Shaping the struggle: Tunisia’s uprising

‘No one will offer us democracy, we will take it ourselves’ has been the chant of demonstrators in the Tunisian streets since the 17 December upheaval.

Although the trigger of the Tunisian revolution was the death of Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old salesman who committed suicide by immolation, an uprising of social injustice has been growing among the Tunisian citizens for a long time.

Since then, all kinds of demonstrations have taken place in the country daily to protest against the high cost of living, unemployment and marginalisation.

It has become crucial to put an end to oppression (there is no room for fear), and likewise with regards to any obstacles to freedom and to the will of the people.

Thus, the protests have since then become politicised and radicalised.

In addition to the ‘freedom, work and dignity’ protest, which has been at the core of the rebellion, the aspiration to democracy was in fact the main message.

This message, which was strongly put across by the people to their leaders during the rebellion, was transformed into insurrection when the government of the day underestimated the gravity of the issue.

And more so, as a result of the lack of national debates on this aspiration to democracy, the protests became more and more radicalised and the Tunisian people were no longer only complaining about social injustice but also contesting the political power in place. Tunisians were suggesting their own model of democracy.

Indeed, to better understand what happened in the Tunisian society’s struggle for democracy, it is first important to admit that the problem, which currently represents a danger, is not Islam, as certain Westerners have insinuated, but more the need to put a democratic process in place.

In any case, the resolution of the Islamic problem will be made within the framework of democracy on the basis of internal negotiations, without the intervention of any external force, once Tunisians have acquired their sovereignty.

Secondly, the social evolution of Tunisia is significant: a fertility rate similar to that of prosperous Western countries, a trend towards urbanisation, the high status of Tunisian woman and a high literacy level. Tunisia thus enjoys a model of social evolution that is comparable to well-known social models in the West.

In addition, the dynamics of the model of democracy that the protesters are demanding has been deemed vital. Certainly, it will take long to come, but it will truly move countries where there is a democratic deficiency, particularly in the Arab world.

It is therefore ‘another model of democracy’ which is being marketed: a ‘people to people’ model.

It is different from that which is based only on the vote.

It requires that sovereignty be given back to the people, which is exceptional in Arab and Muslim countries where a deficiency of democracy is rampant.

It is a model which rallied up the youth.

Ironically, it is ‘thanks’ to the censorship exerted by the Tunisian regime that young activists who have a master's of arts mobilised others and accelerated the rebellion by exchanging information.

Indeed, upon hearing ‘the first cry for freedom of the Tunisian people’ who have lived under an oppressive regime for 23 years, scores of young internet surfers mobilised themselves to denounce the absence of freedom of expression and the spoliation of the nation’s wealth.

Social networks became the driving force behind the rising revolts. On Facebook and Twitter, several groups and people continued to post photos and articles of demonstrations not only in Tunisia but also in Algeria, Libya and Syria where the cries of the people joined those of Tunisians.

It is a model which gave legitimacy to the people’s revolt and enabled its visibility.

It keeps the link between average citizens and the middle class in a structured society.

The Tunisian revolution would have remained a simple revolt were it not for the young Tunisian cybernauts who relayed the people’s protests by bringing together their ideas and by calling for general mobilisation. ‘United we stand’ was one of the major slogans of the revolt.

Thus, the whole world saw the true players of the events being killed and in real time. As a result, the role played by the internet and social networks in Tunisia during the demonstrations became predominant and, even more so, a determining factor in the fight for social justice and for democracy.

The immediate consequences are:

- a clearly expressed public sovereignty
- freedom of expression rehabilitated at the speed we all observed.

To achieve this freedom of expression, young Tunisian bloggers launched the battle against ‘Ammar’, the name attributed to internet censorship, this notwithstanding the already stringent Tunisian internet.

Since the beginning of the events, ‘Ammar’ was under the scrutiny of a group of ardent hackers who worked non-stop against the censorship throughout the world. This mode of communication, by automating the detection of ‘devices’ and systematising the cross-checking of stored information (identification, interception and recording of communication) on the one hand and promulgating on the other hand more repressive legislative measures to criminalise certain practices and stigmatising certain social groups, has now been revealed.

