All bore witness this year to the unstoppable power of the people. From the moment that Mohamed Bouazizi set himself ablaze in Tunisia last December, after protesting against police corruption and his personal mistreatment and denial of basic rights, a wave of unrest spread around the Arab world in attempts to bring about an end to their autocratic governments. Several other martyrs imitated Bouazizi’s act of self immolation. Many demonstrations escalated into violent rioting. Protest became full scale revolution.
The rulers in Tunisia and Egypt were overthrown and a bloody civil war brought about the downfall of the regime in Libya. Sustained protests, civil disorder and governmental reform announcements have also taken place in various forms, and to varying degrees, in Syria, Yemen, Algeria, Morocco, Oman, Lebanon, Jordan and Kuwait.
Each and every country is unique, but the actions of the people involved were, on the whole, motivated through a desire to end human rights violations, government corruption, and the concentration of wealth and power among a small aristocracy. Most feel that this can be best achieved by replacing their longstanding dictatorships or absolute monarchies with a more democratic government.
The stalwart determination of the people in the Middle East, and the way in which the movement inspired neighbouring nations to break their silence and join the revolution, sent a message to the whole world, reminding us that the thirst for individual liberty and justice is shared by all mankind, and even under the most suppressive of regimes, the people will, in the end, rise up and demand that power be rebalanced to reflect the views of the majority. This message was followed by a joint response from the western nations, expressing solidarity and empathy for the revolutionaries and a unified international consensus that the unwanted dictators should either lead a transition to a more democratic rule, or get out of the way. We in the west went through these same struggles for freedom in around the 17th and 18th centuries, and many lives were sacrificed in order to establish a government for the people, by the people.
Of course, every nation is different, and each will establish its own freedoms in its own way at its own pace. Such a move must ultimately come from the people who are directly involved, and not through international interference. Many peoples around the planet still seek the basic freedoms that we here in the west take for granted.
We can certainly say that democracy is much more popular than it was, say 300 years ago, and that the technology and ease of communication we have today makes it also much more feasible. However, democracy is not something that once attained is guaranteed. A wise man once said that ‘every generation must wage a new war for freedom against new forces which seek through new devices to enslave mankind.’ We can but speculate as to where, when and in what form the next push for democracy will be.
The rulers in Tunisia and Egypt were overthrown and a bloody civil war brought about the downfall of the regime in Libya. Sustained protests, civil disorder and governmental reform announcements have also taken place in various forms, and to varying degrees, in Syria, Yemen, Algeria, Morocco, Oman, Lebanon, Jordan and Kuwait.
Each and every country is unique, but the actions of the people involved were, on the whole, motivated through a desire to end human rights violations, government corruption, and the concentration of wealth and power among a small aristocracy. Most feel that this can be best achieved by replacing their longstanding dictatorships or absolute monarchies with a more democratic government.
The stalwart determination of the people in the Middle East, and the way in which the movement inspired neighbouring nations to break their silence and join the revolution, sent a message to the whole world, reminding us that the thirst for individual liberty and justice is shared by all mankind, and even under the most suppressive of regimes, the people will, in the end, rise up and demand that power be rebalanced to reflect the views of the majority. This message was followed by a joint response from the western nations, expressing solidarity and empathy for the revolutionaries and a unified international consensus that the unwanted dictators should either lead a transition to a more democratic rule, or get out of the way. We in the west went through these same struggles for freedom in around the 17th and 18th centuries, and many lives were sacrificed in order to establish a government for the people, by the people.
Of course, every nation is different, and each will establish its own freedoms in its own way at its own pace. Such a move must ultimately come from the people who are directly involved, and not through international interference. Many peoples around the planet still seek the basic freedoms that we here in the west take for granted.
We can certainly say that democracy is much more popular than it was, say 300 years ago, and that the technology and ease of communication we have today makes it also much more feasible. However, democracy is not something that once attained is guaranteed. A wise man once said that ‘every generation must wage a new war for freedom against new forces which seek through new devices to enslave mankind.’ We can but speculate as to where, when and in what form the next push for democracy will be.
