Why we should support the revolutionaries – and pray Iran is next

Few people outside of the academic and diplomatic communities knew much of North African and Middle Eastern politics at the turn of the year. What people did know – frequent outbursts of violence in Palestine, xenophobic clerics and presidents, terrorism and insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan – was enough to lead the casual observer to believe that the people of the region were all bloodthirsty, anti-Western zealots, governed by fat, corrupt multi-billionaires with a penchant for sponsoring terrorist groups and buying Premier League football clubs.

Then, two months ago, a revolutionary spark was ignited that has raced across the region like wildfire, consuming dictators and regimes that have been in power for 40 years. These citizen led uprisings have been broadcast into our living rooms around the clock via 24 hour news channels, and what we have seen has challenged our perceptions and broken down boundaries. People have taken an interest in events; many realising for the first time that people in the region who harbour desires and ambitions not dissimilar to our own

The danger is that as these uprisings continue them media, which has so far shone a spotlight onto events, will lose interest as other stories take precedent. This is the nature of 24 hour news coverage, and as the media shifts their focus viewers will inevitably lose attention. While these uprisings can continue without the attention of the worked on them, they are more likely to end in failure if this happens. But many of the apathetic majority are busy wondering what the hell it has to do with us. Why should they and their governments care?

First and foremost there are clear moral issues. People in the region have lived in fear and oppression while their leaders have skimmed tens of billions of dollars from the nations treasuries in order to fund their lavish and lifestyles and those of their families. Many thousands have been imprisoned, tortured, killed or have simply disappeared. They just want their freedom, and the right to determine their own futures. Although it is not yet clear what will happen in the aftermath of these uprisings, there are very practical reasons for encouraging democracy. Democracies tend to be more peaceful (rarely do democracies go to war with one another) and they are easier to deal with. They are more responsible on the world stage and due to the fact that they have free markets trade becomes easier and is less fraught with complications. Democracies are far more likely to work in the interests of their citizens as politicians in democracies are always looking forward to the next election and to the votes they need to retain power

The international pressure put on leaders of regimes facing protests have helped keep the momentum of the protests going. The Egyptian armies decision to remain neutral is thought to have been heavily influenced by contact with the US army, and sanctions have been place upon Colonel Gadaffi and his regime, although these have been unsatisfactory and have failed thus far to have any discernible impact. The reaction of these dictators to losing international support has been to blame outside interference or Islamic extremists, but this has only served to anger protestors who have shunned outside help in favour of ensuring their uprisings retain legitimacy at home, and the fact that the uprisings have come from the people and not from any extremist religious organisations lend legitimacy on the international stage

Other regimes in the region are understandably nervous. Bahrain, Oman and Yemen are all facing significant protests. Jordan and Algeria have tried to pre-empt unrest by announcing significant reforms, whilst Saudi Arabia has used its considerable oil wealth in an attempt ot buy off its citizens. Even sleepy Kuwait has seen dissent. The regime sweating the most though is Iran. Itself a revolutionary government (albeit one who seized power on the back of a people’s uprising), the Islamist clerics were nearly toppled in 2009 when the opposition rose up against them. They were brutally crushed but the opposition have found new heart in the successes in Tunisia and Egypt

Iran is a huge geopolitical power. Egypt was also, but whereas Egypt tended to be a stabilising influence in the Middle East, Iran is behind much of the regions troubles. The regime sponsors Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon, who in turn act as proxies in Iran’s conflict with Israel. Iran has trained and armed the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan (British troops this week intercepted a shipment of Iranian arms destined for Taliban fighters) that have extended the conflicts and bogged down NATO forces. The consequences for the region in the event of the fall of the current Iranian regime could be immense. The insurgencies in Iraq, and in particular Afghanistan would be weakened which would ease the pressure on our troops and allow the opportunity for the spread of greater stability. Without Iranian support Hamas and Hezbollah would likewise be severely weakened, allowing more moderate parties the opportunity to rise to the fore who would be more open to negotiating a lasting peace with Israel. There is also the likelihood that without hardline opposition to confront the Israeli’s would be more inclined to elect a more moderate leadership.

There is also the issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. Combating this is currently one of the top priorities of the UN and the West, although Iran denies that such a programme even exists. The existence of this programme is making other powers in the region extremely nervous, particularly, but not exclusively Israel and Saudi Arabia. This nervousness has led to the prospect of an arms race in the region as rival countries seek to keep pace with the Iranians, and although there is no guarantee that anyone who may replace Ahmadinejad’s government would end the programme, a civilian led regime would certainly make those around them a little less nervous.