Note that, in this upheaval, Islam is not on the agenda of the Tunisian revolt. The resolution of the Islamist issue will be made within the framework of the democracy recommended, on the basis of internal negotiations and without intervention of any external force to the Tunisian people once the people would have acquired their sovereignty.

To better understand what happened in the Tunisian society’s struggle for democracy, it is important to admit that the problem is neither Islam nor its interpretation, but rather the need to find a specific path to democracy.

Tunisians are condemned to subservience, corruption and being at the periphery of the free world. They are good at hiding their misfortunes from tourists!

Tunisia wants to end unemployment, the marginalisation of most of its population and the lack of confidence in its leaders.

The Tunisian people aspire to other values. It is in this context that one should place the model of democracy that Tunisians seek and with this, through the national hymn, adapt the path to the proposed model of democracy.

In her blog, Mona Eltahawy, an Egyptian journalist, explains the reasons behind the passion of the ‘Arab people’ for the Tunisian revolution:

‘If all Arab leaders followed the Tunisian events with fear, each Arab citizen followed them with hope because the demonstrators are not Islamist – a threat used for a long time by our leaders to frighten and thus remain in power. Neither is it foreign troops that toppled the dictator but ordinary citizens.’

Can one thus talk of a contagious effect of this revolution which could bring about democracy?

Until now, the contagious effect of this model seems to affect only the states that have used the Islamist threat to justify the autocracy and the repression of any opposition movement. By imitation perhaps, several suicide attempts by immolation have taken place in other Arab countries (in Cairo, in Mauritania and Algeria) in the name of ‘freedom to life’.

Should there be as many tragedies to achieve democracy?

As regards the method used, the example of the revolution in Tunisia showed that the people can protest with an affirmed political objective and without the usual extremes portrayed by certain media.

The firm determination to drive out a dictator and to take back the control of their destiny is what the Tunisian demonstrators illustrated.

The Tunisian revolution also means the constitution of a vocal public opinion able to produce changes; it already achieved this under particularly repressive conditions.

The voice of the Tunisian people is the expression of a political and media movement in which everyone participated, including lawyers, doctors, artists and journalists.

The voice of the Tunisians succeeded in surpassing the individualism which one generally attributes to the West; real solidarity was at work.

It is the voice of a people oppressed by a regime which has ensured that all revolts against it were subdued with violence.

However, despite a style of protest which initially looked desperate, the Tunisian people have managed to start a process of democracy.

The hour is grave for Tunisians and for the hope to finally see the Arab world devoid of dictatorships. But the revolution is active and democracy has been initiated and this without compromise nor respite, with a never-seen-before formula from Tunisia and with the help of the Army!

As for the countries which seem more open to democracy like Algeria, Egypt and Jordan, it is the better for them if their people rise and take power. However, the most important bit remains to be done.

So what is ‘the free world’ waiting for to help the Tunisian army, which, with hardly 27,000 men faces the 120,000 militiamen of the former regime to trample on its people?

Because, for these forces who refuse democracy, it is a question ‘of killing the example quickly and showing that without the tyrants, there would be chaos!’ and that there cannot be democracy.

It is necessary to think of the economic and strategic interests of these forces that refuse democracy and whose consequences justified the movement.

Indeed, from the point of view of the order of the world economy, it is not favourable for the West to have democratised regimes. After having supported and brought to power dictators all will be done to avoid the aggravation of the situation anywhere else. The Israelite policy is likely to change if the Arab people succeed in democratising their institutions and likewise for the Western economies given that tough regimes are more reassuring for the sale of arms, where oil money goes to purchase rifles instead of being put to the service of the people.

In short, the model of democracy currently promoted in Tunisia has gone a little further to bring about equilibrium in the world economy. This example could well be the only one for a long time to come; vigilance is key.

The idea is thus to maintain Western and Far East capitalism against the freedom and dignity of the Arab people, these people who for a long time have had but areas of limited freedom – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates – where authoritarian regimes close to the West reign.

It is all for the better if the people of such countries rise and take power. However, the most important aspect remains to be done. The world economic order does not fear a 10-million-habitant Tunisia, which will become democratic. Let us hope that Tunisia can for its part take on good leadership in order to find its equilibrium in which all components can express themselves in the framework of a system of power which is not a religious dictatorship.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Translated from the French by Caroline Sipalla.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at Pambazuka News.