* * *
By far the largest and most significant revolution in waiting is that of China, a single party state governed absolutely by the Communist Party of China (CPC), and home to over 1/6th of the world’s population. In a similar way that the recent revolutions in the northern African states were orchestrated mainly by the younger generation who have grown up with the internet and more freedom of information, the same forces have, in recent years, been causing more and more Chinese people to demand more accountability from their rulers and more of a say in how their country is run.
However, it cannot be said that all Chinese yearn for a western style democracy. Many have their doubts. The upper middle class in particular have a lot to protect, they have opulent suburban villas and city apartments, and millions drive cars and enjoy the privilege of city schools, hospitals, trains that the poor are unable to make use of. The rich fear the loss of their privileges and status; that if a revolution overthrows communism, who will protect them from socialism? But the middle class is a growing demographic, and increasingly, more and more feelings are voiced from those that contribute to the wealth of the nation, own property and pay their taxes, yet are swiftly denied rights when their actions challenge the agenda of the ruling establishment.
China has a well established ‘no-politics’ rule, in that, put simply, any opposition to the CPC gets you thrown in jail. This is well understood, but it is unclear to many as to what extent the government will react to protest, not against the government itself, but against certain state led projects or the adverse effects of government decisions. Many local people have spoken out against environmental threats for example, such as government plans to build power plants or incinerators outside of the cities. Earlier this year a large demonstration took place on the streets of Dalian, a north-eastern town, in protest against a chemical factory that had been damaged in a storm. Large scale protests of this kind can sometimes be effective, as it proved to be in this case by forcing the closure of the chemical factory, but also it can be risky, as organised action is all too often crushed, and the main perpetrators arrested.
Protests have also broken out against corruption, and discontent continues to grow about the numerous and vast state funded projects that cut corners and skimp on maintenance, and the irresponsible, and unaccountable, state ministers who authorize them. New state funded buildings, roads and railways are constantly popping up in spite of the existing ones still suffering from neglect and degradation. Official neglect was also deemed the cause of a recent high speed rail crash that killed 39 people. Such are the consequences of an unopposed top-down system in which the public service provider has no real accountability to the people for whom the service is provided.
If a revolution were to occur, the growing middle class would undoubtedly lead the charge. Of course, China is wholly different to the Middle East. There is still hope that change will come from above, and gradually be implemented to meet the growing demands of the people, without the need for revolution. Ever since the last full-scale unrest in 1989, and the atrocities of the 4th June, the political arrangement has been described as a ‘social contract,’ in that the ruling establishment would allow the middle class to indulge in consumerism and some of the free market aspects of capitalism, so long as no-one challenges the authority of the Communist party.
However, it cannot be said that all Chinese yearn for a western style democracy. Many have their doubts. The upper middle class in particular have a lot to protect, they have opulent suburban villas and city apartments, and millions drive cars and enjoy the privilege of city schools, hospitals, trains that the poor are unable to make use of. The rich fear the loss of their privileges and status; that if a revolution overthrows communism, who will protect them from socialism? But the middle class is a growing demographic, and increasingly, more and more feelings are voiced from those that contribute to the wealth of the nation, own property and pay their taxes, yet are swiftly denied rights when their actions challenge the agenda of the ruling establishment.
China has a well established ‘no-politics’ rule, in that, put simply, any opposition to the CPC gets you thrown in jail. This is well understood, but it is unclear to many as to what extent the government will react to protest, not against the government itself, but against certain state led projects or the adverse effects of government decisions. Many local people have spoken out against environmental threats for example, such as government plans to build power plants or incinerators outside of the cities. Earlier this year a large demonstration took place on the streets of Dalian, a north-eastern town, in protest against a chemical factory that had been damaged in a storm. Large scale protests of this kind can sometimes be effective, as it proved to be in this case by forcing the closure of the chemical factory, but also it can be risky, as organised action is all too often crushed, and the main perpetrators arrested.