There are also financial benefits for the West. Stable regimes would have a stabilising influence on the price of oil. We also currently spend billions propping up dictators in the region (this was partly because there has previously been little alternative, but in light of recent events such a policy needs to be closely examined), and while in the short term money would be needed to help new regimes develop, in the long term, depending on what type of regimes replace existing ones, these countries would grow their economies and hopefully this would include opportunities for investment by Western companies. It would be likely that immigration into the UK and Europe from North Africa and the Middle East would fall as the oppressive regimes were replaced and their economies grow. We would be able to return existing political and economic refugees, as well as criminals, as the risk of torture in their home countries would be greatly reduced

These are all reasons why we should care about these uprisings, for they affect us in many ways. A world in which the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine were resolved would be a safer, more co-operative world as these issues are the cause of most of the schisms in the UN. No longer would the US feel obligated to defend Israel in the Security Council, and no longer would terrorist organisations be able to use these conflicts as recruiting tools. With a democratic, responsible, Iranian government representative of the (very liberal) Iranian people, the international community could concentrate on issues such as North Korea, Burma and Zimbabwe. It could also represent a victory for Barack Obama, as many believe his rhetoric, and his policies in the region gave renewed hope for many Arabs and Muslims, and helped bring about the uprisings in the first place. The uprisings can also claim to bring together the right (reduced immigration and stable oil prices) and the left (universal freedom and human rights), which is no mean feat in today’s polarised society. These may be best case scenarios but any moves towards such a situation can only be a good thing

The role of social networking in recent uprisings

Recent weeks have brought momentous shifts in the balance between people and governments throughout the Arab world and the Middle East. Uprisings in Tunisia, closely followed by Egypt, have left previously untouchable regimes across the region nervously wondering if they are next. Dictators, who have for decades repressed their people whilst at the same time diverting billions of pounds into Swiss bank accounts, can no longer guarantee that the fear instilled by their state security apparatus will be enough to deter the people from rising up against them

Revolutions are not unusual in countries with authoritarian governments, however these were different from the norm as these were led by the people rather than one led by a political or religious party. There were no obvious figureheads, meaning it was difficult for the security services to ‘decapitate’ the protests, and the fact that the people were in charge of the protests rather than elites within opposition parties meant that they were less open to compromise or bribery to placate them. One of the factors credited with opening up the space allowing this to happen is availability of the internet to protestors, and in particular the role of social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

Nowhere in the world has access to the internet grown faster over the past 10 years quicker than North Africa and the Middle East, rising over 2000% more people online since the turn of the new millennium. Governments have tried, with differing degrees of success, to control access to certain websites, including social networking sites, but young, increasingly internet savvy web users have become more and more adapt at bypassing these blockades. Nations that have seen people led uprisings, such as Iran, Egypt and Tunisia, also have some of the highest levels of internet usage amongst their populations in the region. This is true in particular of Iran, which boasts over 50% of all internet users in the entire Middle East. These nations also have young, underemployed populations who feel increasingly aggrieved at the corruption and poor governance of their much older rulers. Other countries that have seen the beginning of people led uprisings have similar demographic issues. Bahrain, which is currently in its sixth day of anti-government protests, has almost blanket internet access amongst its people. Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia also have relatively high levels of internet access. Syria and Algeria, whilst having smaller percentages of their population connected to the internet, have 4 and 5 million regular users respectively.

The use of social networking on the ground in Iran and Egypt has been well documented. Neda Sultan, a protestor shot in Iran by the pro-government militia, became a symbol of the uprising after videos of her death were shown on You Tube. You Tube and Twitter became important tools of the uprising, particularly because the foreign media were confined to their hotels. During this period President Obama asked Twitter to delay maintenance work on the website in order to aid protestors. In Tunisia and Egypt Facebook played an important role in organising the protests; over 90,000 Egyptians joined a Facebook group for the rallies of January 25^th, the day the protests started. In Tunisia users used Facebook for similar purposes, and shared videos of event on the ground with other users. There have even been reports that Facebook security teams fought off attempts by the Tunisian government to hack the accounts of Tunisian users. Twitter users gave constant updates on the ground of events unfolding, and in Egypt regular tweeter Wael Ghonim, a Google employee, became a focal point for many in the battle against the authorities; indeed his Facebook group ‘We Are All Khaled Said’, a memorial to a 28 year old lawyer beaten to death by Egyptian police, was seen as one of the catalysts of the revolution.

Despite this many others argue that the role of social networking has been overstated. For instance, more traditional methods of mobilising support, such as building up a momentum, and word of mouth, were more successful in getting bodies out onto the streets. Malcolm Gladwell argued, after the ultimately unsuccessful uprising in Iran, that most of the tweets originated in the West, not in Iran. ‘Why would people trying to coordinate protests in Iran be using any other language other than Farsi?’ he asked. He also argued that social networking is made up of many ‘weak connections’ that would fail to translate into participants for action on the ground, and that the lack of a heirachy would hamper such efforts

Events in Tunisia and Egypt have, in the main, disproven his arguments. While other methods of mobilising support are still a vital parto any uprising, social networking, where available, plays a vital role in providing an infrastructure for protestors to organise and gather support. Those who use social networking are often well educated young people, who speak English and who understand the importance of the role of the media in winning the public relations argument. His notion of ‘weak connections’ assume that it is the personal relationships between the protestors that binds them together, rather than the cause they are fighting for. And, as we have already discovered, the lack of a heirachy proved to be a strength for these ‘bottom up’ movements, rather than a weakness

The role of social networking is taking on increased significance in protest movements, particularly where the correct conditions exist; a ground swell o popular support against an unpopular regime, a decent level of internet access and a technology savvy youth. Countries in which these conditions apply (in particular Bahrain and Iran) will take inspiration from recent successes, and the regimes in these countries will undoubtedly be fearful of what happens next. They will attempt to tighten their censorship on the internet, and will clamp down hard on the protestors, but with the help of the internet, a little luck and a lot of bravery, the will of the people to seize the freedom and control their own destinies could prove too much for the dictatorships to resist