I hadn't been paying a whole lot of attention to events in Tunisia until this afternoon, while having a a talk with a friend who convinced me that events in Tunisia are very important.
I went home and did some studying. I read a few articles and watched a few more videos on the Tunisian revolution. After thinking about things, there are three points that strike me right now as important and worth serious attention.
First, the Tunisian revolution is a peoples' revolution. More accurately, events in Tunisia are like a peoples' revolt in progress. If you notice, there are no overarching revolutionary agendas. There is neither an ideology or dogma leading this revolt; although all opposition parties from the Left to the Islamic parties are deeply involved in the revolt. What's driving this revolt is pure and simply that the people are no longer willing to tolerate a regime that imposes nothing but poverty, starvation and repression. This is not a revolution leading towards a bright future; this is a revolt and rejection of the present reality.
A second point worth making is that the Tunisian revolution is a revolt against the Tunisian regime's neo-liberal economics. The grievances of the people are economic and social. The revolt against repression is a refusal to be silent no longer regarding these grievances.
A related point, those making the Tunisian revolution have a lot in common with many people of the Middle East, and Europe, and North America. All face a common set of circumstances in that the future promises little outside of increasing poverty, chronic unemployment, social marginalization, and hostile authoritarianism. It seems worth keeping in mind that Tunisia and southern Europe are separated only by a rather narrow Mediterranean Sea. It's pretty obvious that the Tunisian revolt scares the authoritarian regimes of the Middle East. It might not be quite so obvious, but I suspect events in Tunisia have some heads worrying in Europe too.
Third, I have a big complaint regarding Mr. David Kirkpatrick and the New York Times' coverage of Tunisia. Basically, Mr. Kirkpatrick's article, "Opposition in Tunisia Finds Chance for Rebirth" (1/20/11) is again a fine example of the willingness of the current mass media to violate and ignore all sorts of facts, statements and occurrences in the interests of fitting the event in question within an acceptable political paradigm. Here, Mr. Kirkpatrick suggests that the real and only opposition to the deposed Ben Ali regime is the Islamic opposition... Which seems to be, "yearned for by legions of working-class and rural Tunisians, viewed with just as much apprehension by the cosmopolitan coastal elite."
The only thing wrong with Mr. Kirkpatrick's assessment is that it has no support in fact and indeed is in direct contradiction to what's happening on the streets and what activist Tunisians are saying. So, instead and once again the material is skewed towards a narrow American understanding where all oppositions in the Middle East must by default be "Islamic" oppositions, and must by default be "anti-American". I'm figuring Mr. Kirkpatrick must be either a real bad journalist or a pretty good propagandist; only he would know.
Lastly, to me right now, it appears that the revolt and ouster of the past Ben-Ali regime is about finished; the Tunisian security forces are giving up in the face of popular revolt defended by the Tunisian Army. The work of the Tunisian revolution is however just beginning; things are very fluid. Of course, I'll be rooting for the people, democracy and justice in Tunisia, and if the people succeed in building a better society it will be a wonderful example for the rest of us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comments:
Just two comments that I think are relevant. One fact not mentioned (and not seen in the U.S. media) is that a bunch of people did not just amass in the streets. There were General Strikes across the country. The workers pressure on the Union bureaucrats will be interesting to watch. They don't seem to support the latest interim government.
Also what happened was that the military supported the Strikers and actually fought with the Police which is when they toppled the government. Recall that the reason Allende was toppled was he never had support of the Chilean military.
But our job remains building actions to demand U.S. end wars and occupations. That pressure is more important than ever. As the U.S. will try to interfere in their revolution.
Post a Comment