Protests have also broken out against corruption, and discontent continues to grow about the numerous and vast state funded projects that cut corners and skimp on maintenance, and the irresponsible, and unaccountable, state ministers who authorize them. New state funded buildings, roads and railways are constantly popping up in spite of the existing ones still suffering from neglect and degradation. Official neglect was also deemed the cause of a recent high speed rail crash that killed 39 people. Such are the consequences of an unopposed top-down system in which the public service provider has no real accountability to the people for whom the service is provided.
If a revolution were to occur, the growing middle class would undoubtedly lead the charge. Of course, China is wholly different to the Middle East. There is still hope that change will come from above, and gradually be implemented to meet the growing demands of the people, without the need for revolution. Ever since the last full-scale unrest in 1989, and the atrocities of the 4th June, the political arrangement has been described as a ‘social contract,’ in that the ruling establishment would allow the middle class to indulge in consumerism and some of the free market aspects of capitalism, so long as no-one challenges the authority of the Communist party.
The protests of 1989 coincided neatly with the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. They were sparked by the mass mourning of former CPC General Secretary Hu Yaobang, who had spoken out in favour of political liberalisation. Some 100’000 gathered in Tiananmen Square, mostly students, in peaceful protest. On the 4th June, the situation reached a climax and martial law was imposed. The government unleashed the army, tanks rolled into the town and vast numbers of civilians were killed. Foreign press was banned from the country.
The CPC had in fact started to implement reforms from as early as 1978, and began the gradual change towards a market economy. The changes proved to be very successful, but the CPC still retained discretion to intervene as it pleased. The economy was still characterised by corruption, bribery and ‘special influences.’ Some prices were left to float freely whereas others remained fixed, and powerful individuals could still profit from the system by buying or selling at the artificial prices.
By 1989, the number of universities in the country, and student enrolment rates, had tripled since the reforms began and the newly educated student base had become the centre stage for debate on the government’s reforms. Some twenty years earlier, the government had announced the ‘four modernisations,’ signalling a shift towards science, agriculture, industry and defence, of which many students were now working towards. Now that the reforms were speeding up, the students felt more out of touch with the new market based economy of services and light industry that was rapidly gaining prominence. Criticism began to gain momentum among the student campus groups and the first real activists got together.
At this time, the youth of China had different hopes and understandings of the reforms initiated by the government. Some perhaps expected too much too soon, or simply distrusted their rulers to actually follow through on their word. Most agreed that politics needed to be restructured to incorporate a fair legal system under the principles of democracy and the rule of law, and to guarantee social justice and economic freedom. After the death of Hu Yaobang, the first protesters gathered in Tiananmen Square, and were soon accompanied by many other students and intellectuals. They sought to demand first and foremost that the government recognise both the merit of Hu’s views on democracy and freedom and the legitimacy of their movement. More specifically they called for freedom of speech and press, the rule of law, more openness in the income of the CPC officials and their families and a democratic means by which to supervise the reforms process.
The protests lasted for around two months with daily marches followed later by hunger strikes before the massacre of the 4th of June. Following the government crackdown, reports on the protests were forbidden in all Chinese news media. Officials banned all controversial films and books, and shut down a large number of newspapers in order to control ‘political disturbance.’ Websites related to the protests remain blocked, and the state continues to censor all information other than the official government account.
The CPC had in fact started to implement reforms from as early as 1978, and began the gradual change towards a market economy. The changes proved to be very successful, but the CPC still retained discretion to intervene as it pleased. The economy was still characterised by corruption, bribery and ‘special influences.’ Some prices were left to float freely whereas others remained fixed, and powerful individuals could still profit from the system by buying or selling at the artificial prices.
