several important lessons can be gathered. First, the media and social network will play an important role for our young democracy to blow off steam, ensuring a sustained — yet proportional — public engagement with domestic and international issues.
Currently, the Indonesian President seems to be the chosen “punching bag” for public and intellectual criticisms, yet this is how the public takes part in governance and establishes a sense of ownership for the future of their country. This will remain a valuable legacy of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s presidency for the nation.
First, the President need not disband his Cabinet overnight, but it is wise to review the current role of the communications and information technology minister who has issued repeated attempts to impose state censorship — citing highly questionable grounds. A civil society that is well connected through media and social networks will provide an endless stream of both harsh disproportionate criticism as well as constructive intellectual insight for the ruling elite. The ministerial post should be geared to harvest the benefits of the civic cyberspace and better understand it as an integral part of our democratic system.
Second, Indonesian observers should actively court and take into account public opinion — however irrational and non-intellectual they might be — for any worthwhile understanding of the country’s dynamics. The average Indonesian has differing opinion with foreign political experts regarding the situation of Indonesian democracy. While the majority of foreign observers focus on achievements and insist that Indonesians should be grateful for the system that we have, the average Indonesian is more skeptical, subjected to the everyday paradox and pathologies of a liberal democracy. A tick box approach toward democracy misses the point of empathetically engaging with these views.
Lastly, on a deeper reading, the Indonesian public’s frustration also stems from the fact that political and economic liberalization was neither preceded — and yet to be followed — by the proper working of institutions. For the Indonesian public, the political institutions remain corrupt and inept, the police unreformed, and the judiciary — in light of the battle against corruption — remains a big circular zero with nothing in the middle. People are not empowered by these institutions and a growing number seems to be resenting it.
Perhaps the similarity between Indonesia and the Middle East is that when negative public sentiments toward institutions’ failure grows, demands for inspiring leadership – or to remove uninspiring ones – becomes the centerpiece of a nation-wide rallying call.
By Pierre Marthinus, St. Andrews, UK researcher at Pacivis, the Department of International Relations at the University of Indonesia, Depok, West Java. Jakarta Post
No comments:
Post a Comment