By 1989, the number of universities in the country, and student enrolment rates, had tripled since the reforms began and the newly educated student base had become the centre stage for debate on the government’s reforms. Some twenty years earlier, the government had announced the ‘four modernisations,’ signalling a shift towards science, agriculture, industry and defence, of which many students were now working towards. Now that the reforms were speeding up, the students felt more out of touch with the new market based economy of services and light industry that was rapidly gaining prominence. Criticism began to gain momentum among the student campus groups and the first real activists got together.
At this time, the youth of China had different hopes and understandings of the reforms initiated by the government. Some perhaps expected too much too soon, or simply distrusted their rulers to actually follow through on their word. Most agreed that politics needed to be restructured to incorporate a fair legal system under the principles of democracy and the rule of law, and to guarantee social justice and economic freedom. After the death of Hu Yaobang, the first protesters gathered in Tiananmen Square, and were soon accompanied by many other students and intellectuals. They sought to demand first and foremost that the government recognise both the merit of Hu’s views on democracy and freedom and the legitimacy of their movement. More specifically they called for freedom of speech and press, the rule of law, more openness in the income of the CPC officials and their families and a democratic means by which to supervise the reforms process.
The protests lasted for around two months with daily marches followed later by hunger strikes before the massacre of the 4th of June. Following the government crackdown, reports on the protests were forbidden in all Chinese news media. Officials banned all controversial films and books, and shut down a large number of newspapers in order to control ‘political disturbance.’ Websites related to the protests remain blocked, and the state continues to censor all information other than the official government account.
This kind of information control is familiar to most of us from what we hear in the news about the Chinese government's numerous disputes with American companies such as Google and Wikipedia for their intrusion into the Chinese government-run cyberspace. But for how long will the government succeed in suppressing the freedom of information for so many millions of people?
Earlier this year the airing of reality TV show 'Happy Girl' was suspended due to its interactive elements. The talent show, with hundreds of millions of viewers, was produced by a state owned broadcaster but inadvertently sent out the wrong message. Viewers were encouraged to vote on the contestants via text message, just like X-factor etc. This obviously reeked of democracy far too much for the CPC to tolerate and it was shut down in order to eliminate what must have been judged as an ostentatious opponent of communal thought.
With memories of the social upheaval brought about by the Cultural Revolution, and the effects of market reforms becoming increasingly noticeable, many believe that political change must be gradual, and some would say that repression is a necessary action to combat the growing pressure for radical political reform. In February of this year, a few rumours spread across the web about a call for a “Jasmine revolution” in China. Police reacted quickly but there was no mass take to the streets. Leading human rights activists and lawyers were detained before the protests were even set to begin. No-one doubts that the CPC will go to great lengths to preserve their principles, but the more they overreact and quickly stamp out every protest and threat to the regime, the more it shows that they fear a small protest could escalate into a revolution.
Next year sees the decennial leadership handover of the Communist Party top brass. The most likely successors for the top spots will be Xi Jinping, the son of a well known communist revolutionary and the current vice president, to succeed Hu Jintao as president, and Li Keqiang, one of the current vice-premiers, to succeed Wen Jibao as premier. Mr Li has, in the past, been branded as a liberal supposedly due to some of his influences studying law at Peking University, but it is highly unlikely that any careless or controversial words will be uttered by any of the high ranking officials in the run up to the handover. Once again, a new generation of communists will assume total command and leadership for the most populous country in the world and the people will have no knowledge, let alone influence, on how these people are selected. It will be interesting to see if all goes smoothly.
* * *
Below is an excerpt of Barack Obama’s speech on the Middle East back in May, in which he explains what started the revolution.
He later goes on to talk about each country in turn, including Israel and Palestine, and about America’s role in supporting reform, how America ‘values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia, more than the raw power of the dictator,’ and how ‘we (America) will speak out for a set of core principles, that have guided our response to the events of the last six months,’ - the opposition of ‘violence and repression’ and support for ‘a set of universal rights’ including free speech, the right to peaceful assembly, freedom of religion, equality between men and women, and the right for people to choose their own leaders. The full speech can be seen here.
No comments:
Post a Comment